The Instigator
goldstandardanarchist
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
gamingmaster42
Pro (for)
Winning
43 Points

Public Health Concerns Justify Compulsory Immunization

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 9 votes the winner is...
gamingmaster42
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,747 times Debate No: 10130
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (9)

 

goldstandardanarchist

Con

LD format but if you are a national circuit debater, progressive formats are fine. There will be no speech here. Voters, please leave RFD's in comments.
gamingmaster42

Pro

Thank you for starting this debate.
I'm going to start off by saying that this is the first time running this case, so if I can improve my case, please tell me.
Good luck to my opponent!

I affirm the resolution "Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization."

.:|Definitions|:.
public health- the art and science dealing with the protection and improvement of community health by organized community effort and including preventive medicine and sanitary and social science;
concern- an uneasy state of blended interest, uncertainty, and apprehension;
justify- to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable;
compulsory- obligatory; required;
immunization- the process by which an individual's immune system becomes fortified against an agent
(For the purposes of this debate, the terms immunization and vaccination are synonymous).

.:|Value|:.
LIFE, "the general or universal condition of human existence."

.:|Value criterion|:.
UTILITARIANISM, "the greatest good for the greatest number of people".

.:|Link|:.
Utilitarianism leads to life because maintaining the greatest good for the greatest number of people in terms of public health means to keep them alive. One of the best ways to keep people alive is by acquiring immunizations, which should become compulsory when public health concerns arise. When people become vaccinated they will stay alive, and under compulsory vaccinations this will achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

I offer two main contentions in this debate.

.:|First Contention|:.
My first contention is that vaccinations help save lives.

Subpoint A: History tells us that mass vaccinations have led to a decrease in the cases of the disease it was intended to prevent. An example is the Haemophilius Influenzae Type B (HiB). With widespread use of HiB conjugate vaccines beginning in 1990, the incidence of reported HiB invasive disease among children aged <5 years declined from an estimated 100 per 100,000 in the pre-vaccine era to a record low of 0.3 in 1996 [1]. This is more than a 300% decrease in the number of cases. Without vaccinations, these children would have died preventable deaths. Compulsory vaccinations, however, would require that in a case of disease such as HiB, all children would be required to be immunized, and thus would live their lives without the threat of that disease.

Subpoint B: Lack of complete vaccine coverage increases the risk of disease for the entire population, including those who have been vaccinated, which leads to a loss of life and utilitarianism. One study found that doubling the number of unvaccinated individuals would increase the risk of measles in vaccinated children anywhere from 5–30%.[2] A second study provided evidence that the risk of measles and pertussis increased in vaccinated children proportionally to the number of unvaccinated individuals among them, again highlighting the evident efficacy of widespread vaccine coverage for public health.[3]. This means that a lack of vaccination results in a loss of life because those who did not get vaccinated are capable of being hosts of the disease and can transmit it to other beings. This is the opposite of my value; thus, in order to prevent a loss of life, compulsory vaccinations are necessary in times of public health concerns.

Subpoint C: In several countries, reductions in the use of some vaccines were followed by increases in the diseases' morbidity and mortality. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, continued high levels of vaccine coverage are necessary to prevent resurgence of diseases which have been nearly eliminated. In Stockholm, Sweden, smallpox was present between 1873 and 1874. An anti-vaccination campaign motivated by religious objections, by concerns about effectiveness, and by concerns about individual rights, led to the vaccination rate in Stockholm dropping to just over 40%, compared to about 90% elsewhere in Sweden. A major smallpox epidemic then started in 1873. It led to a rise in vaccine uptake and an end of the epidemic. [4] This shows that vaccines have an inverse relation with deaths: as the number of vaccines go up, the number of deaths goes down, promoting my value and value criterion.

.:|Second Contention|:.
My second contention it is cheaper to get vaccinated than to get the treatment for a disease, while still promoting life, and eventually promoting utilitarianism by saving money and using it towards different items, benefiting the economy.

Subpoint A: The cost of a vaccine is far less than that of the treatment for a disease that could have been prevented by the vaccine. For example, the polio vaccine costs $28.50 [5]. However, treatment for polio costs $500 per day, for fourteen days, totaling to a whopping $7000 [6]. Failure to get the vaccine for polio results in a waste of money in the treatment for polio. Why decline a vaccination when, in the possibility of one's contraction of a disease, you waste money in paying for the treatment, when in the end, once you take either option, you are remedied from the disease.

Subpoint B: Commonly-used vaccines are a cost-effective and preventive way of promoting health, compared to the treatment of acute or chronic disease. In the U.S. during the year 2001, routine childhood immunizations against seven diseases were estimated to save over $40 billion per birth-year cohort in overall social costs including $10 billion in direct health costs, and the societal benefit-cost ratio for these vaccinations was estimated to be 16.5 [7].

I now stand ready for cross-examination.

.:|Sources|:.
[1] www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5111a4.htm: CDC: MMWR (Center for Disease Control, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report) March 22, 2002
[2] jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/282/1/47: The Journal of the American Medical Association, July 7, 1999
[3] jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/284/24/3145: The Journal of the American Medical Association, December 27, 2000
[4] jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/282/1/47: The Journal of the American Medical Association, July 7, 1999
[5] www.uaa.alaska.edu/studenthealth/immunizations.cfm: University of Alaska Anchorage, September 22, 2009
[6] http://www.polionet.org...: Future Unlimited, Inc. August 30, 2004
[7] http://archpedi.ama-assn.org...: Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, December 2005
Debate Round No. 1
goldstandardanarchist

Con

WE HAVE OVERSHOT OUR CARRYING CAPACITY. WE ARE ON THE BRINK OF EXTINCTION IF WE DON'T ACT SOON.
Zerker 2008 [Sally F., professor emeritus and senior scholar at York University, National Post, "Malthus was right", 7/11/08

Malthus saw the 18th-century phenomenon of continuous population increase as a threat to human civilization. Left unchecked, be believed, populations would double themselves every 25 years, a growth rate that would quickly outstrip the available food supply. This Malthusian idea soon took on the mantra of certainty: Unlimited population growth could only end in disastrous famines and starvation.

In recent months, food prices have risen dramatically and suddenly. In the past year, the price of wheat is up 120%. The cost of cooking oil, rice and other staples have doubled since January. For the 1.5-billion people who live on less than $2 a day, food typically accounts for almost all of their meager budget. Soaring food prices represent a calamity for these people, which explains
At current inflated prices, we can expect outright starvation in the poorer regions of the world why food riots have broken out across the globe.

That global social division between rich and poor is undergoing a shift, and it is one that has the potential for unleashing a massive humanitarian crisis. Malthus may yet be vindicated.

DISEASE PLAYS A MAJOR ROLE IN CHECKING POPULATION EXPANSION. MODERN MEDICINE HAS DESTROYED THIS NATURAL CHECK
Hardin 1991 [Garret, PROFESSOR EMERITUS HUMAN ECOLOGY AT UCSB,"From Shortage to Longage: Forty Years in the Population Vineyards"

The potential of exponential growth in the human population is a standing threat of human welfare. Until very recently, however, this threat was mitigated by the sporadic eruption of such crowd-diseases as dysentery, cholera and plague which, at their worst, could wipe out a quarter to a half of a population in a year or two. Crowd-diseases were the most important negative feedbacks of the Malthusian demostat.

In the past two centuries much effort has been expended looking for acceptable internal population controls-so far without much success. This daunting problem remains to be solved.

OVERPOPULATION LEADS TO GENOCIDAL WARS

Kodel 2004 [Gary S., M.D., family physician in private practice in Los Angeles, volunteer for The Children's Nature Institute, 2004, World Future Society, Global Strategies Forum "Why Are We So Vulnerable?"

Overpopulation caused crowded living conditions with enhanced competition for scarce resources, which contributed to the development of a style of war unique to civilization: the destruction of human cultures causing reductions in human diversity - genocide - rendering humanity vulnerable to changes leading to human extinction.

ABSOLUTE REVERENCE FOR HUMAN LIFE ULTIMATELY LEADS TO ITS DESTRUCTION. WE NEED TO PRESERVE CARRYING CAPACITY.

Hardin 1991 [Garret, PROFESSOR EMERITUS HUMAN ECOLOGY AT UCSB, "From Shortage to Longage: Forty"

When a country is overpopulated-when its population is greater than the carrying capacity of its land, whatever standard of living is used in reaching a judgementsaving lives today by direct gifts of food ensures that more lives will be lost tomorrow. The time-blind ideal, "Human life is sacred," is counterproductive.

"'Sacred," like all old words, has many meanings and connotations. What we are concerned with here is its related meaning of sacrosanct or inviolable. When disputants say that human life is sacred they clearly mean that we should preserve every human being now living regardless of the cost, either now or in the future. When an ecological moralist proposes an Eleventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not transgress the carrying capacity," he is trying to improve the quality of life over a long period of time.

Go to the AC.

At this point in the debate, I'm outweighing him on magnitude through my impact of genocide and extinction, and timeframe and probability by the impacts already happening. You're not going to be looking at his impacts in the round but rather you're looking at mine because mine are ultimately outweigh his.

His standards don't matter. There are many ways of proving this resolution true or false and one way cannot simply be the best way.

Contention one: Cross apply the case and turn his impact.

Contention two: There's no offense coming out of this contention after contention one has been turned.
gamingmaster42

Pro

.:|Opponent Case|:.

First I point out that he has no value or criterion, but I will speak more of that below.

His C1 of overshooting the carrying capacity is supported by his statistics on food price increases. However I see no link between this contention and the resolution. What does food costs have to do with immunizations? Since my opponent fails to link the two, I must conclude that this contention is irrelevant.

His C2 of disease playing a major role in checking population extension is turned by the fact that not only has modern medicine led to an increase of population but also the factors listed here http://wiki.answers.com... . Also I must add that modern medicine clearly does not destroy this natural check. Without modern medicine, research in germs and bacteria would not have been conducted. What would be the point? However, modern medicine has led to the conclusion that methods of hand-washing and hand-sanitizing are the most effective ways to keep oneself safe and alive. Overpopulation is not linked to modern medicine.

His C3 of overpopulation leading to genocidal wars has no relevancy to this debate. We are debating if compulsory immunizations should be enacted in cases of public health concerns. Nevertheless, note that his C2 and C3 are contradictory: one argues that overpopulation is because of modern medicine, yet another says that overpopulation leads to genocidal wars which renders "humanity vulnerable to changes leading to human extinction".

His C4 of preserving the carrying capacity I don't understand. I never stated that "Human life is sacred" and this contention has no relevancy.

.:|My Case|:.
Actually, my standards do matter. And since my opponent didn't provide a value, then my shall be the accepted value and value criterion for this debate.

Also, since his refutations against my case were his case, and I just dismantled his case, my entire case can be extended.

Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 2
goldstandardanarchist

Con

AC

First off, my points don't have numbers. They aren't necessarily contentions.

Food prices indicate that Malthus' theory of overpopulation is being realized right now. The impacts of overpopulation are happening right now and the decrease in the ready supply of food is the biggest indicator. This is the first place you're going to be voting negative because I have proven that there is a serious issue of overpopulation.

The second card was talking about how there is no check on population growth anymore. Insofar as this is true, we need some sort of check. The usage of modern medicine declining will bring back the necessary natural diseases to obtain this check. I would also say that hand washing and hand sanitizing are not forms of medicine.

The third card is the overall impact of overpopulation. Insofar as he makes worse the problem of overpopulation, he is leading to the genocidal impacts proscribed in the NC. This is the second place you vote on the negative because he never makes a response as to why overpopulation is good. Or if he thinks that it is bad, he never makes a sufficient advocacy of solving overpopulation which means in the end, he is advocating genocide. He simply states that it is irrelevant but I have already stated through my impact calculus analysis in the 1NC that the genocide impacts outweigh him and that you're going to look toward my impacts in the round. This goes cold conceded so extend the analysis across. Remember that in LD debate once something is dropped then it is accepted as truth. He has virtually no way to win if his impacts are being outweighed.

The fourth card states that carrying capacity must be maintained to stave off extinction. Since he makes no response to this card, extend it. This means that a vote for the affirmative is a vote for extinction. This is going to make it much harder for you to weigh his own impacts about preserving life when he has conceded he is advocating extinction. Plus he did state that his so-called value was life with "I never stated that "Human life is sacred" and this contention has no relevancy."

At this point, you can turn the entire AC and see that the amounts of offense coming out of both cases are all clearly pointing to the negative. Remember that he cannot make any new points in his last speech.

Look, there's just too many concessions and dropped impacts for him to win. The impact to the NC is ultimately extinction and he makes no arguments on any of the links. This debate is over.
gamingmaster42

Pro

.:|Opponent Case|:.
Sorry for numbering them. I thought it would be easier to argue them that way, but I can do without them.

His argument about overpopulation fails because there will always be disease, and not necessarily all these disease will have vaccinations, but still might kill people (AIDS, cancer). So vaccinations will simply continue humanity as we know it as opposed to preventable diseases from being among us.

His argument about how modern medicine declining bringing back the check on population growth is preposterous. I urge voters to think: how can we live without medicine?!? My opponent is basically stating that we should not have modern medicine which would lead to daily problems. Some people have to take aspirin, insulin injections, multivitamins daily: all these are forms of modern medicine; is my opponent saying that we should take these away from thee peopel and let them die? My opponent himself stated that we need to bring some check, or the natural diseases. My opponent wants people to die: how can this be acceptable, how can you vote for someone who wants to kill people?

His argument about how I fail to say overpopulation is good. But why should I? Vaccinations would simply preserve human lives. Overpopulation would not occur, in fact diseases that can be vaccinated against are not always life threatening (flu). My opponent also states that I just said it was irrelevant but I pointed out a contradiction between this and his previous argument which he didn't respond to. So you can extend my argument.

His argument about how voting for the affirmative is to vote for extinction, but you can cross-apply my argument from his second point.

Also I would like to point out how my opponent never states anything specifically against my case he simply states "turn the entire AC". So I cannot go back and refute his points against my case as I already have done this. He basically has dropped my ENTIRE CASE: thus extend it.

Vote PRO.

Thank you to my opponent for this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Metz 6 years ago
Metz
Oh I fogot
Anthro K on Neg too.
Posted by oceanix 6 years ago
oceanix
Someone tried to run an animal saving program on the Aff, but stated that the purpose was to prevent overpopulation. I won.
Posted by goldstandardanarchist 6 years ago
goldstandardanarchist
haha

AFF
AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa
children
farm animals case that never got run.

NEG
Neoliberal K
Incentives CP
Supervirus DA
Posted by oceanix 6 years ago
oceanix
Where I live it's kind of dicouraged to do anything non-traditional. It sucks.
Posted by Metz 6 years ago
Metz
I agree.
For this topic I ran:
AFF:
Fairness AC
HCW AC
Travel AC

NEG:
Cap K
Tacit consent CP
Agency NC
Malthus DA
Bipower K

Mix it up people!
Posted by guns 6 years ago
guns
i know my comment had almost nothing to do with this debate but just every one on this topic on this site is terrible and it hurts me inside
Posted by guns 6 years ago
guns
yea this was terrible, can someone just run a descent K for the love of got, autonomy and deon are so easy to take out, like why debate if youre going to say something is unjust, WHAT IS JUSTICE? "something that is just" (every kid dumb enough to run justice or deon or auto). RUN. A. CRITIQUE. and do it correctly then parents will understand and a neg will pick up a round
Posted by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
Hey CON I have a case similar to this, almost same actually, I only added more analytical evidence.
Posted by oceanix 7 years ago
oceanix
Sad. The non-traditional case seems to have caused, in my opinion, the true winner to show a loss.
Posted by oceanix 7 years ago
oceanix
I think they're resisting the Neg's non-traditional case.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Nuke 7 years ago
Nuke
goldstandardanarchistgamingmaster42Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Vote Placed by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
goldstandardanarchistgamingmaster42Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Cyntage 7 years ago
Cyntage
goldstandardanarchistgamingmaster42Tied
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 
Vote Placed by StephenAlsop 7 years ago
StephenAlsop
goldstandardanarchistgamingmaster42Tied
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 
Vote Placed by goldstandardanarchist 7 years ago
goldstandardanarchist
goldstandardanarchistgamingmaster42Tied
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 
Vote Placed by ciphermind 7 years ago
ciphermind
goldstandardanarchistgamingmaster42Tied
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 
Vote Placed by oceanix 7 years ago
oceanix
goldstandardanarchistgamingmaster42Tied
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 
Vote Placed by bchblondie 7 years ago
bchblondie
goldstandardanarchistgamingmaster42Tied
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 
Vote Placed by gamingmaster42 7 years ago
gamingmaster42
goldstandardanarchistgamingmaster42Tied
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