The Instigator
NKJVPosttribulationist
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Pill_Junkie_Monkey
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Mandatory vaccines.

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  
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: 1/17/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 284 times Debate No: 106803
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

NKJVPosttribulationist

Pro

I support this and will continue vaccines to avoid getting and making others sick. I don't have the right to spread infections to other people, end of story.
Pill_Junkie_Monkey

Con

Hello, I support vaccines, and believe that private businesses and schools should refuse service to un-vaccinated individuals. However, your first claim is that you do not have the right to spread infections to other people. This is false, by living in society you, and others agree to the potential risk of infection. However intentional spread of a disease is unjustifiable. Moreover, I do not believe the government can justifiable force people to vaccinate themselves.

Lets begin with property rights, and the non-aggression principle. Later I will refer to this as natural law. Here I will explain the logic behind the natural law the first principles of logic.

1.The Principle of Non-contradiction. This is the foundation principle of all logic and reason. If a posit has a contradiction within itself, it must be rejected. In example something cannot be A and not A at the same time.

2.The Consistency Principle. This is just an extension of the principle of non-contradiction, so if the first principle holds, this consistency principle does as well. If a posit is inconsistent it must be rejected. Moreover, if two things are a true dichotomy, and one is falsified the other must be true. Take these two posits : Consistency is preferable - Consistency is not preferable. If consistency is not preferable, then it is not preferable to apply that principle consistently, therefor consistency is preferable.

3. The burden of proof is on the active side. If it is on the passive side, then that side must justify everything they are not doing, this is impossible. Therefor burden of proof is on the active side

4. Force is active, therefor those who wish to use force have the burden of proof.

5. You own yourself. If you do not own yourself, then who does? How do you determine who gets to own who? Moreover, if you posit that you don't own yourself, you can't justify your own existence. That posit is extremely inconsistent, therefor you must own yourself.

6. You own the fruits of your labor, and the results of your actions, again if not, then who does? How do you determine who gets to own who's labor? It is inconsistent and therefor must be rejected. Thereby, you own the fruits of your labor.

7. The NAP. Any aggression by this system cannot be justified, as you have a right to the things listed above, and is immoral to infringe upon them.

Voila. Natural law. So by this, it is morally unjustifiable for government to infringe upon a human's right to self-ownership. This would include forced vaccination.

Again, please don't get me wrong here, I am all for vaccines, everyone in my opinion should get them.
Debate Round No. 1
NKJVPosttribulationist

Pro

Correct. I do not have the right to place someone else's health at risk, so I get my shots. I don't think a vaccine is sacred, but it is a public health issue. Don't you agree?
Pill_Junkie_Monkey

Con

I do agree that is a public health issue, and that everyone should get themselves vaccinated. However, I do not believe in the use of force to achieve this. Though, I believe all private businesses should refuse service to any un-vaccinated individuals, especially in the case of hiring workers, and children in schools.

Forced vaccination violates the non-aggression principle, and thereby cannot be justified. You need to find a flaw in the logic of the NAP, (back in round 1) OR make a case for why forced vaccination is not subject to this moral principle.
Debate Round No. 2
NKJVPosttribulationist

Pro

You don't have the right to infect other people.
Pill_Junkie_Monkey

Con

Unicorns love me.

See how saying something doesn't make it true?

"You don't have the right to infect other people." - There is a bit of vagueness in this proposition, which I think Is intentional. It does not specify how the infection is to be carried out. Is it malicious, or accidental? Malicious infection cannot be justified as it is an aggression, however you agree to the risk of infection by living in society. Also, vaccines are not 100% effective, so even vaccinated individuals would still be at risk of spreading infection. But if your original statement was true, then they would not be justified in that action? The only logical next step to prevent infection would be extermination of anyone possible of carrying a disease. (everyone human being)

Moreover to claim the legitimacy to force anything upon another person is to claim that they are your slave.
Debate Round No. 3
NKJVPosttribulationist

Pro

How childish. If we have mandatory seatbelt laws, why not with vaccines? I don't have the right to threaten the health and safety of others. Toughen up, buttercup, no one is taking your rights away.
Pill_Junkie_Monkey

Con

"How childish. If we have mandatory seatbelt laws, why not with vaccines?" - We shouldn't have seatbelt laws.

"I don't have the right to threaten the health and safety of others." - Then remove your self from society or commit suicide. That is the only way.

"Toughen up, buttercup, no one is taking your rights away." - Nice, resulting to an ad hominem because you've lost the debate.

Here is my sincerer tip for you: Learn how to use logic and reason before trying to spew your sophistry onto someone who can. :D
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.