The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Compulsory Vaccines, pick which side in r1.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
SmilingPenguin has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2017 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 503 times Debate No: 98602
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




I'm still on the fence about vaccines. I am willing to argue for or against vaccines.

This is because many of my real life friends are anti-vaxxers, yet I pride myself on being a rational person. Therefore, I am in conflict.

Finally, depending on which side my opponent picks, I will argue the opposite. Just make sure to state which side you are on in round one. If you don't choose a side I assume we go with me as Pro and my opponent as Con.

Sides to choose from:

A. Compulsory Vaccines should be enforced by law in the USA regardless of any religious beliefs, conspiracy theories, or moral objections.

B. Compulsory Vaccines should not be enforced by law in the USA if the person has a religious, conspiracy theories, or moral objection.

Exceptions, contraindications [0] and immunocompromised patients, or any other physical reason is it ill-advised patient for the patient to receive the vaccination treatment verified by a licensed medical doctor. Example one, person A receives a vaccination, then a rare reaction of some kind occurs. Then, the doctor would write a note that particular person shouldn't receive any booster shots for that vaccination.

Example two, immunocompromised patients. Patient B has a condition, like receiving chemotherapy that hinders the immune system rendering the vaccine ineffective.

Just to be clear, physical reasons that can be verified by a doctor would be excluded from the debate. Having moral, irrational fears, and/or religious objections to vaccines is the epicenter of the debate.

Round one Pick sides and definitions
Round two arguments, don't respond to opponent's argument
Round three rebuttals, respond directly to opponent's r2
Round four Defense, respond directly to opponent's r3.

Burden of proof will be equally shared.

Common definitions are assumed unless otherwise and agreed upon.



Thank you for allowing me to be a part of this debate. I will be going with option B, therefore I will be arguing that vaccines should not be compulsory.
Debate Round No. 1


Round two Arguments

I. Vaccines save more lives than they cost and risk assessment
A. Vaccines save lives
B. Vaccines cost lives
C. Net of saving lives
II. Religious objections should not be tolerated
III. Moral objections are noted, but consquensim and Eskimos
IV. Conspiracy theories are weak
V. Conclusions
VI. Sources

I will be arguing that Compulsory vaccines should be enforced by law in the USA regardless of any religious, moral, or conspiracy theory objection.

I. Vaccines save more lives than they cost and risk assessment

Vaccines both save and cost humans lives. I will not misrepresent and present only one side, this would be cherry picking.

A. Vaccines save lives

There are many scholarly peer reviewed articles showing the benefits of vaccines and other reliable sources.

"Vaccines given to infants and young children over the past two decades will prevent 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations and 732,000 deaths over the course of their lifetimes, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." [0]

B. Vaccines cost lives

Between adverse reactions, bad batches of vaccine, the pathogen is still alive and infects the patient, and medical errors. A good example of a medical error is the doctor and patient fail to communicate, and thus the patient is temporarily at risk due to other medical procedures. Yet, due to miscommunication the patient is given the vaccine treatment anyways. Vaccines occasionally kill the patient or cause harm. No treatment is 100% safe.

"Problems that could happen after any vaccine:

Any medication can cause a severe allergic reaction. Such reactions from a vaccine are very rare, estimated at fewer than 1 in a million doses, and would happen within a few minutes to a few hours after the vaccination.

As with any medicine, there is a very remote chance of a vaccine causing a serious injury or death.

Older children, adolescents, and adults might also experience these problems after any vaccine:

People sometimes faint after a medical procedure, including vaccination. Sitting or lying down for about 15 minutes can help prevent fainting, and injuries caused by a fall. Tell your doctor if you feel dizzy, or have vision changes or ringing in the ears.
Some people get severe pain in the shoulder and have difficulty moving the arm where a shot was given. This happens very rarely." [1]

Vaccines kill their patient less than one in a million . That's less than 1/1,000,000.

C. Net of saving lives

Unless, you believe in a major conspiracy theory there is very little doubt that vaccines save much more lives than they cost. Think of the lottery, most of the time people just squander their money. Yet, somebody must win eventually. You have a better chance of being struck by lightning than winning the lottery. Well, vaccines are like the lottery in reverse. Most of the time the benefits are helpful. Yet, someone always loses.

We all take risks, driving or riding in a car. Mass transportation has its own risks. Walking and bicycling can be more risky. Then, there is random events, both man-made and non-man made. Tornadoes, hurricanes, crimes, and just plain old being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Life is full of risk, there is no way to avoid all risk.


Patients and health care providers can be reassured that vaccine-associated anaphylaxis is a rare event. Nevertheless, providers should be prepared to provide immediate medical treatment should it occur." [2]


Anaphylactic reactions to MMR in the United States are rare. The reporting rate has the same order of magnitude as estimates from other countries. Almost one fourth of patients with reported anaphylaxis after MMR seem to have hypersensitivity to gelatin in the vaccine. They may be at higher risk of developing anaphylaxis to subsequent doses of other gelatin-containing vaccines. These people should seek an allergy evaluation before such immunization." [3]

"Known side effects
Adverse reactions to the HPV vaccine Ceravix, reported between April 2008 and 23 September 2009. Very few, and fairly mild.

To put it simply: complications are more likely to arise from illness than from vaccination.

What this means is that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks, by far, in every case. " [4]

II. Religious objections should not be tolerated

There is no logical reason to believe God exists. Religion has done a lot of harm lately. We see this mostly in the form of religious terrorists attacks, many of which are not Muslim based. Yet, being against vaccines has caused much harm in the world in a quiet more predicable way.

"But some mullahs in Bengal spread the rumor that the vaccine led to impotence and diarrhea (a bad combo) and urged mothers to keep their children away from the nurses and physicians" [5]

Don't vaccinate be like Afghanistan.

III. Moral objections are noted, but consequentialism, senilicide, and Eskimos

I can understand some people having moral objections. Yet, if we look at native American Indian Eskimos we see an odd connection. That some Eskimos tribes leave their old in the snowy waste lands to die. That there is simply not enough resources to support the old. This action gives the young, healthy, and fertile a better chance at surviving and reproducing.

Yes, animals are experimented on in vaccine research and people will die from vaccine medical treatments. Yet, this doesn't mean we should abandon reason and practically in the name of unrealistic ideologies. In an utopia society we would have a way to research vaccines without causing suffering to animals. That nobody would die from vaccine treatments. Yet, we have to face reality. More people will die if we reject vaccines.

As for loss of freedom, how about the people's freedom who don't want to be infected? How about those too young, weak, or old to be vaccinated? The immunocompromised and people with contraindications to vaccines shouldn't be vaccinated, and thus are at risk. As I see the freedom dilemma is that your freedom ends at the other person's nose. My argument is that by not vaccinating you are infringing upon the people's around you freedom.

IV. Conspiracy theories are weak

Conspiracy theories are weak and the supporting evidence for the theories have been disproven repeatably. The real conspirators are the quacks that promote the anti-vaccine movement for financial gain. Exploiting people's fears for profit is immoral. Furthermore, autism is caused by air pollution from car exhaust.

V. Enforcement

As for enforcement of mandatory vaccines, I assume reasonable measures are taken. Starting with a phone call from the doctor and a letter from local law enforcement. A reasonable grace period is granted if the non-compliant citizen responds to the phone call and letter.

After the grace period or a brief time if there is no answer the law breaker is fine a reasonable fine, $100 a day per vaccine missed. This should be reasonable economic pressure on the non-compliant to comply with the law.

VI. Conclusions

There can only be one conclusion. That vaccines should be compulsory the benefits far outweigh the negative. The risk of complications from illness is greater than the risk from vaccines. The only reason the anti-vaccine movement is alive today is due to the depths of deception quacks and political machines like infowars will sink to. The deaths of children from non-vaccination is proof that some people will mislead and misinform the public at any cost.

VII. Sources
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
" I think the human should have the final say because of freedom of religion and ownership of one's own body"

That's an argument against compulsory vaccines.
Posted by Bribri10114 1 year ago
Nice. So here is my stance, which in my opinion doesn't really apply to a side. I believe that religion morals and whatnot should trump government interference, the issue is the intensity and ferocity of the disease being vaccinated for. I think the human should have the final say because of freedom of religion and ownership of one's own body, but if a disease is severe, like evolution or smallpox and there is a verified threat of spread and the only way to stop the spread is by vaccination, then the person must be vaccinated or they have to leave. I don't really know which side to pick. If it isn't possible, then you should probably wait for someone else. Sorry!
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
I clarified the positions.
Posted by Bribri10114 1 year ago
I would like to accept, but the question is very very vague. Do you mean vaccines are helpful? Or do you mean the morality of vaccines (I don't even know what that means). If you clarify I might accept this debate. I would most likely argue for vaccines.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.