The Instigator
noob12345
Con (against)
Losing
20 Points
The Contender
Nails
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

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 7 votes the winner is...
Nails
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,549 times Debate No: 9879
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (57)
Votes (7)

 

noob12345

Con

Please accept LD format.
Round 1 (you are affirming) shall be 1AC
Round 2 is the 1NC followed by 1AR
Round 3 is 2NR followed by 2AR
Round 4 is there in case someone's stupid and doesn't post their 1AC in round 1

Post your 1AC and I'll debate.
Nails

Pro

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

To clarify, I tender the following definitions and observations.

Public health concerns: "matters relating to the overall health of a population in a general sense." (Interviews with public health professors and professionals, Yale School of Public Health, Yale University, 5-10 October 2009.)

Justify: to show to be just, right, or reasonable Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Compulsory: Mandatory Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Immunization: The process of inducing immunity through inoculation or vaccination. Web-MD

Observation One: My advocacy
The resolution does not specify an actor. It doesn't say who decides when immunization is mandatory. Rather than giving this power to individual, potentially corrupt, governments, I advocate that the decision should come down to the World Health Organization as it is the current leading entity in the global field of vaccination.

Observation Two: Compulsory does not mean complete.
Compulsory immunization does not necessarily mean that 100% of people will be vaccinated. It does not mean that exceptions cannot be made for those whose allergies or medical conditions would jeopardize their safety if they were vaccinated. Medical professionals still have the ability to withhold immunization in cases where it would do more harm than good, however, individuals can no longer exempt, i.e. the immunizations are still compulsory because they are mandatory.

===

The Value is morality, or the judgment of right and wrong, because the term 'justify' asks us the question of right and wrong.

The Criterion is reduction of human suffering. This is the standard for 3 reasons.

(1) One, this is implicit in the resolution. The goal of maintaining public health is to reduce human suffering. The purpose of immunization is to prevent disease, because disease causes suffering. Thus, both the terms 'public health concerns' and 'compulsory immunization' dictate that we are debating reduction of suffering.

(2) Two, morality and increasing suffering are mutually exclusive. One can never simultaneously make both the claims that they are acting morally and they are allowing humans to suffer.

(3) Three, Ends-based evaluation is the only accurate assessment of morality, because it is the only way to give humans equal protection of rights. There is no morally relevant distinction between persons because everyone is equally human, and thus equally deserving of protection.

Martha Nussbaum contends:
The accident of where one is born is just that, an accident. Recognizing this, we should not allow differences of nationality or class or even gender to erect barriers between us and our fellow human beings. We should recognize humanity wherever it occurs and give all equal respect. We should give our first allegiance to no mere form of government, no temporal power, but to the moral community made up by the humanity of all human beings. One should always behave so as to treat with equal respect the dignity of reason and moral choice in every human being.
Martha Nussbaum [Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism,The Boston Review 1994 http://www.soci.niu.edu...]

Thus, the affirmative's burden is to prove that affirming the resolution would lead to less human suffering than negating. In so far as I meet this burden, I win the round.

===

Contention One: Compulsory immunization maintains the herd immunity threshold.

According to the CDC, the herd immunity threshold, or HIT, is the proportion of individuals in the population above which a disease may no longer persist, and so long as we maintain an immunization rate above the HIT for a particular disease, it becomes virtually impossible for that disease to spread.

The CDC has accurately determined the HIT for almost all of the most dangerous diseases. It varies by disease based on the virulence of that particular disease, as well as the effectiveness of the vaccine. For example, the herd immunity threshold is 94% immunization for Measles and Pertussis, 86% for Polio, and 85% for Diphtheria and Smallpox.

The Michigan Law Review argues:
In the past decade, personal belief exemptions have increased [by 200%] nationally, This trend is troubling—even a small increase in the use of exemptions translates to a higher percentage of unvaccinated individuals, which threatens "herd immunity." Consequently, recent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease throughout the country have been directly attributed to the use of personal belief exemptions. For example, according to the CDC, cases of measles have reached a ten-year high; with over half of the cases involving children whose parents refused to immunize their children. There is a strong public health argument in favor of strengthening existing measures to obtain the highest vaccination coverage rates to ensure community protection.
Alexandra M. Stewart, Commentary, Challenging Personal Belief Immunization Exceptions: Considering Legal Responses, 107 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 105 (2009), http://www.michiganlawreview.org....

As long as we maintain appropriate levels of immunization, outbreaks of dangerous disease do not spread, because they are confined by the natural boundaries that heard immunity sets. When levels of immunization dip below the herd immunity threshold, there is no longer sufficient protection to stop the disease from spreading; this can turn minor outbreaks in small communities into cross-country pandemics.

===

Contention Two: Voluntary immunization ostracizes the poor.

Harvard Professor and Chairman of the Department of Global Health and Population, David Bloom, explains:
"The World Health Organization, for example, has estimated that polio eradication will save governments $1.5 billion per year in vaccine, treatment, and rehabilitation costs. Estimates are that the $100 million invested in eradicating [smallpox] in the ten years after 1967 "saved the world about $1.35 billion a year". And the US Institute of Medicine reports that for every dollar spent on the MMR vaccine, $21 is saved."
Bloom, David (2004): "Eradication versus control: the economics of global infectious disease policies", Bulletin of the World Health Organization, September 2004; 82: 683–8.

However, despite the clear economic benefit, these vaccines are not being implemented in the indigent, third world countries that need them most, because the citizens are too poor to afford the vaccinations themselves. This means that the governments and pharmaceutical companies foot the bill.

Bloom continues:
The profitability deficit for developing-world vaccines is huge. The developing-world vaccine market is estimated at just 10-15 per cent of the world total. The total volume of all vaccine doses acquired by UNICEF for distribution in the developing world is 100 times greater than the number of doses delivered in the US, but brings in less than half the revenue.
Governments in poor countries are more concerned with cost. Products have therefore begun to diverge, even when they tackle the same illness, and the new vaccines that respond to developed-world demands are often too expensive for poor countries…
Pharmaceutical companies have found it difficult to persuade shareholders of the value of continuing to develop vaccines for poor countries. The pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, for example, reported in 2001 that it was planning to allocate its freeze-drying capacity to the influenzae B vaccine rather than the less profitable meningitis A/C vaccine. Moreover, doses of the DTwP vaccine offered to UNICEF declined from 600 million in 1998 to 150 million two years later.

In the Status quo, the poorest, most disease-ridden countries are being given the least protection. This only exacerbates the suffering in those who are already suffering most.

===
Debate Round No. 1
noob12345

Con

Its going to be K, theory, topicality, 1AC

---

K SHELL

Text - Compulsory immunization leads to an increase in biopower which is unjust

A) Link
FORCING PEOPLE TO COMPULSORILY VACCINATE AND THEREFORE MANDATORILY RECEIVE SOME LEVEL OF HEALTHCARE LEADS TO INCREASED BIOPOWER
Chambon 1999 (Adrienne, director of Ph. D program at U Toronto, Ph. D in Social Work from U Chicago, Columbia University Press New York , Reading Foucault for Social Work, "Foucault's Approach," p. 66-7)

In The Birth of the Clinic (1975) Foucault argued that the development of medicine did not limit itself to knowledge of illness and disease but extended its influence to ordinary behaviors, creating knowledge about the body and health and defining normality: Medicine must no longer be confined to a body of techniques for curing ills and of the knowledge that they require; it will also embrace a knowledge of healthy man, that is, a study of non-sick man and a definition of the model man. In the ordering of human existence it assumes a normative posture, which authorizes it not only to distribute advice as to healthy life, but also to dictate the standards for physical and moral relations of the individual and of the society in which he lives. (4) Here Foucault is questioning the mechanisms and the effects of "negative" and "positive" shaping (see chap. 7). On that basis we can view the rapid expansion of health promotion models (Lupton 1995), and even contemporary ethics, as current attempts to extend a normalizing influence over individuals and populations. >

B) Impact
INCREASED BIOPOWER LEADS TO INCREASED WARS AND GENOCIDES.
Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. New York: Vintage, 1990
Wars are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign who must be defended; they are waged on the behalf of the ontological existence of everyone; entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of life necessity: massacres have become vital. It is as managers of life and survival, of bodies and the race, that so many regimes have been able to wage so many wars, causing so many men to be killed. And thorugh a turn that closes the circle, as the technology of wars has caused them to tend increasingly toward all-out destruction, the decision that initiates them and the one that terminates them are in fact increasingly informed by the naked question of survival. The atomic situation is now at the end point of this process: the power to expose a whole population to death is the underside of the power to guarantee an individual's continued existence.

C) Alternative
THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO RETRACE OUR WAYS OF KNOWING BY GENEALOGY.
CHAMBON '99 [FROM ABOVE]
A genealogical approach to social work is an invitation to retrace specific ways of doing and knowing; to illuminate how operating assumptions have clustered together and changed over time; and to identify the events and circumstances that acted as turning points in our profession. At a time when "case management" is redefining the meaning of a "case," a genealogical inquiry requires that we set aside what we hold to be true about the nature of "the social work case" and that we retrace the history of its development and usage-that we examine the various forms the notion of case took over time, the different types of expertise it generated, and the diversity of responses. Adopting a genealogical perspective is to ask ourselves how we have come to define a case the way we do now and what that presupposes. Other practices can equally be examined, such as the "problem-solving" rationality, or the ways in which we understand and intervene in the family.

--

THEORY

A) Interpretation - Debate should not have ground skew; ground skew allows one debater to structurally be able to win easier without necessarily being the better debater and is therefore unfair. Reciprocal burdens are also key to fairness because it alters the structure upon with the debate is premised upon.
B) Violation - Observation 2 on the 1AC allows the affirmative debater to advocate any amount of the population being immunized, meaning that the resolution
a) becomes nonsensical because the affirmative ground could also be 0% of the population being compulsorily immunized which would be the only negative ground thereby positing that affirming and negating are equivalent whereas two contradictory actions cannot
b) structurally skews the debate because it does not allow the negative debater to i) make solvency disads ii) make vaccine disads specific to certain groups iii) make arguments regarding exemptions for certain groups of people

C) Standards
The standard are reciprocity and ground skew. The violations above both link back into ground skew and reciprocity because it holds me to a higher standard and steals negative ground.
D) Voter
The voter is fairness. Fairness is key because it allows debate to be structurally and substantively smooth; moreover, debate is structured like a game as there are strategic advantages for certain arguments to be made. Also, people won't play an unfair game so to maintain debate as a practice, debate needs to be fair. Fairness leads to education because education is the favorable outcome of debate and insofar as people won't play this game, debate isn't educational either meaning that fairness is a prerequisite for education. This means that you will reject the affirmative debater because we don't know what would have happened if this debate were not skewed as he has skewed this debate to favor him.

--
TOPICALITY
A) Interpretation - Justify is defined by OED as to show to be just
B) Violation - This places an intrinsic burden on the affirmative to show the policy action in question just, not more just or less just. The 2nd contention deals with voluntary immunization which is A) not proving the truth value and B) irrelevant to the context of this debate since I'm not running that counterplan.
The 1st contention deals with saving lives but there are other negative rights too such as that of autonomy. Just because have life doesn't necessarily guarantee we are autonomous as we can all be in cages and have life but not autonomy.
C) Standards - my interpretation is the same as my opponents; I show that my opponent doesn't meet his own interpretation
D) Voters - the purpose of debate is for the affirmative to prove the resolution true; insofar as my opponent doesn't meet this implicit burden it becomes impossible to affirm.
---

1AC

Go to the value stuff - the value/standard debate doesn't matter insofar as I'm proving that the resolution is not true; we can have multiple methods of achieving the same goal goal - to prove or disprove the truth value of the resolution. 2nd, I link because genocide leads to suffering.
Go to O1 - there is no solvency mechanism for the WHO; its just a claim.
Go to O2 - cross apply theory here.
C2 is irrelevant - not an independent reason to affirm as there are a) other alternatives besides voluntary like the genealogy alt I'm giving and b) I'm not advocating voluntary.

C1:
A) Cross apply the T violation here; we can have people living and still have them suffering, meaning this is insufficient to affirm.
B) This is nonunique; genealogy would lead us to finding the issues regarding compulsory and biopower and would eventually fix it. This means that I'm also solving for these problems.
C) Certain minorities do not have access to diseases in the status quo, meaning herd immunity may not be achieved. Hospital closures result in lost access.
CLARK 05 [Hospital Flight From Minority Communities: How Our Existing Civil Rights Framework Fosters Racial Inequality In Healthcare," DePaul Journal of Health Care Law]
These closures have primarily occurred in urban areas with the greatest need and least resources. Remaining hospitals willing to care for minorities or the poor are either located far enough away that timely
Nails

Pro

===
Kritik
===

A) Link
THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION WON'T OBTAIN BIOPOWER

"Biopower was a term originally coined by French philosopher Michel Foucault to refer to the practice of modern states and their regulation of their subjects..." [1]

Read my observation one. I am advocating that we keep the power out of the hands of 'modern states' so that they can't 'regulate their subjects.'

The World Health Organization
1. Doesn't have subjects.
2. Doesn't have any of the other regulatory powers of a 'modern state' that are necessary for power.
3. Has no legitimate property or political interests in waging war, gaining political power, etc.

This means you can ignore the kritik right here because affirming the resolution WON'T lead to biopower, even if it is bad, but

B) Impact

1. "Wars are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign who must be defended; they are waged on the behalf of the ontological existence of everyone."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like a good thing. Is it better to fight because one 'sovereign' says so, or because it is to the benefit of society? It seems to me that accepting this mind set would lead to less arbitrary conflict, not more.

2. Biopower causes war

On the contrary, however, biopower has been increasing. In ye ole era, the government simply collected taxes from its people, and in return laid down laws and maintained a military. There was little to no 'biopower.' However, in modern times we have seen a drastic increase in Foucault's 'regulation of subjects.' We have required insurance, fingerprinting, social security, passports, public education, etc. In the last few centuries, the government has become much more biopolitical.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we have become less belligerent throughout history, not more. Before recently, territories and boundary lines were always changing. People were always fighting. The territories that survived were the ones that could fight, Sparta, Rome, the Mongols. Only in the last few centuries have we had peaceful relations and a decrease in conflict.

It seems to me that this denies Foucault's claim with certainty.

Only recently has biopower skyrocketed.
Only recently has the rate of conflict dropped.

It seems that, if anything, one could conclude that biopower has stopped war, not created it! I think my opponent is going to need more than the ravings of a paranoid fanatic of a philosopher to suggest that 'massacres will become vital' and 'entire nations will be mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter' simply from compulsory immunization.

C) Alternative

This is all Greek to me. My opponent has opted out of posting anything informative as to how we solve the problem of biopower and instead giving me this asinine gibberish to attack. I can't make heads or tails of it, so I'll expect him to clarify what in blue blazes Chambon is rambling about, and in his own words.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

=====
Theory
=====

This is a pointless waste of space. I am not in any way being 'abusive' to my opponent. Let's look at his so called 'violation.'

A) We are not debating 'X amount of people should be immunized' or 'Y people should be exempt;' this is NOT policy debate. The very first sentence of my opponent's 1st post says "please accept LD format." This means we are not debating a specific policy of 'immunize X unwilling people' but a question of philosophy of 'unwilling people can be immunized.'

It is impossible for the affirmative's claim "public health concerns justify compulsory immunization" and the negative's claim "public health concerns do not justify compulsory immunization" to both be true, regardless of whether 0, or 1, or 1 billion people are being immunized.

B)
i) Solvency
He made a solvency disad of biopower. I can think of others that could be made as well. This is obviously untrue.

ii) Vaccine specific disads
I'm not advocating a specific vaccines, but the belief that vaccination can be compelled when public health concern warrants. It isn't within NEG ground to attack specific vaccines, e.g. "Influenza B vaccine causes autism so vaccines are bad!"

iii) Person specific disads
All I've precluded him from attacking is disadvantages of "some people are allergic; they will be hurt." Again, people can not exempt on religious/philosophical/personal beliefs in a world post-affirmation. He could have made disads there, but he hasn't.

======
Topicality
======

Again, obviously not a violation. Just read the AC and tell me that it doesn't affirm the resolution. I'll address these attacks anyway.

"an intrinsic burden on the affirmative to show the policy action in question just"
This isn't policy debate. I'm only advocating a philosophy.

C2
Apparently my opponent thinks that vaccinations shouldn't exist at all, even voluntary ones! I see no warrant for why that would be a good idea, but my 2nd Contention still applies which is: compulsory immunizations are the only way to stop the poor from suffering. This means that:
A) I do prove the truth value of the resolution via my criterion by reducing suffering.
B) this is entirely relevant because whatever "counterplan" he thinks he's advocating, he has given no reason to believe it is going to stop the rampant disease in poor countries.

C1
There's no violation here.
Compulsory immunization -> Herd Immunity -> reduction of suffering -> Resolution affirmed
There is no other way to solve the problem of 'herd immunity' without providing vaccination.

=====
My Case
=====

Observation One

"there is no solvency mechanism"

I am advocating a philosophy that compulsory immunizations are justified.

---

Observation Two

I already addressed his "theory."

---

Contention Two

He says this doesn't work because there are other solutions besides immunization. I'd certainly like to here them!

Problem: developing-world countries are not adequately protected from disease.
I don't see how there is any real solution besides vaccination, including his obscure 'genealogy' alt.

He already said he's not advocating voluntary immunization. I would say that this just seems to dig him further into the problem, because he isn't providing protection at all! This is certainly a unique benefit to affirming.

---

Contention One

A) The affirmative's burden is not to relieve all suffering, just moreso than negating. I already established this.
B) There is no way to immunize people, by definition, without immunization. It's impossible for him to 'solve' this.
C) 100% immunization rates aren't required for herd immunity. If it's a severe problem we simply open hospitals.

======
Summary
======

My opponent has argued that compulsory immunizations would cause biopower.
a) there is no way the WHO could gain sufficient 'biopower' to do anything. It isn't a political entity.
b) Biopower isn't necessarily bad. It forces governments to fight for the greater good, according to his quotation.
c) claims that biopower leads to these huge wars and genocides have been empirically denied.

He says that I'm being abusive. He bases this on the claim that 0% of the population might be immunized. We are debating a philosophy, which doesn't change regardless of the amount of people vaccinated, so he doesn't lose ground.

He claims that I'm being off topic. I outlined a framework (the only one in the round) that says I win if I show that compulsory immunization reduces suffering. Both contentions give a unique benefit to immunization in reducing suffering. If we wanted to debate the framework, he should have established his own.

His attacks on my case ignore the burden, which is to prove that affirming reduces suffering. He's given no reason to believe that immunization won't lead to better herd immunity or protection of the poor.

I'm meeting all of his a priori standards and the framework. Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 2
noob12345

Con

Start at O1; his argument is 100% nonresponsive to my argument. Just because you are advocating someting doesn't necessarily mean you can assume the WHO as your solvency mechanism. Extend the argument about how there is no solvency as o why the WHO would be able to pass such jurisdiction nor be able to enforce compulsory vaccination.
Off the K, the only response to subpoint A is premised upon O1 so it goes away. Reg the turn, even if the WHO didn't have subjects and the stuff under the 2 and 3 on it, assuming solvency (which he can't under the extension under O1), the WHO would need some international jurisdiction leading to an increase in biopower to that international body with jurisdiction.
Go to the impact.
The first response is nonresponsive; Foucault's argument comes in the line below what my opponent quotes; this doesn't take out the impact.
Off the #2, there is no evidence as to why wars are decreasing whereas I have specific ev as to why wars in the status quo are waged as a result of increased biopower. Foucault also writes about how we had biopower in old days; the method of exercise was sending people to war, gladiator games, bullfights etc. Moreover, extend the logical warrant as to how biopower justifies extermination of races that pose threat to existence which is unjust and leads to genocide.
Go to the alternative.
Off the #1, the alternative is written in the English language.
Extend Chambon which says we should inspect our history and form a "perfect" alternative off of historical trends which solves back the harms of the kritik. One such possibility is informed consent, which has worked and hasn't lead to an increase in biopower because the doctor now controls actions over your life not the state which gets me out of the harms in C2 and all the stuff about voluntary.

Go to theory.
The argument is nonresponsive to my argument. My arg is that by allowing exemptions it allows him to weasel out of counterplans like Amish people meaning that Amish people shouldn't be vaccinated or if I had run a classism case to exclude entire societal groups. Moreover, the policy argument is nonsense; the implication of debating LD format means we have 1 person and the time frames in LD.
Regarding solvency, biopower isn't a solvency disad and he doesn't specify disads I could he made.
Vaccine specific disads are within neg ground. I can argue that X vaccine causes extinction and thus we should negate because the impact outweighs all 1AC terminal impacts on magnitude. He could have weaseled out of this disad by using the exemption argument so I wouldn't have run it so you are definitely voting on potential abuse.
On (iii), I definitely couldn't have - he would have weasled out of this or could have potentially weaseled out of it with the observation which is theoretically illegitimate. Moreover, this would mean it would be strategically bad for me to go for such DAs if he would just weasel out of it meaning you are definitely voting on potential abuse.
Extend the theory shell that he's limiting my ability to make a number of arguments. Him saying that "its not negative ground" is ridiculous because there is no warrant for that argument. This is the first place where you negate prestandard because he is being abusive pre-fiat.
So even if I lose every substantive argument then I still win since we don't know what would have happened if this round weren't abusive - like I would not have gone for this theory shell creating space for me to answer his substantive arguments. Finally, structural abuse comes before substantive abuse since it frames how I answer substance so this theory shell outweighs all post-fiat arguments which are necessarily substantive.

Go to T.
His sole response on T is that "this isn't policy debate" and he is advocating a philosophy. I would argue compulsory vaccination is definitely a policy action meaning that his burden is to prove this action just. Even if you don't buy it, T still applies since the philosophy must be proven just. Extend that for an argument to be proven just, it must be shown to not violate some type of side constraint. Extend that all 1AC links link back to life and do not grant autonomy which is a negative right also. For example, we can have people in cages but alive which is all the 1AC guarantees and is therefore not proving the implicit burden. As a result, the 1AC is not 100% topical meaning that he's not completely affirming. This means that you negate prestandard because he's not giving a complete reason to affirm.

Go to C2. I'm advocating the result of a reexamination of history for a CP that doesn't lead to an increase in biopower while solving back some of the harms. That's my Chambon analysis. Cross apply this from subpoint C of the K shell. One example that I gave which could be a result of genealogy would be informed consent which would solve back the harms. Cross apply this stuff again from the K.
Go to C1. 1) This isn't sufficient to affirm the resolution. It doesn't show why we necessarily grant autonomy and is therefore insufficient to reduce human suffering. Just because there is increased human suffering in the negative world doesn't mean the affirmative world is 100% just a burden he concedes in the AR. He makes a claim to the contrary but there is no warrant. Prefer my warranted reason.
2) I can definitely solve this with informed consent or the result of genealogy.
3) My argument is it isn't happening in the status quo. Insofar as the poor aren't able to get access to necessary vaccines for schools in the status quo there isn't a warrant why it would necessarily be true in the future. Moreover there is no claim for 1AC fiat so his solvency weasel is insufficient.

Go to summary. His only new argument that I didn't cover is that genocides have been empirically denied. This is not true. The genocide in Sudan is happening due to increased biopower. The government has ability to deny people's lives - specifically those of whom Bashir thinks "threaten the state." Even if the legitimacy of that claim is questionable (whether they threaten the state or not), it doesn't matter because Bashir has the power to commit a genocide meaning that there is empirical example why biopower leads to genocide.
Now extend the argument about how we can have multiple frameworks which can affirm or negate so we don't need a specific framework to adjudicate the round. Rather, I show how he is not topical within his own framework and how my K shell means that you negate.
I'm outweighing on three levels.
First on magnitude, since genocide outweighs nonunique AC impacts.
2nd on probability, since we have genocide in the status quo and cross apply the Sudan analysis here meaning that my impacts are more probable since they're happening in the status quo.
3rd on recurrence since my impacts happen continuously, again and again meaning I'm definitely outweighing on his own framework there.
This means the round boils down to four main issues.
First, he mishandles theory - this means you negate a priori because nothing else even matters; we don't know what would have happened had he not been abusive. I would not have gone for theory meaning I could have made more substantive responses on his substantive responses. His structural abuse prevented me from doing so.
Second, he mishandles the T violation. HE IS NOT AFFIRMING THE RESOLUTION. Just because we save lives doesn't guarantee people are necessarily free from suffering. People would suffer in cages but all affirming guarantees is they are alive meaning the entire 1AC is not sufficiently topical. Third, he mishandles the K from which he gets no offense so I don't even need this. Theory and/or T are independently sufficient to negate. I'm impacting in genocide which definitely outweighs his impacts on the three levels specified. Fourth, he's mishandling the defense I'm putting on the AC, specifically solvency about how he poor and minorit
Nails

Pro

Observation One: My argument isn't that the WHO will have 100% power, just that whether or not a particular disease is sufficiently a public health concern to warrant compulsory immunization comes down to the WHO. Perfect solvency isn't necessary. Any country at all willing to abide by the WHO would benefit.

====
Kritik
====

A. The Link

He concedes that WHO doesn't have "subjects and the stuff under the 2 and 3." This means that the WHO doesn't have biopower over anyone, regardless whether or not it can impose jurisdiction.

The World Health Organization can't have biopower if:
i. It has no subjects to control.
ii. It has no ability beyond compulsory immunization to enforce anything.
iii. It has no property or political motivation to 'mobilize armies' or wage war even if it could, which it can't.

This destroys his entire kritik right here, because there is no link between giving the WHO the ability to mandate immunization and any sort of biopower on their part.

--

B. The Impact

"biopower justifies extermination of races that pose threat to existence"

If any one race (or anything else for that matter) did pose a threat to existence, it would make sense to wipe it out. I still fail to see why fighting for the common good of humanity's existence constitutes some grave evil that must be avoided.

--

C. The Alternative

"we should inspect our history and form a "perfect" alternative off of historical trends which solves back the harms of the kritik."

Pretty much all his alternative seems to be saying is "to stop biopower, we look for the best option based on history"
I see no reason why this 'perfect alternative' is anything other than compulsory immunizations.

He claims "informed consent has worked and hasn't lead to an increase in biopower because the doctor now controls actions over your life"

i. This claim has no warrant or justification. I gave about 6k characters of evidence in my original speech saying the compulsory immunization has worked in the past. He gives this unwarranted assertion.
ii. He said in his last speech, anyway, that "I'm not advocating voluntary [immunization.]" He can't shift advocacy.
iii. It seems bad that "the doctor now controls actions over your life" rather than the government. This is a good thing?

Even if we look for the best 'historical' alternative, that still leads us to affirming because we would still choose compulsory immunizations.
i. Historically, compulsory immunization stopped diseases such as small pox and TB.
ii. We haven't seen a historical increase in wars caused by biopower since we started giving shots.
iii. My 2nd contention explains how voluntary immunization programs have exploited the poor.

HIS ALTERNATIVE IS JUST A REAFFIRMATION OF THE RESOLUTION.

=====
Theory
=====

1. Being Amish isn't a medical exemption. I couldn't "weasel out" of anything. All I established is that people who would have severely bad reactions won't qualify for exemptions.

2. It's not policy debate. [1]
Lincoln Douglas is a values debate. I'm not advocating a policy, just a philosophy.

3. "Vaccine specific disads are within neg ground. I can argue that X vaccine causes extinction" justifies arguments like
"Um, nuclear war stops disease, so it counts as a vaccine. Negate because affirming causes mandatory nuclear war!"

It seems common sense, if anything, that we're not going to make vaccines that don't work compulsory. It's unfair for him to say "My opponent has to defend every immunization. Obscure immunization X cures runny nose but causes autism 60% of the time. He has to defend that."

======
Topicality
======

1. If I were here to debate policy actions, I wouldn't have accepted this debate. LD format is values debate. [1]
Find me a source that says "LD is a policy debate." Any source out there will tell you it's a "values debate."

2. "Just because have life doesn't necessarily guarantee we are autonomous" isn't a coherent statement, let alone a side constraint I have to meet. If my opponent had given a legit NC arguing for protection of autonomy, maybe I'd have to cover this. I don't have to 'disprove' a 2 sentence blip argument found under 'topicality'; it hasn't even been proved in the first place!

========
Contention 2
========

1. The fact that he is "re-examining history" doesn't mean he is going to come up with some idea later on in the future that might just work better than compulsory immunizations. I gave multiple reasons to believe already that this "genealogy" thing he is talking about will just lead us to compulsory immunizations anyway.

2. He already said he isn't advocating voluntary immunizations; he can't shift advocacy now. It doesn't matter anyway. In 2 rounds, he has given absolutely no evidence at all to say that it works. Read my C2 that says it doesn't.

3. He doesn't actually argue at all that compulsory immunization doesn't lead to benefits under C2, just that his alternative might "solve some of the harms." This means that this contention is still offense for me.

========
Contention 1 (Why are these out of order? I don't know)
========

1. Sufficient standard

Me: "the affirmative's burden is to prove that affirming the resolution would lead to less human suffering than negating. In so far as I meet this burden, I win the round."

I gave 3 solid reasons to back this up which he hasn't refuted. He then concedes:

"there is increased human suffering in the negative world"

2. He isn't advocating informed consent or giving any reason at all that it would work. I already argued that there is no reason to believe that "the result of genealogy" will be anything other than affirming.

3. "the poor aren't able to get access to necessary vaccines for schools in the status quo"
I haven't heard a reason from CON as to why administering basic vaccines would be challenging at all. It doesn't require hospitalization, or often anything but a vial of vaccine and a sterile needle. Some are even inhalable. [2]

=======
Summary
=======

His theory and topicality arguments are both based on this idea that I have to have some specific "plan" as you would in policy debate. In the 1st sentence of the 1st argument of this debate, my opponent demanded Lincoln Douglas style. I plan to adhere to that, which means arguing a proposition of value, the philosophy that compulsory immunization is justified.

He then runs this K/Kritik/K Shell/whatever-it-is that pretty much says "compulsory immunization will lead to global war and genocide which can only be stopped by thinking about history more!"
1. I gave a very clear argument why the World Health Organization can never maintain "biopower" that he conceded to.
2. His only justification that this war will happen is the counter-empirical ravings of some fanatical philosopher.
3. His alternative isn't an alternative. It will just lead to us affirming the resolution anyway.

So all of his arguments are a wash, what do you have left, as a judge, to evaluate? Well, there's this:

""the affirmative's burden is to prove that affirming the resolution would lead to less human suffering than negating. In so far as I meet this burden, I win the round."
along with the 3 justifications for why that is true, which my opponent fails to refute.

Well affirming reduces suffering:
1. by ensuring herd immunity whenever voluntary immunization is insufficient to do so.
2. by stopping the neglect of those in poverty. CON admits that, at best, he could "solve back some of the harms."

Then there's my opponent's less than convincing argument for the negative:
"there is increased human suffering in the negative world"

I'd say that wraps this debate up rather clearly.

Vote PRO

======
Sources
======

[1] http://www.joyoftournaments.com...
[2] http://www.eurekalert.org...
Debate Round No. 3
noob12345

Con

lalala

way to use over the word limit =P
Nails

Pro

"Round 4 is there in case someone's stupid and doesn't post their 1AC in round 1"
I'm assuming this means we aren't supposed to post arguments in round 4.

To my opponent: This was a great debate.
To the judges: Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 4
57 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by guns 7 years ago
guns
Neg: I agree with whoever said it down there below me, that wasnt even a K, like cool man you wrote like a disad with the biggest loosest links, great, dont call it a K bc people dont run biopower or Foucauldian theory that much. Personally, i run alot of Foucault, I've read his books; i was literally offended to see this. A K functions like this; you take the resolution, you critique (or kritik is you like boys) is so that you say the normal impact on the aff cant be looked to bc the resolution has this problem blah blah blah, then you make unique impact, such as the advancement and further utilization of biopower and/or biopolitical control. More biopower is your initial impact. To make it a K you have to say something - this is what i run - to the effect of the aff within the round furthers biopower over the judge by threatening with "real" impact such as herd or bioterrorsim saying that if you dont affirm people will die, you say this threat is the furthering of biopower over the judge by making them submit to a threat even thought if a bioterror attack were to occur right now it wouldnt be in direct result of this round thus the only real impact the aff has is the advancement of biopolitical control and the neg rejects this by not giving theoretical impact thus yo must negate. THATS A K. dont write disads or skep or threats of war in a biopower case, whatever you want to call the monstrosity, cite Foucault bc he was the only one that knew what he was talking about bc half of the interpretations are just wrong and serisouly dont call it a K ever again please.

Aff: sweet definitions, dont use them unless youre going to critique, bc otherwise they just waste time.
Posted by noob12345 7 years ago
noob12345
Yoguy, do you not realize that (a) people in ld use kritiks different from policy (b) I wrote this K myself (c) you don't need a full 7 minute K in ld (d) I followed it by a few offs so I don't have time to make multiple links (e) the topic links so easily into biopower so I don't need multiple links (f) I can defend a no link debate?
Also wtf, are you some retarded local circuit debater? People run stock issues in ld all the time ;)
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Yeah...that was just an epic fail on my part.

Solvency isn't exclusive to policy. I fix. :)
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Policy *ISN'T* exclusive to policy...

Still a typo
= )

Also, I like the way kritiks are structured (link/impact/alternative) and I think it is a more appropriate format for some of the cases I've debated. I just wish local circuit judges would be more receptive to variety in LD.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
"Policy *ISN'T* exclusive to policy..." Worst typo ever :P
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
All LD rounds require solvency. Solvency is exclusive to policy...only to policy debaters who think themselves more important and high-falootin' than they really are. Solvency is merely the ability of a given side to (shocker) solve a given problem. Yes, in a policy round, this has to do directly with plan text and effectiveness, etc., but that doesn't mean that one can't achieve value or standards solvency. Different forms of debate mold debate jargon to their own format. It's like saying LD doesn't need impact analysis because there's no plan. That's crap, and it makes for crap debate.

Not only that, but K is also not policy exclusive. Any resolution can be fundamentally or philosophically flawed. While I will agree that biopower is not really a K (it doesn't need to be run off-case at all), that doesn't mean that K is automatically policy format.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
I think that was unnecessarily harsh. I don't like debating kritiks, but I don't see a reason why they shouldn't be allowed.

I also think that some LD rounds require solvency. Alot of aff arguments are that CI is just because it saves a lot of people. If they can't show that it actually does save people, they don't have a reason to win. I hate people using cop-outs like "I don't need solvency/advocacy."
Posted by Yoguy-107 7 years ago
Yoguy-107
ok, noob, if you request an LD format DO NOT USE POLICY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i am so tired of seeing people try to run a K without the basic knowledge on how to do so. what you have is a really bad neg case. in a K one must take the philosophical assumption made in the aff case and use that as a determining concept of who should win or lose. a K shell in itself needs to be at least a page and a half long followed by at least three links into the affirmative case. next, SOLVENCY!!!!!!! its a policy term that has no business in an LD round. i think before you decide to run something like this again to use your schools policy files and go to west coast debate and learn how to set up a K.
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
Metz
http://forum.lddebate.org...

Thats the page I post on most. Account is Mattz
Posted by noob12345 7 years ago
noob12345
you don't have an account on there....
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by tnoodles 7 years ago
tnoodles
noob12345NailsTied
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 Mags 7 years ago
Mags
noob12345NailsTied
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:60 
Vote Placed by number5rules 7 years ago
number5rules
noob12345NailsTied
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 philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
noob12345NailsTied
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 aurora1616 7 years ago
aurora1616
noob12345NailsTied
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 Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
noob12345NailsTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Metz 7 years ago
Metz
noob12345NailsTied
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:05