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

Public Health Concerns Justify Compulsory Immunization.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,698 times Debate No: 10258
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




Hope to debate somebody who is familiar with LD. Best of luck to whoever accepts this debate.


I affirm the resolution resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations
We must remember that due to the fact that the question is to the public, that the agent of action becomes the government and we are looking at society's health in general rather than specific.

Because in a contractual setting it is impossible to offend against one of the members without attacking the body, and still more to offend against the body without the members resenting it. Duty and interest therefore equally oblige the two contracting parties to give each other help; and the same men should seek to combine, in their double capacity, all the advantages dependent upon that capacity. A government would never vaccinate individuals who, by medical reasons, would suffer traumatic injury or death.
Definitions ( Random House Unabridged Dictionary):

Public Health: Health services to improve and protect community health, especially immunization, and preventive medicine.

Concerns: A matter that affects a person's happiness or welfare.

Justify: To uphold as warranted.

A Priori: That the definition of public health combined with that of concern show that the only course of action to take is that of immunizations when the welfare of the society is at risk. And because of the agent of action is the government they are warranted in forcing vaccination.

V: Societal Welfare
- Societal welfare is protection of society as a whole, its health, safety, order, etc., When the agent of action does that which is in their ability to ensure protection, health, safety, etc we are achieving societal welfare. The reason this ought to be the value for the round is the fact that is a textually based. When the resolution talks about public health it is talking about Societal welfare.

VC: Upholding contractual obligations
- If we do not uphold contractual individuals we sink into an anarchic state loosing, safety, health and order. When we uphold these obligations we achieve these necessities.

- Now in order to uphold these obligations we must first know what they are. Rousseau says what these obligations are. What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the protection of himself and all he owns.

In the context of this resolution, we must not abstain from vaccination, unless we have a medical pardon to do so, because the governments job is to protect and because we give up liberties in the social contract. As a result we are vaccinated and societal welfare is achieved.

C1) The Social contract justifies compulsory immunization in order to protect society.

We have already established that; A) the social contract is designed to protect society, B) We give up liberties and some agency to gain this protection, and C) Without upholding these reciprocal obligations societies welfare can not be achieved.

To further prove this point we can once against look to the social contract. It says, "Protection from the sovereign is only obtainable when an recognizes that he has given up agency. In fact, each individual, as a man, may have a particular will contrary or dissimilar to the general will which he has as a citizen. the person which constitutes the State as a persona ficta, because not a man, he may wish to enjoy the rights of citizenship without being ready to fulfill the duties of a subject." This being said we can't give citizens protection who do not give up the autonomy that they they are obligated to give up, therefore it can be found true that through upholding contractual obligations we achieve safety for individuals and thus safety for citizens in society.

C2) Immunization does carry risks, but; the social contract warrants putting individuals into danger for protection of society, and vaccination pro's outweigh the cons.

The social treaty has for its end the preservation of the contracting parties. He who wills the end wills the means also, and the means must involve some risks, and even some losses. He who wishes to preserve his life at others' expense should also, when it is necessary, be ready to give it up for their sake. Furthermore, the citizen is no longer the judge of the dangers to which the law-desires him to expose himself; and when the prince says to him: "It is expedient for the State that you should die," he ought to die, because it is only on that condition that he has been living in security up to the present, and because his life is no longer a mere bounty of nature, but a gift made conditionally by the State. At first glance this may seem cruel but we must realize that what we are doing is risking, not taking lives, when getting vaccinated. But when we look at the statistics we realize the risk is minimal.

World Health Organization reports that Analysis has shown that vaccinations are among the safest of injections and serious reactions are very rare. Comparing the risk of disease with the risk of vaccine shows that 1000 out of every 1 million people infected with measles will contract encephalitis, while only 1 person out of every 1 million vaccinated with measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) will do so.

Sub A: When individuals do not get vaccinated they put the public in danger.

If an individual decides not to be vaccinated they put the public safety at risk because they become another viable host for the illness, infection, disease, to take root in and spread. When the disease is able to spread to a large enough population (defined as equal to or less than 84%) an epidemic occurs hurting society. Therefore forcing immunizations on individuals, ensures that epidemic will not occur even if a small enough percent of the population slips through the cracks.

good luck to you to, also we are following LD rules like you said, and no CX correct?
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

I stand in negation of the resolution, "Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization."

I will define Immunization: Sometimes called vaccination; a shot or injection that protects a person from getting an illness by making the person "immune" to it. (Center for Disease Control)

I agree to my opponents value.

And I would also like to agree to my opponents value criterion, and I will prove in my case how the negative world upholds his framework better than his case does.

1.Compulsory immunization violates the right to conceive and bear children.

In 1927, Dr. Albert Sidney Priddy, the superintendent of the Virginia State Colony for the Epileptics and Feeble-Minded, filed a petition to his board of directors to sterilize one of his patients, Carrie Buck. She was an 18-year-old patient at the clinic that he claimed had a mental age of 9. The case was upheld in the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia, but it was appealed to the Supreme Court. (Buck v. Bell, HR 200) The Court upheld a statute instituting compulsory sterilization of the unfit "for the protection and health of the state." It was an 8-1 decision. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the ruling. He said, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes." This Supreme Court case proves that the term "compulsory vaccination" has a legal context of covering "compulsory sterilizations". Justifying compulsory vaccinations in the resolutional and legal context means that by affirming, you must also justify compulsory sterilizations. Bruinius, 2006 "scientists tried to trace and then eradicate the gene pool that caused what they casually referred to as "the three D's": dependency, delinquency, and mental deficiency. Hundreds of fieldworkers fanned out into the country to visit prisons, mental institutions, and the poor rural hamlets where many of their research subjects dwelled. They collected tens of thousands of pages of data on these subjects' family pedigrees." The practice of eugenics is meant to prevent the "unfit" from re-populating as a means to create a "super-race". Black, 2003 "It started in 1904, when a small group of U.S. scientist launched an ambitious new race-based movement Their methods: forced sterilization, human breeding programs, marriage prohibition, and even passive euthanasia. The victims of eugenics were poor white people from New England to California, immigrants from across Europe, Black, Jews, Mexicans, Native Americans, epileptics, alcoholics, petty criminals, the mentally ill, and anyone else who did not resemble the blond and blue-eyed Nordic ideal the eugenics movement glorified. Through international academic exchanges, American eugenicists exported the movement worldwide. It eventually caught the fascination of Adolf Hitler." After Virginia passed its sterilization act, Joseph DeJarnette, superintendent of Virginia's Western State Hospital, observed in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, "The Germans are beating us at our own game." In order to preserve societal welfare you must protect the fundamental human right of the right to conceive and bear children. The only way you can do that is by taking a stand against eugenics and genocide. You can only do that in the negative world, so you must negate.

Now moving onto the affirmative case.

To his contention 1:

1. Compulsory efforts violate privacy with surveillance.

Jaro Kotalik, Adjunct Professor, Department of Philosophy and the Director, Centre for Health Care Ethics(CHCE), and Professor of Northern Ontario School of Medicine, 2006

"Such an approach would erode the respect for autonomy in health care in general. In addition, such forceful measures would demoralize health care workers and make them less effective care�givers. Coercive measures used on emergency physicians in Quebec and hospital nurses in Ontario were strongly resisted by the respective professions and thought to have undesirable side effects. In addition, the mandatory approach would require surveillance and enforcement that would increase the cost of pandemic response measures and interfere with the provision of patient care."

The right to privacy is a contractual obligation, and it is not upheld in the affirmative world.

2. Compulsory immunizations violate religious freedom.

Andraz Melansek, student of Intenational Relations at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, February 1, 2004 "Vaccination, Compulsory?," Indeternational Debate Education Association, ACC. 10-20-09,

Many people have sincerely-held religious beliefs regarding vaccines in general. These individuals believe that God created the human body as a temple, and that the body should not be destroyed by injecting a virus into the body. By making vaccination compulsory, people's freedom to choose is curtailed and that is an infringement on human rights. In any case, it doesn't matter if a few people choose not to be vaccinated, as if the large majority of the population is protected from a disease, there will be too few carriers for it to become endemic, so the risk to those opting-out is very small.

The right to religion is also a a contractual obligation, and that is not upheld in the affirmative world.

3. My opponent says in his case that compulsory immunizations violate autonomy, so there is another contractual obligation harmed in the affirmative world.

4. My opponent makes the point that the only way we can uphold the social contract is by protecting our right to safety, and the only way we can uphold this right is through compulsory immunizations. But we do not have to harm all these other contractual obligations to uphold the right to safety. My opponent never proved that voluntary immunizations are inneffective. If voluntary immunizations prove to be effective, then the social contract would only justify VOLUNTARY immunizations.

5. My opponent defines a concern as a matter that affects a persons happiness or welfare. Therefore, in the aff world the government can give you a shot because you aren't happy.

To my opponents sub point B, herd immunity still preserves societal welfare.

In the aff world, the obligations of religion, autonomy, privacy, and procreation are harmed all in the name of "preserving health". But since we are looking through a scope of "upholding contractual obligations" and not of "preserving health", contractual obligations are going to be more important in this round than the perceived health benefits. And since the aff world harms many more obligations than the neg ever could, you must negate.


CON Case

My opponents sole contention is a prime example of how debaters engineer slippery slopes to prove absurdities. My opponent attempts to link compulsory immunizations to compulsory sterilization to eugenics. However this link story has no credibility, for the following reasons:

1) My opponent bases the entire story on a supreme court justice, who has no warrants to what he says. (This meaning their is no scientific evidence to support that compulsory vaccinations actually encompass compulsory sterilization)

2) The argument is U.S. specific, the entire argument assumes that compulsory vaccination policies worldwide would replicate those of the U.S. . This is unfathomably false, obviously different cultures will go about compulsory immunization differently.

3) Now as i've begun to see the burden to the PRO comes from the line "Justifying compulsory vaccinations in the resolutional and legal context means that by affirming, you must also justify compulsory sterilization." However as i have proved this may be so in a U.S. context but not universally therefore i don't have to prove unless the resolution is in a U.S. context which it is not. Also just because someone says compulsory immunization in the same line as compulsory sterilization does not mean that the words are synonymous. Furthermore the statement released does not actually explicitly link compulsory sterilization to compulsory vaccination rather compulsory vaccination to abortion, and seeing as that is completely non-topical and their is no evidence to support this claim we may dismiss the contention. Finally, still conforming to the definition of immunization (also ironically released by the U.S.) we can see that the cutting of the fallopian tubes is not an immunization therefore whatever possible ground may be held by the CON is lost.

4) My opponent cites Bruinius, 2006, now their is no reason to even trust this last name and date, and do not allow the submission of new evidence in this round because it violates the rules of Lincoln Douglas. And this source being the only way that I can even see a possible notion of how compulsory sterilization leads to eugenics, and that it is unwarranted, as well as untrustworthy, there is no link between compulsory sterilization and eugenics in this context.

5) On the subject of warrants my opponent gives no information to support the claim about these scientists who started a mini eugenics program. Also from the meager information presented it would wholly right for one such as myself to assume that these scientists are a renegades who were most likely fascist seeing as they conformed to the fascist Hitler Ideal. Also never is there even a number of how many individuals are killed.

6) furthermore the story is a blatant lie. The supposed group of scientists is not where Hitler first became interested in enacting a Eugenics Program. It was Nietzche's Ubermensche theory that sparked Hitler's desire to enact a program of this sort, the following link supports this. (

7) Finally my opponent provides neither solvency nor impacts off of why eugenics is bad, or how compulsory immunizations of individuals who as he says who cause trouble is bad. As a matter of fact the impacts listed are actually further reason to support compulsory immunizations (If we are to assume that the fictitious link story is slightly credible). For instance the "compulsory immunizations" of alcoholics, petty criminals, seem quite positive to mean seeing as they would no longer be able to wreak havoc.

8) Furthermore my opponent has misconstrued the resolution and as a result i feel the need to structure a theory argument:
The interpretation of the resolution is clearly whether or not the government should act when their is a disease that could be solved by compulsory vaccination. And my opponent has misinterpreted this he says that individuals who are clinically insane constitute a disease that could be solved by compulsory vaccination. As a result my opponent has committed a blatant textuality violation, he has misinterpreted the resolution and attempted to alter it to fit his agenda unfairly. As a result the voter of this theory argument would be fairness, I came into this debate with the mindset that this would be a fair and enjoyable debate, not an unfair one, and if individuals like my opponent get voted up with cases such as these the entire enjoyability of this website becomes destroyed. So we must vote PRO.

all in all it is more that safe to assume that the CON case has no credibility and therefor ought to be dismissed meaning the only case to look to in the round is that of the PRO, so once again we should vote PRO.






in a true debate round when left un attacked an Apriori instantly guarantees the win to the individual using one. Because my Apriori is showing how directly throughout he wording of the resolution's wording how compulsory immunization is justified, and it was left unattacked, we have to vote PRO.


PRO Case

Contention 1

Compulsory efforts violate privacy with surveillance.

Regardless of the truth of this statement it has no effect of my actually contention. Also privacy is given up upon entering the society so truthfully their is no attack. But due to the fact that we are upholding the Social Contract we can see that it is warranted to take away autonomy in order to provide protection, and seeing as that this is the purpose of compulsory vaccination, we have are not obligated to respect the nonexistent "right" to privacy. Therefore this "attack" falls.

Compulsory immunizations violate religious freedom.

two attacks:
1) Religious freedom is meaningless if you are in an unfit state of body or mind to enjoy it therefore protection surpasses it in order of necessity.
2) No where in the Rousseau's Good will is their a clause guaranteeing citizens religious freedom.

My opponent says in his case that compulsory immunizations violate autonomy, so there is another contractual obligation harmed in the affirmative world.

Actually i point out in my case how we have given up autonomy upon entering society therefore, there is not autonomy really to harm

My opponent makes the point that the only way we can uphold the social contract is by protecting our right to safety, and the only way we can uphold this right is through compulsory immunizations. But we do not have to harm all these other contractual obligations to uphold the right to safety. My opponent never proved that voluntary immunizations are ineffective. If voluntary immunizations prove to be effective, then the social contract would only justify VOLUNTARY immunizations.

My opponent never proved they w
Debate Round No. 2


TheOrangeOfYonatan forfeited this round.


My opponents forfeit is clear indignation of his non interest in this round therefore I urge a PRO ballot.

Please extend all my arguments and case across the flow because they were not attacked.

Thank you for the round, I was quite interesting.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Nails 8 years ago
I would have voted PRO even without the forfeit based on the actual case, but you completely misused the 'a priori' and theory arguments.

A Priori
1. You hid it under 'definitions' in a way that made it look like just another definition.
2. You have to explain why it comes 'pre-standards' in the round, not just label it as such.
3. The argument is not in any way 'a priori.' It requires that you win (A) that compulsory immunization is a necessary response to public health concerns; and (B) that the government is justified in violating rights to protect society.

Theory arguments have 4 parts: interpretation, violation, standards, and voters.
You've got the interp and violation in some form in the first 2 sentences. There's a voter, even though I don't believe it (there are far stupider positions than CON's in many debates on this site.) The one thing you're missing is the standards. You have to justify a reason why the debate is more fair if you accept your interpretation of 'immunization' than your opponent's, ex. it destroys predictability, it gives the neg unfair ground, etc. You can't just say 'my interp is right, that makes hers unfair.'

P.S. The rest of the case was really good.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:07 
Vote Placed by Cherymenthol 8 years ago
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:07