The Instigator
twsurber
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Yuval
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Public Forum Modified: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations

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 2 votes the winner is...
twsurber
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,487 times Debate No: 9760
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (2)

 

twsurber

Con

Rules:
If you are just going to forfeit please do not accept. I would rather lose a good game than gain a hollow victory by forfeit.

Present your own definitions in Round 2.

Skip round 1 by placing a single alphanumeric character.
**Crossfire/observations can be built into rounds 2, 3, & 4.
Round 2 equals AFF/NEG speaker 1/2 position
Round 3 equals AFF/NEG speaker 3/4 position
Round 4 crystalize

Good luck and thank you for competing.
Yuval

Pro

I am for having to make those shoots a "Must" because I think, that if you do not have it as a "Must" then people wont take is seriously and actually do and make those shoots. Then everyone will get sick and nobody will do anything about it really. Then the government will have to join in and make people make those shoots. So you can save us all time and make it a "Must" in the first place.
Debate Round No. 1
twsurber

Con

I would to thank my opponent for this debate, and I greatly appreciate a fellow Zionist.

I respectfully request that the terms: vaccination, immunization, innoculation, and shots / shoots be deemed synonomous.

NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE

INTRODUCTION: I disagree with the stated resolution. The NEG/CON will demonstrate that compulsory vaccinations are not in the best interest of public health.

STATEMENT OF RESOLUTION: Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

DEFINITIONS:
Compulsory - Compelled; mandated by legal process or by statute. (source: www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jury/glossary.htm)

Concern – something or someone that causes anxiety (source: wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)
Further derivative; Worry - Worry is an emotion in which a person feels anxious or concerned about a real or imagined issue, ranging from personal issues such as health (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worry)

VALUE PREMISE: Loss of individual freedom. Jonathan Shipley wrote in 1773 that "The true art of government consist in not governing too much." (source: Yale Book of Quotations.)

VALUE CRITERION: How can country, based on the ideals of freedom, be compelled to take vaccinations? "That government is best which governs least". Thomas Paine (source: www.quotedb.com) Not only is this notion autocratic & directive in nature, but also much too ambiguous.

CONTENTION ONE: Compulsory vaccinations are a deprivation of individual freedom.
Look at the very definition of compulsory. Question: Exactly which article or amendment of the U.S. Constitution authorizes this? Answer: None of them. (source: http://www.usconstitution.net...) So I ask you, by what authority is this even a consideration? America is supposed to be the land of the free. Little buy little, bit by bit, the government is taking our freedoms away, one by one. Making immunizations mandatory is just one more step in that direction.

CONTENTION TWO: The subjective wording of this resolution is typical of a government that is stealing a liberty from her citizens. Under the clever disguise of ambiguity, the government is using seemingly innocent and protective verbiage to make immunizations compulsory. Can't you almost picture "big brother" placing a hand on your shoulder, looking at you with false concern, and saying something to the effect of, "This is for your own good"?
SUB POINT A: Let's examine the word immunizations. Note the plurality of the word. Which immunizations would be compulsory? All of them? Perhaps a garden variety of: measles, mumps, scarlet fever, yellow fever, bubonic plague series, malaria, influenza, hepatitis, and polio? Well, while we're at it, since it doesn't specify, let's add in: gamma globulin, anthrax, tetanus, scarlet fever, and syphilis. The point is this, with the lack of clarity, we are a virtual pin cushion for LPNs.
SUB POINT B: There is no mention whatsoever of exempting people with existing medical conditions. The fact is there are people who have severe reactions to vaccinations. "The purpose of VAERS is to detect possible signals of adverse events associated with vaccines". (source: www.fda.gov) How is it fair to make vaccinations compulsory for all individuals in the name of public health concern, when the very vaccinations they receive can put their lives in danger?

CONTENTION THREE: Do public health concerns really justify this action? "Today I asked one of my colleagues "what makes swine flu different from the regular flu bug?" Her answer: "One is being talked about all day on TV and the other is not" (source: www.cnn.com)
The average cost of a vaccine per dose, ranges from $15 to over $100 per person. (source: http://www.cdc.gov...)
The population of the United States as of 2008 is 304,059,724. (source: http://quickfacts.census.gov...)
"Some parents are unable to vaccinate their children because the shots are too expensive and too complicated, experts say". (source: http://www.scrippsnews.com...)
If the government made vaccinations compulsory, would the government be willing to pay for them? If so, then how? With tax dollars? Would it become Socialized? Would it not only force it's will on citizens, but would it also make them pay out of pocket or bill their insurance for this "mandatory/compulsory" list of vaccinations?

CONCLUSION: Ladies and gentlemen, given the aforementioned information, it is crystal clear that the resolution, as stated, is unfair, unconstitutional, and far too ambiguous to hold merit. I have demonstrated reasonable doubt in the resolution without attacking my opponent. These are all facts, and they are undisputed. Thank you.
Yuval

Pro

Yuval forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
twsurber

Con

Thank you for the forfeit in round two. I will withhold further argument until you post a rebuttal or forfeit again.
Yuval

Pro

Yuval forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
twsurber

Con

My opponent has clearly had other priorities to attend. I will accept his forfeit in this round and as well as in this deate. Thanks to all who waited patiently to judge. While I am the CON/NEG I realizie that ROF/AFF has one final opportunity to throw something together, Remember friends, it if you cant make it fkow and worth somones while, it just isn't as fun.

Vote CON !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yuval

Pro

Yuval forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tombomb25 7 years ago
tombomb25
My bad, twsurber has two of these debates, and I put all of the comments related to that on the other thread (although I don't know why there are two).
Posted by tombomb25 7 years ago
tombomb25
Try reading the previous comments before you say something unhelpful and has already been addressed by multiple people in greater depth ;D
Posted by logicalmaster17 7 years ago
logicalmaster17
twsurber: Loss of freedom is not a value.

VP is what you are trying to achieve, your achieving loss of freedom?
Posted by tombomb25 7 years ago
tombomb25
Nails, while I may agree that the negative case is indeed very weak for specific reasons, you don't point these out nor do you actually help anyone to improve. Therefore:
1. Stop trying to mooch off of other people by trying to find cases on debate.org you lazy imbecile.
2. Get out.

Also, by calling the affirmative PRO, I assume you're a PF kid and therefore you lose any and all legitimacy relating to LD. If not, you're lame for saying PRO.
Posted by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
Nails, you sound distraught.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
A half-decent PRO would have destroyed this joke of a case. You don't at all explain why your value is even important, and your criterion is unintelligible to me.
Posted by tombomb25 7 years ago
tombomb25
@ rawrxqueen:

Good point about the tax dollars, although I think that the point is failry easily defeated.

Justice: Justify has "just" in it, and one of my teammates uses latin roots and such to justify his interpretation. As well, I'd engage in that debate with you in a round.

Value: The value debate seems pretty dead the me in LD. As he has his value of "loss of individual freedom" (prevention, I assume), the reason that we think that that is important is because of some higher ideal of a final goal of Justice. As it happens, he doesn't have a Criterion at all, just another justification for his "value", meaning that [prevention of] Loss of individual freedom is, in fact, his criterion. The way I see it, the criterion debate is what it comes down to now because we always have to assume some higher meta-0ethical standard in order to justify our common interpretations of our ideals.

Regardless of how strong his "value" is, it means nothing if we don't care about Justice and therefore those rights in the first place.

I agree that it's a strong position but the freedom thing ought to be his criterion since he doesn't have one and just use societal welfare or Justice as the value.
Posted by rawrxqueen 7 years ago
rawrxqueen
@tombomb:

even if the government does pay for them they are still doing it out of tax dollars, so therefore, even people who may be exempted from the immunizations for medical reasons (or other) then they still have to pay for the immunizations of others. that is what tws is saying in C3 and it is actually a very good point. i would consider wording it better though to be more clear.

also, how does justice relate to this? Justice, while it could work, is definitely not required for this topic. The resolution says "justify" not "is just". Something can justify it, without being based around justice. Individual rights grantee citizens to make their own choices instead of having the government choose for them. It is a very strong value indeed.
Posted by tombomb25 7 years ago
tombomb25
Oh, and one more thing related to evidence. Preferably you should use things such as Jstor and LexisNexis find legitimate evidence. CNN and other websites don't hold much merit so the only thing I'm taking as truth from you is the CDC evidence saying that the vaccines cost $15-$100. Only problem is....this doesn't help you. if the people only have to pay 15-100 dollars to save their lives, I'd say that their life is more important. As well, I'd say that the government could just pay for it anyways.
Posted by tombomb25 7 years ago
tombomb25
If you'd like me to, I can give you an example of an old case written for a different topic to show you a better format.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
twsurberYuvalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
twsurberYuvalTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70