The Instigator
bsh1
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
MIguelVal
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Parents Should Vaccinate Their Children

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 3 votes the winner is...
bsh1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,522 times Debate No: 70420
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (3)

 

bsh1

Pro

Preface

I've talked with several people recently about a trend among parents not to vaccinate their children. Personally, I find this trend to be alarming, and view the decision to not vaccinate a child to be morally reprehensible. I would therefore like to debate this issue, to air my feelings on the subject.

There is a 48 hours response time on this debate, so please bear that in mind prior to accepting.

Full Topic

On balance, parents have a moral obligation to vaccinate their children.

Terms

On balance - means in general and after weighing all the available evidence.
Vaccine - a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.

Rules

1. No forfeits
2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling or semantics
6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions
7. The BOP is shared
8. Pro must go first and must waive in the final round
9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss

Structure

R1. Acceptance
R2. Constructive Cases
R3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case
R4. Pro defends Pro's Case and Crystallizes, Con defends Con's Case and Crystallizes

Thanks...

...to whomever accepts; I look forward to an interesting debate.
MIguelVal

Con

Challenge Accepted! xD
Debate Round No. 1
bsh1

Pro

Thanks to Miguel for accepting. I will now construct my case. I apologize for keeping my arguments rather short; I am running low on time.

MY CASE

Parents have basic societal obligations to their children. By choosing to engage in actions that would lead to pregnancy, parents must accept the consequences of those actions, i.e. custodianship of a child or of children. It is a parent's job to act in the best interests of their child to ensure that he or she is healthy and capable of handling themselves in the broader world. I will contend that vaccinations are an essential part of meeting these parental obligations, inasmuch as they are in the best interests of the child. If that's true, then the resolution is affirmed.

"Vaccines have historically been the most effective means to fight and eradicate infectious diseases." [1] For example, "In 1958, there were 763,094 cases of measles in the United States; 552 deaths resulted. After the introduction of new vaccines, the number of cases dropped to fewer than 150 per year (median of 56). In early 2008, there were 64 suspected cases of measles. Fifty-four of those infections were associated with importation from another country, although only 13% were actually acquired outside the United States; 63 of the 64 individuals either had never been vaccinated against measles or were uncertain whether they had been vaccinated." [1]

"[I]mmunization currently averts more than 2.5 million deaths every year in all age groups from [diseases like] diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), and measles." [2] By failing to immunize individuals in disease-prone areas, 2.1 million innocent people die every year from otherwise preventable ailments. Requiring immunizations will drastically reduce that staggering number. [2] Past experience confirms that vaccinations have reduced the amount of serious illnesses. Tetanus was reduced by 98.5% by using vaccines, Pertussis 92.1%, and the same with Diphtheria at 99.9%, and HIB 98.8%, as well as Polio with 100% eradication. [2]

“[I]f countries could raise vaccine coverage to a global average of 90%, by 2015 an additional two million deaths a year could be prevented among children under five years old. This would have a major impact on meeting the global goal to reduce child deaths by two-thirds between 1990 and 2015. It would also greatly reduce the burden of illness and disability from vaccine-preventable diseases, and contribute to improving child health and welfare, as well as reducing hospitalization costs.” [3] “With the exception of safe water, no other modality [treatment], not even antibiotics, has had such a major effect on mortality reduction.” [3]

In fact, a lack of immunization has led to outbreaks here in the U.S., which lacks the kind of unsanitary conditions of many developing countries. What this shows is that when you control for things like hygiene or even in environments are clean and otherwise healthy, vaccinations are still key components of warding off disease. "California’s worst episode of whooping cough, or pertussis, in 2010, likely spread among unvaccinated children to infect 9,210 youngsters...[N]ew research published in the journal Pediatrics reports that the high number of children who were intentionally unvaccinated also contributed to the rapid spread of the infection...The researchers of the Pediatrics study compared the number of intentionally unvaccinated children who entered kindergarten from 2005 to 2010 to the onset of the whooping cough outbreak in 2010. They were able to identify 39 regional clusters of kids with non-medical reasons for being unvaccinated, and two clusters that were significantly related to rapid spread of whooping cough. Children who are intentionally not vaccinated and become infected with diseases like measles or pertussis, can pass the illness on to those who can’t be immunized, such as babies under six months and those with compromised immune systems, such as cancer patients." [4]

Another example of this kind of contagion caused through failure to vaccinate can be found in Texas. "In August, the Texas megachurch Eagle Mountain International Church made headlines after 21 members of its congregation contracted measles...The church...advocated abstaining from vaccinations over fears that they can cause autism. The outbreak was traced back to a church member who had traveled abroad on a mission trip and then spread measles among the unvaccinated congregation." [5]

Therefore, it is clear the vaccinating children is in their best interest, to not only prevent a society where disease resistance is low, but to immunize the child against disease-carriers even in a largely vaccinated society such as the U.S. It is a simple, common sense precaution that parents are clearly obliged to undertake.

SOURCES

1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
2 - http://www.who.int...
3 - http://www.vaccine-safety-training.org...
4 - http://healthland.time.com...
5 - http://www.healthline.com...
MIguelVal

Con

Well, this is a very complicated subject, and we needed more than just a view rounds to cover every single detail.
But I'll try not to make it too long, so it won't became long and ponderous.

So you could understand my point of view, the better way it's to state my background, to make it a live example, not just some doubtful story. My parents always wore the kind of person that doesn't follow the herd. Just because millions do something, doesn't mean it's good. And when it came to vaccines, they took the same principles. I'm a 18 year old boy, perfectly fine, I've taken only 3 or 4 vaccines in my entire life, and I never had any serious problem whatsoever.

We are humans. We make errors. That's our nature. And when we talk about parents, it's not a exception. They had parents like us, and they were taught by their beliefs before me. In this world there's not right or wrong, there is just point of view. You say it's right to vaccinate, I say it's not, who it's really right? As Osho said "What do I mean by responsibility? You are not responsible to your parents, and you are not responsible to any God, and you are not responsible to any priest " you are responsible to your inner being. Responsibility is freedom!" So, you say that responsibility and obligations it's doing what everyone thinks it's correct, but maybe responsibility it's just freedom, doing what we believe, and not what everyone tells you to do.

http://www.osho.com...

I don't know if you read this book called "FREAKONOMICS", but basically the main idea that I took from it, it's that we can't make "assumptions" based on every study and report they give us. Who could you say for sure, that vaccines always had been the decisive point of decrease in eradicating diseases, when we live in a unpredicted world, were millions of variables take place, and basing studies on a case were those variables can take place and we don't even notice? "Art of Thinking Clearly" it's another interesting book. It says that the human mind suffers from Confirmation Bias. We tend to ignore other factors and only pay attention to those who proves our point. If you think about it, you may agree with me. But with this, I'm not saying that those "studies" you stated are wrong and I'm right, I'm just saying that maybe it's not fully correct, and you should take other perspective. With this sayed, I'm gonna focus on the vaccines itself.

http://freakonomics.com...
http://www.goodreads.com...

We live in a world were power and money it's the most important thing for almost everyone, and those with then, will not abdicate and will do everything to oppress the weak and to maintain the hierarchy pyramid. If you look around, it's visible everywhere, and people more and more starts to see this. To clarify something, I just wanna say that this may not be the reality, it's just the way I see things.

What makes people think that they, the ones in the top of the pyramid, that the politics, medics, economics, and the others who rules the world wants us to be happy, healthy our rich? If they wanted that, would most people live in poverty? Would most people live their lifes struggling for just a "piece" of the cake, when they make a banquet? Don't think so, and don't think that when it comes to vaccines, there are only good purposes.

Well, after many research on the web to argue my point of view, I found the perfect resume of information, but if you want to search for yourself, you will find many more stuff. From the 40 reasons why you should never vaccinate infants (http://www.swaraj.org...), there are some that I would like to reinforce, like the huge side effects that most of people are unaware of, and the confirmation that big companies may test their vaccines on the population directly, makind the world a live testing lab, the lack of scientific study to determine whether vaccines have really prevented diseases, and many more..

I could be here talking and talking for no purpose, because you will only believe if you see for your self, so I give here some other sources if you want to see. There is many more, and the evidences are all over the place.

https://archive.org...
http://www.theosociety.org...
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com...
Debate Round No. 2
bsh1

Pro

Thanks again to Con for the debate. I may quote him at times during my rebuttal, and so I will put his remarks in italics to distinguish them from my own.

CON's CASE

"I'm a 18 year old boy, perfectly fine, I've taken only 3 or 4 vaccines in my entire life, and I never had any serious problem whatsoever."

This is a cherry-picking fallacy. Just because one person, or even because several people, can live perfectly good lives having taken no or few vaccines does not mean, as a general policy, that it is a good idea to not vaccinate yourself or your children. There are two reasons why this is true. Firstly, the severity of the danger (the risk of catching serious illnesses like measles, chickenpox, or polio) outweigh any supposed benefits to not vaccinating yourself. Even if the risk of catching those diseases is low, these diseases are so serious that it is not worth even taking a low risk of catching them. For instance, before vaccines, measles killed about 545,000 per year, chickenpox killed about 8,900, and polio killed about 3,000. [1, 2, 3] These disease can also severely injure those they don't kill, for example, polio can lead to irreversible paralysis. [4, 5]

"In this world there's not right or wrong, there is just point of view. You say it's right to vaccinate, I say it's not, who it's really right?...So, you say that responsibility and obligations it's doing what everyone thinks it's correct, but maybe responsibility it's just freedom, doing what we believe, and not what everyone tells you to do."

Pro makes a claim about moral relativism, but offers no philosophical framework or justification to ground his position, so as such, it is unsubstantiated. Moreover, Pro's position would invariably mean that we could never hold anyone accountable for anything because we do "what we believe, and not what everyone tells [us] to do." So, if I believe wantonly torturing people for fun is moral, or if I believed that throwing a baby into a pool and watching them drown is moral, then, according to Pro's logic, I would be justified in doing those things. But clearly, this type of reasoning would lead to a totally unworkable society--morality creates implicit norms of behavior designed to bring order to humanity's chaos, and, therefore, if we were to embrace what Pro is saying, we would subsequently divorce ourselves from morality. In other words, Pro's argument subverts morality, which is not something we should countenance in this debate.

But, even if we allow that when things are subjective we should leave people to their own devices (perhaps a more reasonable/charitable interpretation of Con's assertions), then we should still obligate action when things are obvious. The effectiveness of vaccines is not, as Con suggests, an issue of opinion; it is an issue of scientific fact. The overwhelming volume of evidence supports the fact that they work, and because it is fact--not opinion--that they are in the best interests of the child, we can morally compel parents to immunize their children.

"Who could you say for sure, that vaccines always had been the decisive point of decrease in eradicating diseases."

I never made the claim that vaccines were always the "decisive point," I merely claimed that they were significant contributors, and that the facts show them to be effective.

"From the 40 reasons why you should never vaccinate infants...there are some that I would like to reinforce, like the huge side effects that most of people are unaware of."

First of all, you cannot just refer people to a source and tell them to read it themselves, as this could easily be regarded as an attempt to circumvent character limits. Secondly, that source is riddled with innaccuracies. Allow me to point out a couple:

The Article Claims: "The mercury, aluminum and live viruses in vaccines is behind the huge epidemic of autism (1 in 10 worldwide as per doctors in the USA), a fact that has been admitted by the US Vaccine Court."
Reality: "in the case of Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Case #98-916V), the battle over vaccine injuries moved into the courts. A panel of three special masters began hearing the first cases of the historic Omnibus Autism Proceedings in June 2007. The lead petitioners...claimed that Michelle's autism was caused by a vaccine...On February 12, 2009, the court ruled in three test cases that the combination of the MMR vaccine and thiomersal-containing vaccines were not to blame for autism." [6] In other like cases where the courts ruled in favor of the petitioners, they did not find that the vaccines were dangerous, rather, "the case was conceded without proof of causation." [6]

The Article Claims: "Autistic children also suffer from severe bowel disorders. As per Dr Andrew Wakefield, this is due to the vaccine strain live measles virus in the MMR vaccine. Nearly all children become fully autistic after the MMR shot."
Reality: "Andrew Jeremy Wakefield...is a British former surgeon and medical researcher, known for his fraudulent 1998 research paper in support of the now-discredited claim that there is a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the appearance of autism and bowel disease." [7]

There are no citations in the article, and the article of one man, who, as the abovementioned falsities suggest, is merely grasping at straws to make his case, cannot outweigh legions of other scientist and their more credible findings. Moreover, the writer of the article isn't even a medical expert: "Chatterjee was once a journalist with a national English-language daily newspaper in India. He moved on to a public sector company, rising to be a regional director of the company." [8]

As for the other sources Con cites, their credibility is equally dubious, and one even admits, "Since they were introduced in the early 20th century, vaccines have been a tremendous medical and scientific success. Today perceived as a necessity, they are so familiar to us that their potential risks are rarely mentioned." Besides, even if you buy that there is an outside risk of autism, the proven benefits of vaccines outweigh that chance.

Thus, I affirm.

SOURCES

1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
4 - http://www.who.int...
5 - http://www.ct.gov...
6 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
7 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
8 - http://encyclopediaantivaccinemovement.blogspot.com...
MIguelVal

Con

Well, in this round I'm gonna focus in the already given arguments and not try to go much further.

So, let's recap. You say that whether and individual can have a perfect and healthy life until he dies, he should always take vaccines, because even if the danger is so low, "outweighs any supposed benefits to not vaccinating yourself".
Well, you see, it's proved that vaccines have side effects, and I don't say this just because I saw one time in a questionable
website, I say this because it's all over the web.

http://www.activistpost.com...
http://healthimpactnews.com...
http://www.scientificamerican.com...
http://articles.mercola.com...
http://vactruth.com...

Well, it may not cause autism, or any disease in particular, but the amount of information about it's side-effects must be put on the balance. I don't believe that every vaccine has side-effects, and that aren't good things attached, but I don't believe either that there is only good in this. Pharmaceutical industry is one of the most profitable business in the world. Millions of pills are made every year, and people are more and more sick. My father is a natural doctor, and I see that every day. How is this possible? Profit! So it's logical that vaccines can be a mean to make their hospitals running.

Going back a little, you mentioned that it's better to vaccine even if in a lifetime we never would need them. You say that the the risks overweights any benefits. So imagine that you could say for sure that one of the vaccines have a bad side-effect. You are lowering the chance of having the possibility to contract some kind of disease to 0, because you have already contracted from vaccines. So you say that this is better? Doom yourself from the very start, just because "the risk" of catching something?

"I don"t say cultivate morality; I say become more conscious, and you will be moral. But that morality will have a totally different flavor to it. It will be spontaneous; it will not be ready-made." OSHO

http://www.osho.com...

I guess you have misconceived my words. You talk of moral like some kind of code you have to follow, like the 10 commandments, but that isn't morality. That isn't freedom, and you are mistaking liberty with libertinism. Moral is good, the kind of moral that makes us human beings, not the kind that make us cattle. In order to be free and be moral, we have to question ourselves. I don't believe you ever thought about vaccines having side-effects for example, and because you didn't know, and didn't questioned yourself before making a decision, that makes you moral correct? Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour. Just following what they tell us doesn't make us moral people, because if we lived in a different society were killing wasn't bad, If I kill someone, does that would made me moral?

Well, you make a distinction between the article I cited and reality, and you say that my sources may be dubious, and while this, you only cited things from one source mostly, while I putted here various sources from different entities, what in my opinion makes a more reliable source, that just stating things from one website. And you still affirm " is merely grasping at straws to make his case, cannot outweigh legions of other scientist and their more credible findings.". I admit that the website may not be the more trusted, but with the new sources I linked here.

You also say that I cannot refer sources and tell people to read it. I just told you that so you understand better why I say and affirm my point, because I still have more than all the words to use..

Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
bsh1

Pro

Thanks again to Con for the debate. I may quote him at times during my rebuttal, and so I will put his remarks in italics to distinguish them from my own.

First, it is important to note though that Con drops my entire case. At this point in the debate, it is too late for him to respond to it as that would constitute making new arguments. So, that means the entire debate comes down to whether the risks of "side-effects" Con mentions outweighs the proven efficacy of vaccines (and whether it outweighs that not vaccinating leads to the spread of disease and the onset of outbreaks). I will endeavor to show that it doesn't outweigh.

Secondly, Con just posts links, he doesn't post into the round the substance of those links. That is a blatant attempt to avoid the character limits of the round, and unacceptable. Nothing that has not been explicitly stated in the round should be evaluated. That means that the so-called studies Con's references cannot be evaluated, since no quotes from them were posted here. But, even so, I will address the content of the articles anyway.

"Well, you see, it's proved that vaccines have side effects, and I don't say this just because I saw one time in a questionable
website, I say this because it's all over the web."

This is a blatant ad populum fallacy. Just because a lot of people say something, that doesn't make it true. For instance, most people during Galileo's lifetime said that the solar system was Geocentric, even though it was actually Heliocentric. But, if we are going to use ad populum fallacies to make arguments, we should appeal to the most informed group of individuals, i.e. medical doctors. Most major medical organizations and doctors actually support vaccinations, and that says far more about immunizations that the "web" does. [1, 2]

Moreover, of Con's sources don't give information about the sample sizes or reliability of any of the studies they cite. The Health Impact News link lists 49 sources that show the harmfulness of vaccines, yet the vast majority of those sources don't even mention vaccines or immunizations. Of those that do, they suggest that vaccines bear either slight risks for autism or cause harm by spurring brain encephalization in children. Yet, according to The Encephalitis Society, "While vaccines are much safer than actually having the disease, they, like all medicines can carry a small risk of adverse reaction. The majority of adverse reactions are very mild, but can, very rarely include post-vaccination Encephalitis. The risk of developing vaccine-related Encephalitis is extremely small in comparison to the health risks associated with the diseases that vaccines prevent. Importantly, the data indicates that vaccines are in the order of 1,000 to 100,000 times safer than running the risk of contracting the disease." [3] Additionally, "Evidence from several studies examining trends in vaccine use and changes in autism in children does not support such an association between thimerosal and autism. And a scientific review by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that 'the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal–containing vaccines and autism.' CDC supports the IOM conclusion that there is no relationship between vaccines and autism rates in children. Besides thimerosal, some people have had concerns about other vaccine ingredients in relation to autism as well. However, no links have been found between any vaccine ingredients and autism." [4]

Con's other links suggest that vaccines cause lymphoma or leukemia. Studies actually show no evidence for the notion that vaccines cause lymphoma: "A link between SV40 and NHL is biologically plausible because SV40 causes hematological malignancies in laboratory rodents. However, detection of SV40 DNA in human NHL tumors has not been confirmed by other laboratories. Casting doubt on an association between SV40 and NHL, follow-up studies of recipients of SV40-contaminated poliovirus vaccines have not revealed these individuals to be at increased risk of NHL. Furthermore, 2 recent case-control studies of NHL documented only infrequent SV40 antibody reactivity among NHL cases, and the prevalence of SV40 antibodies was similar in cases and controls." [5] Regarding leukemia, "there is some evidence suggesting that hepatitis B vaccination does not cause childhood leukaemia. During the period 1991 to 1998, when the rate of hepatitis B vaccination in American 2-year-olds was climbing from zero to over 80%, there was no corresponding increase in childhood leukaemia. According to the National Cancer Institute, 'Childhood leukemias appeared to increase in incidence in the early 1980s, with rate in the preceding years at fewer than 4 cases per 100,000. Rates in the succeeding years have shown no consistent upward or downward trend and have ranged from 3.7 to 4.8 cases per 100,000.'" [6]

Perhaps even more strikingly, one of the sources Con himself cites is in favor of vaccination, and reads in part: "These troubling statistics show that the failure to vaccinate children endangers both the health of children themselves as well as others who would not be exposed to preventable illness if the community as a whole were better protected. Equally troubling, the number of deliberately unvaccinated children has grown large enough that it may be fueling more severe outbreaks. In a recent survey of more than 1,500 parents, one quarter held the mistaken belief that vaccines can cause autism in healthy children, and more than one in 10 had refused at least one recommended vaccine." [7]

"So imagine that you could say for sure that one of the vaccines have a bad side-effect. You are lowering the chance of having the possibility to contract some kind of disease to 0, because you have already contracted from vaccines. So you say that this is better? Doom yourself from the very start, just because "the risk" of catching something?"

This is an interesting hypothetical, but it doesn't really hold up. Most side-effects of vaccines are minor, and being inflicted by a guaranteed minor side-effect while ensuring that you avoid life-threatening illnesses like measles is completely worth it. And, more importantly, side-effects of vaccines are incredibly rare, and so, for parents looking at the cost-benefits, you have an extremely low risk of mostly minor side-effects compared with the danger of contract serious diseases. It's a no-brainer.

"In order to be free and be moral, we have to question ourselves. I don't believe you ever thought about vaccines having side-effects for example, and because you didn't know, and didn't questioned yourself before making a decision, that makes you moral correct? Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour."

This is a kind of ad hominem, and has nothing to do with the debate. But, for the record, I did research the topic, and came to the conclusion that vaccines were net beneficial, so I did consider the possibility that they weren't. Furthermore, Con talks about the importance of freedom, but what freedom is death? When we fail to vaccinate our children and that results in their death or injury, we are denying them their freedom, and, to use Con's word, we treat them like "cattle" not has human beings. The effectiveness of vaccines is an objective fact, not subjective--and Con doesn't do much to rebut this.

"[Y]ou only cited things from one source mostly"

Actually, I cited 8 different sources. Each link led to a separate page, and each page referenced separate sources in its bibliography. Besides, quality should be preferred to quantity, and Con never contests that his primary source was riddled with errors and that some of his own sources supported vaccines. Con even writes: "I admit that the website may not be the more trusted."

1 - http://www.immunizeforgood.com...
2 - http://www.pbs.org...
3 - http://www.encephalitis.info...
4 - http://www.who.int...
5 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
6 - http://www.cdc.gov...
7 - http://www.scientificamerican.com...
MIguelVal

Con

Thanks Pro for this debate. By this round, it was already time to learn from my errors, and that's why I'm here to learn, and as a self-observer and thanks to Pro, I couldn't ignore some lack of form and presentation in my arguments, and I see this last round as a way to clean my mistakes and to make my point clear.

First, by Pros rules, in last round it isn't allowed to create new arguments, and he/she says that 'the entire debate comes down to whether the risks of "side-effects"'. This shows that Pro evades completely two of my arguments on the previous round, and by quoting and reinforce those statements, I'm not breaking the rules.

[1] The fact that our government, and all the powerful entities that are on top of the pyramid may not act in offspring of the button of the hierarchy, or in other words, us, the lower and middle classes, and may only look to keep the power and money, and not watch the means to get to the end.
-From a TED interview to Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft and a "philanthropist", says himself this "The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that [number of 9 billion] by perhaps 10 or 15 percent. But there we see an increase of about 1.3 [billion]." If we notice the sutle way he says this, we can see that we have the information in from of our eyes, we just have to be alert. "The worst blind is the one who doesn"t want to see" .(https://www.youtube.com...)

[2]The way I presented my argument about morality wasn't the perfect one, and the way PRO refutes my argument its by lowering its importance, and I'm going to show why.
-"Freedom stands for something greater than just the right to act however I choose"it also stands for securing to everyone an equal opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The way Pro stands about this, is that most probably is that if we don't vaccinate our children, they most likely die. If we had another round, he/she may say that it's the probability and the PROS and CONS of vaccines that make not vaccinating denying freedom. But, we have to consider many many more variables to state with certainty something like that. The possibility that they may live a healthy life, the possibility that vaccines has side-effects, like Bill Gates sayed, the possibility that if children reach a certain age were they already can make their choices, may not want to be vaccinate or didn't wanted, and many many more. PRO makes vaccines a objective fact, but it is more subjective than we think. As parents, we choose what it's best for our children, and what is best for ours, may not be the best for other parents to their children, and PRO states viously that it's a objective subject. Choosing the fate of our children comes from moral, the kind of moral I talked earlier, the kind of moral that isn't something ready-made, but is spontaneously and that comes from a conscious mind. (http://ieet.org...)

-"Consciousness is the quality or state of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself." Going more wide about PROS arguments, and using his refute to me against him/her, "This is a blatant ad populum fallacy. Just because a lot of people say something, that doesn't make it true... But, if we are going to use ad populum fallacies to make arguments, we should appeal to the most informed group of individuals..." Well, he says that my argument is a populum fallacy, and says that if I do that he is justified to do so too, and from the beginning he is basing is entire research the principle that "If most people say it's good, it's because it's good". He tries to attack me, but by doing that is attacking himself/herself. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

PRO denies any form "logical reasoning", only standing his/her point about vaccines with studies. If most of medical enterprises which dominates the market don't what to lose power and don't want people informed, it's obvious that official websites are never going to have other things but saying that vaccinating our children is good, and we should vaccinate them despite everything. Do you believe that every study, everything they tell us is true? I advise you to see "Zeitgeist" for example, and then rethink your ideas about society.

But transcending all this, going beyond the purpose of this debate, beyond who is going to win or who is really right (and in my opinion there is not a fully right or wrong answer to this question), we have to think. I'm not obsessed with theories of conspiracy or anything like that, but there are some things that just doesn't make sense.

Plato himself told this with is cave allegory.

The Myth of the Cave

The myth talks about prisoners (from birth) living bound in chains in a cave and spend all the time looking at the back wall which is illuminated by the light generated by a fire. This wall statues of shadows are cast representing people, animals, plants and objects, showing scenes and the day-to-day. The prisoners are giving names to images (shadows), analyzing and judging the situation.
"
Let's imagine that one of the prisoners were forced out of the chains in order to explore the cave and the outside world. Get in touch with reality and realize that spent his life analyzing and judging only images projected by statues. Leaving the cave and get in touch with the real world would be delighted with real beings, with nature, with animals and etc. Return to the cave to pass all knowledge acquired outside the cave to his colleagues also arrested. But it would be ridiculed by telling all he saw and felt, as his colleagues can only believe in the reality they see the illuminated wall of the cave. The prisoners will call you crazy, threatening him with death if not stop talking of those ideas considered absurd.

What Plato meant by the myth

Humans have a distorted view of reality. In the myth, the prisoners are we that we see and believe only in images created by the culture, concepts and information we receive in life. The cave symbolizes the world, as it has in images that do not represent reality. You can only know reality, when we free ourselves of these cultural and social influences, that is, when we left the cave.

(http://www.suapesquisa.com...) - I copied this from a Portuguese website, because it was better synthesized.

I couldn't find a better way to finish this round, and I hope we all get out of the cave sometimes, and don't believe in the masses, but in ourselves.

Thanks again PRO for this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
RFD (Pt. 1)

The decision is straightforward " Pro wins his case basically uncontested and saves all of the lives he claims to save, giving him by far the largest and best defined impact of the debate. Pro also wins on the societal obligations of the parents, which also goes uncontested, though there's really not much of an impact attached to that by comparison. In any case, Pro's case easily dominates the debate despite Con's efforts to bring fresh off case points.

The only feedback I have for Pro is that it's worth talking about herd immunity somewhere in your case here. The reality is that not everyone can be vaccinated, and Pro mentions that. That reality, however, doesn't stop us from basically eliminating these diseases from the country and preventing its spread when it's brought in by reaching a necessary threshold. It's also worth noting that those populations that cannot get vaccinated are also most vulnerable to the biggest harms, especially from measles.

I'll take the rest of this RFD to give Con some feedback. This being among your first debates on the site, it was pretty evident you were having trouble (and let's face it, against bsh1, anyone would), but I figure you should know both what you did well and what could have been improved.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 2)

1. General feedback

You certainly provided a lot of links to support your points, and I they do effectively support your case. But you have to do more than just provide them. You cannot just list your links and expect voters to do the work for you of elucidating what's in them. You had the space " quote from them, give statistics and make it utterly clear why you're using each link and what each link is doing for your argument. That's the reason for the source vote " Pro effectively employed his sources to bolster his arguments, whereas you just threw them down. What's more, defend your sources. Pro was all up and down them attacking them on practically every level. Make it clear that the sources are more than just links " they're real support that should be taken seriously. I can't take them seriously if Pro is putting 10 times the amount of space into responding than you are into explaining.

Also, I'm not sure where you're from, and I can't tell from your profile, but it seems you either have some trouble with English or you're not proofreading you argument. There were many lines that tripped me up multiple times, forcing me to reread them to garner what you were saying. Hence, I've given an S&G point to Pro as well.

Lastly, careful with certain statements. When you say "I don't believe you ever thought about vaccines having side-effects for example, and because you didn't know, and didn't questioned yourself before making a decision", that's awfully presumptive. Pro never made assertions about what you chose to read or understand throughout the debate, you shouldn't assert what your opponent knows either.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 3)

2. Side effects

I was perplexed by this, since you basically dropped it in the final round. This is extremely important to your case, and you only started the explanation. Everyone gets a vaccine, therefore a small proportion of people getting a serious harm from a vaccine can become a big problem. In comparison, the spread of measles may do very little harm since it will only infect a small number of people and still result in dangerous outcomes relatively rarely. You've got to explain this, and it's got to be clear.

You also have to describe the side effects. Your opponent presents the effects of many of these diseases, you need something to counter it with. Don't just pick the big ones either, go to sources that are widely reputable " go to the NIH and CDC, both of which have statistics on this. You pretty much had to kick out of the autism point, mainly because it's blatantly wrong (there was some concern for a while, but that was because part of the solution that vaccines were originally stored in included mercury " that's not the case anymore), and then you were left with a vague "bad outcomes" point without any real link to harms. I can't do anything with that. I don't know what "bad outcomes" are or what they cause. I can't compare that to Pro's real world benefits.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 4)

3. Insidious Medical Activities

I wrestled with titling this "conspiracy theory," because that's what it sounds like, and I don't see the support to dissuade me. You need to make this clearer, and if you think it through, they're readily apparent. You could have talked about patent law and how Merck has cornered the market on the MMR vaccine. You could have talked about classism and the effects of forcing vaccination on poor families that cannot afford it. You could have talked about a somewhat pervasive theory (that I thoroughly disagree with, but would have bought if it was clear) that pharmaceutical companies have incentive to keep us sick and thus only pursue avenues that press us into hospitalization. You kind of got to that last one, but you're missing several links to clarify the point.

This really becomes most problematic in the final round. I was actually partially with you when you tried explaining it in R3, but in R4... I lost you completely. I read this sentence multiple times:

"The fact that our government, and all the powerful entities that are on top of the pyramid may not act in offspring of the button of the hierarchy, or in other words, us, the lower and middle classes, and may only look to keep the power and money, and not watch the means to get to the end."

Still don't know what you're trying to say. Not a clue. The link to the TED talk from Bill Gates only perplexes me still further " I have no idea what you're finding so revealing. STATE IT. Make it clear what he's revealing. What I see is that vaccines, better health care and reproductive services result in a substantially reduced increase to the overall population. Are you insinuating from that that vaccines are actively reducing the population? I seriously don't know, and I don't see this as supporting that point in any case. I'm just at a loss for why this appeared.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 5)

4. Freedom

I honestly thought this was your strongest argument, and I'm still convinced that it could have become much bigger if you had spent the time here in R3 and R4. As it is, the point was just extremely nebulous. I couldn't figure out why it mattered so much. I couldn't figure out why this was more important than health outcomes, or the duties of the parents. All I got from that was that freedom is good and that freedom is denied when parents are forced to get their kids vaccinated.

Take the time to explain the impacts of that. Why might some parents be resistant? Because they're unsure about the side effects, right? It doesn't matter if the side effects are real or not, as long as there's a perception of great harm. Some parents might just hate being forced by the government to do this. Some parents might have serious ideological issues. Mention these circumstances, and mention what's going to happen to these people: they're going to be fined, some are even going to be jailed, for their beliefs and fears. Hell, some of these people might even have gotten the vaccine without such a law. These are substantial harms, and actual impacts to this argument. You needed them.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 6)

5. Extras

I've got to mention this because it was very off-putting. I'm a microbiologist, I know what the system is for presenting research and going through clinical trials to study the effects of vaccines. It was a very big problem for you to straight up say that we shouldn't necessarily mistrust them. For someone like me, that automatically turns us off to your argument. You're denying the research without showing any faults with it, and that's simply not good enough. If you feel there's something problematic with the research, clarify what it is. Don't make general accusations without backing them up.

Lastly, this Plato thing you inserted in the final round didn't do anything for you. I know it wasn't meant to help you win the debate, but if anything, it just makes me more likely to vote Pro. How do I know that vaccinations weren't the result of that one person leaving the cave, seeing the light, and eventually convincing everyone in the cave of their benefits? I'm not sure what light you're talking about or why it's important, and yet I get that kind of stance from Pro. Pro fills in the blanks you leave in your own point without even getting a chance to respond. Be careful with points like this " flesh them out completely. It could have actually helped your case if it had been one round earlier.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
* a bit less concerned about the >conduct< vote
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
====================================================================================
>Moderator update<

Hanspete's vote was reported. It has passed review. While I struggled to understand what this user was saying, since some parts of the RFD were not proper English (e.g. "Con's own vaccinations are really just a fallacy"), after reading through the debate, it seems as though this person voted on arguments because Con's attack on vaccination based on his own lackluster vaccination history was fallacious, and this person voted on sources because Con relied on Wakefield and other discredited sources. This vote is an extremely close call on conduct, since it doesn't explain why bsh1 was rude and I have trouble identifying a place in the debate where he was, but I don't want to let my own perception of how I would have voted on conduct affect whether or not I remove a vote. And since bsh1 won the other 5 points, I'm a bit less concerned about the sources vote since it is not being used strategically to augment this person's vote. However, others would be well-advised to explain their conduct points more fully than this.
====================================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
===========================================================================
2001bhu. 4 points to Pro (arguments, conduct). Removed because: (1) The RFD makes no attempt to explain conduct. (2) For arguments, it is not sufficient to merely state *that* Pro did "better," an RFD must explain *why.* 2001bhu should endeavor to refer to arguments the debaters actually made in the debate and explain why they were convincing.

Reasons for voting decision: Good job over all I think pro did better ( Bluesteel If you remove this I will be very very mad )
==============================================================================

-bluesteel (voting moderator)
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
@2001hbu
You need to say why he did such a good job, other wise it's not fair to con.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
bsh1MIguelValTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
bsh1MIguelValTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't see how bsh1 was being rude. He was simply rebutting his opponent's case, that's the point. Anyways, I gave points to Bsh because he simply argues that it's the parents responsibility to keep their children healthy. He made his point clear by stating "Parents have basic societal obligations to their children" he argues this very well. He also rebutted every argument made by con well. I think con made a mistake by saying "I'm a 18 year old boy, perfectly fine, I've taken only 3 or 4 vaccines in my entire life, and I never had any serious problem whatsoever." He is just one out of billions of kids on this planet, it doesn't mean that every other kid is fine without a vaccine.
Vote Placed by Hanspete 1 year ago
Hanspete
bsh1MIguelValTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Alright so Conduct Goes to COn, because I felt that bsh you were crossing that fine line between showing your opponent is wrong and just being rude and I felt it was crossed. Now Arguments, Pro rightfully pointed out that Con's own vaccinations are really just a fallacy. Sources also to Pro, because Pro showed how Con's sources can be considered fraudulent and that was rightfully pointed out. So that discredits many of Con's sources, as it stands.