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

Mandatory Childhood Vaccines

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,420 times Debate No: 28872
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Childhood vaccines have been a hot topic and I wish to argue for them. These arguments should suffice-

1. Disease eradication
2. Milder symptoms of a disease
3. Lives saved
4. And herd immunity

I will also put down arguments like abridging freedoms, etc.


Not only are vaccines possible to cause fatal (life-taking) results in certain children it's also an issue of wasting vaccine biogenetic material for the mere purpose of vaccinating children.

For example no typhoid is found in USA, Canada, Australia and most of Europe and Russia (including its Asian half), so why waste resources causing this to be a mandatory vaccination if the family aren't taking the child on holiday to africa/asia Additionally hepititis B is very rarely found in USA

It should be up to parents for the issues their child will face, not mandatory for all children.
Debate Round No. 1


A very good point you have made but if you realize these mandatory vaccines include a wide variety of vaccines include a wide variety of "disease preventers" so yes although some of the diseases are uncommon safety must always be considered. I hate using what it's but what if a family from Africa moved next door and they carried a rare disease you are not vaccinated against, then you have a high chance of contacting that disease. My opponent also mentions that vaccines pose dangerous threats against human life (and I want to mention the theory that vaccines cause autism has been disproven), the chance of getting a life threatening condition is much slimmer than getting the affects of an actual disease such as polio or smallpox which are highly life threatening and painful.

A few arguments I shall pose are milder affects because I know a large portion of people feel like vaccinations don't 100% protect people from the disease they create milder affects so the difference between a fever and death.


There are laws about what vaccines are required for a VISA both to certain countries and from them. Unless the African family hid in a suitcase while going to a country without the disease, taking a vaccine would be mandatory and the proof of vaccination (usually a yellow sheet of medically verified paper) would be required to get the visa. If they ALREADY had the disease they would have failed the blood tests required to get the VISA and/or vaccination in the first place.

You seem to not understand that although some vaccinations should be mandatory to make all vaccinations mandatory for children would be most ridiculous and be wasting precious biological resources which could save adults and/or be used to better understand the virus as opposed to worrying about wasting it on vaccinating children in a nation where that microorganism isn't even present.
Debate Round No. 2


I do concede that the family moving was a poor example but what of animals or bugs that spread parasites, there are no visas for them.

I cringe when the Con said these vaccines would be a waste of resources because he obviously did not study this topic. I will use another example (this will be whooping cough) and this article will explain what happens if you don't get a vaccine because you think the disease is "gone".

This shows that diseases can come back over time and affect those unprotected. The Cons use of the words "wasteful" in the sense of the vaccinations would be received quite badly in places like Colorado.

The Con also refuses to answer my arguments so I will go into detail why you should vote Pro and vote Manditory Vaccines.

Herd Immunity: This is a proven theory that 94% of the world's population must be vaccinated against a disease for it to stop spreading. If we allow parents to not require their children to get a vaccination it will affect the child's health along with the rest of the world's.

Milder Symptoms: As mentioned before (by the Con) it is possible to get an effect from the vaccine like an allergic reaction. And as I mentioned before the chance of getting a reaction are much more rare than getting the actual disease. And if you do (however slim) get the disease you are vaccinated against the affects are much milder (such as the difference between death and a fever).

Dangers and Affects: Diseases can also cause other diseases such as Hepatitus B (which the Con says can't be contracted in the US although can due to my previous argument) which can cause cancer if contracted.

Economic: The last reason to make it manditory (vaccines) is money. It is shown that on average every one dollar spent on vaccines can save six dollars in later medical costs.

Those arguments are not only solid but prove the importance of vaccines and why they must be manditory for everyone. Besides my reasons, the Con side shows little to no understanding of this topic. They also use resources such as Wikipedia which is not very reliable.

Vote Pro because of the importance, lack of Con argument, and the obvious win by myself (not being self-centered).


RationalMadman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.