Parents who don't vaccinate their children should still receive benefits from the government
Debate Rounds (3)
Secondly, you have said that there are negative side effects of vaccinations on children. However if you would have researched the topic, you would have realised that the only possible issues that could arise are mild fever, shivering, fatigue, joint/muscle pain and headaches. These- by the way, are not in anyway going to hurt the child since active immunisation (that is what vaccination is) is the injection of dead or inert pathogen into the recipient's body for the white blood cells to create memory regarding the antigen's structure to fight a similar alive one in the future. Which would explain the negative effects.
Next, just because it isn't legal to not vaccinate your child doesn't mean it is okay to not do so. As a matter of fact it should be illegal since a child's life is risked. And moreover, the statement is inaccurate as well since in the USA alone, it is legally required in all the 50 states to do so if he/she is entering an educational system (school, day care, etc).
In addition to that, the motion suggests that the issue being debated refers to al the countries all around the world and not only Australia, so we should broaden our horizons and not only focus on one country.
Additionally, you have said that parents should have the option of taking the risk of not vaccinating their child simply shows that you have said that it is wrong for children to be deprived of the medical necessity. Which is basically saying that you agree with me.
Finally, I would like to say that if the government does indeed give these benefits to these families, it just suggests that it is okay to be ill and be a possible reason that a epidemic is spread. It will have a negative impact on all the future generations. It is the government's job to improve the standard of living of a nation, not deteriorate it. That is why the citizens have chosen them.
emily8821 forfeited this round.
It is unfortunate to see that my worthy opposition had not posted any response to my arguments almost implying that he/she has nothing to say. Therefore, I have got nothing to refute. Because of this I shall just state some of the possible situations that could arise if the government does indeed give benefits to parents who don't vaccinate their children.
Firstly, like I have said in the previous argument, doing so will convey a wrong message telling everyone that it is not worth the effort to take one's child to a hospital or even a clinic and provide a child with his or her basic medical requirements. Which would also imply that it is perfectly fine to put a young one's life at stake.
Furthermore, let us think of this, if there were such 'anti-vaxxers' in the times of medical disasters, for example the time when small pox existed, it would still exist, there would still be people suffering from the disease. Death toll would be far more than a already staggering 500 million people. And people who are the reason for this would still be getting benefits from the government. Strictly providing such vaccinations have saved the world a number of times before and can still do so. Providing the world with a vaccine for polio has definitely done it. At this point of time, there are only two countries which are polio-endemic - Afghanistan and Pakistan. (Link: - http://www.who.int... ) . This is the change that has been brought about by us. Merely 28 years ago, there were 125 countries affected with polio.
However, at this time of crisis, when diseases are evolving and getting stronger and fighting us back. it is more important than ever to stay together and fight better, as diseases like MERS, ebola and zika come in our way, we have to spread awareness among people to eradicate them in the same way we eradicated smallpox. And that is where governments come in. They are one of the only ways we can do so, they must do whatever is possible to save the world. However, giving benefits to anti-vaxxers is one of the many ways our progress is being hampered. We have to appreciate the fact that although there are only 2 countries that are still affected by polio and polio alone, failure to eliminate this disease will mean that within ten years, there will be a rise of the disease and there will be more than 200 000 cases every year from all around the world. Moreover, this is not the only disease of concern, there are many more diseases that are to be worried about, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza, measles and many more. The only way we can stop them is through vaccinations. And that is why actions must be taken, which includes taking small steps like not giving any benefits to the anti-vaxxers (which is only one of the several. things we must do).
In the final round, I shall suggest some ideas regarding what could be done to exterminate such diseases. I hope that I have conveyed an effective message and expectantly, my worthy opponent will return and we shall progress into the final round with both sides present in order to have an interesting debate.
emily8821 forfeited this round.
The fact that my opposition did not post any arguments in this debate is displeasing. This means that I do not have anything to refute. Therefore, I shall just convey the methods to "exterminate these diseases" (as promised in the previous round) and simply go over all the topics I have stated.
To begin with, diseases can be eradicated by simply providing the general public with health care and vaccines- which was the point of concern in this debate. Moreover, awareness could be spread to let people know the dangers of not walking in the right direction in the medical field. And that is it. It is extremely simple to save people from being affected by these diseases, however only theoretically. These simple ideas are very complicated to implement considering the complexity of human population. Hence, all that is possible should be done to make it easier for them to co operate. However, giving the benefits to anti-vaxxers does more harm than good.
Now I shall move on to the reasons why the voters should vote for me. Firstly, and most evidently, I have actually posted arguments in every round of this debate, unlike the pro side. Moreover any arguments that were made in the first round were baseless, did not have any research and also not sensible. On the other hand, I have showcased the knowledge I gained through the research on this topic through my thoroughly discussed facts and figures.
Moreover, I hope that this debate and not voted for and then ignored. I believe the readers will give some thought to the topic and my given arguments will lead to spreading awareness in public- thus making the world a better place.
Thank you for viewing this debate, and hopefully, Con gets the vote for this one.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lord_megatron 8 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.