The Instigator
IrishMafia
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Nails
Pro (for)
Winning
9 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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,746 times Debate No: 10447
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

IrishMafia

Con

In a 1974 a report ascribing 36 reactions to whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine, a prominent public-health academic claimed that the vaccine was only marginally effective and questioned whether its benefits outweigh its risks, and extended television and press coverage caused a scare. Vaccine uptake in the UK decreased from 81% to 31% and whooping cough epidemics followed, leading to deaths of some children. Mainstream medical opinion continued to support the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine; public confidence was restored after the publication of a national reassessment of vaccine efficacy. Vaccine uptake then increased to levels above 90% and disease incidence declined dramatically.

The reason I supply this evidence is to prove that immunizations do not need to be compulsory to have affective widespread result of getting vaccinated.

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. I negate.
Definitions and observations:

Public health: The approach to medicine that is concerned with the health of the community as a whole. Public health is community health. (MedTerms Dictionary.com)

Concerns: Matters that engage attention, interest, and care (Random House Dictionary, 2009)

Justify: To prove to be just or right. (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, 1996)

Compulsory: Required and mandated by law. Obligatory (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, 1996)

Immunization: Treatment of an organism for the purpose of making it immune to subsequent attack by a particular pathogen, typically achieved by introducing the organism to the living or dead pathogen.

OBSEVATION 1: For the context of this debate, the Neg does not have to prove that all immunizations are bad, and that immunizations are not affective, just that immunization should never be made compulsory.

My core value is Justice. Justice, according to the Thomas Aquinas is defined as giving each their due.

My criterion is Governmental Legitimacy through preserving Natural Rights. Governmental legitimacy is the preferred criterion in the round for three reasons.
First, government is the only entity with the right to compel individuals to behave in specific ways--in this case, to be immunized. Giving this power to any other entity justifies community witch hunts, lynch mobs, and vigilante justice.
Second, public health is within the government's purview because all questions of overall community welfare must be addressed by the government. This idea stems from social contract theory.
Third, granting any other entity the right to compel individuals to get immunized would erode governmental authority and encourage anarchy.

CONTENTION 1: A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT HAS AN OBLIGATION TO PRESERVE NATURAL RIGHTS.
Channing explains, (The Collected Works of William Channing, as quoted in Reflections in American Political Thought, 1973, p. 92),
"Human rights, however, are not to be so reasoned away. They belong ... to man as a moral being, and nothing can divest him of them but the destruction of his nature. They are not to be given up to society as a prey. On the contrary, the great end of civil society is to secure them. The great end of government is to repress all wrong. Its highest function is to protect the weak against the powerful, so that the most obscure human being may enjoy his rights in peace."

CONTENTION 2: NATURAL RIGHTS CANNOT BE SACRIFICED FOR THE 'GREATER GOOD.'
Rawls explains in A Theory of Justice, "Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good enjoyed by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. Therefore in a just society the liberties of equal liberty are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests."

CONTENTION 3: COMPULSORY VACCINATION VIOLATES INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
Calandrillo explains in the University of Michigan Journal of Legal Reform, "In addition to the potential safety risks associated with immunizations, anti-vaccinationists raise the classic American values of freedom and individualism as grounds for their objections to compulsory vaccination laws. Groups opposed to government interference in personal lives vociferously argue that no one, especially not the state, can dictate what they can do with their body (or their child's body for that matter). Mandatory vaccination is therefore an unwarranted interference with basic human autonomy and liberty. In fact, nearly 4 out of 5 websites opposing vaccination argue that current U.S. immunization laws are a violation of civil liberties. In particular, many cite newly created electronic vaccine registries as an example of "Big Brother" intruding into private lives. Antivaccinationists further characterize public health authorities as abusive, untrustworthy and paternalistic. Resisting forced immunization, on the other hand, is equated with the noble fight against government oppression.

CONTENTION 4: COMPELLING INDIVIDUALS TO GET VACCINATED VIOLATES A GOVERNMENTS LEGITIMACY.
Dr. Edward Younkins of Wheeling Jesuit University explains, "New conceptions of sovereignty and politics have recently become popular with the result that people have increasingly come to regard the government as a source of rights rather than as a defender of pre-existing individual rights. The assumption of this new view is that a right is not simply a freedom to do a certain thing, but is the privilege of forcing others to take positive actions to provide some perceived entitlement. If this were true, a right would not be seen as a freedom but rather as a power. To the founders, a right was a moral principle or imperative defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. Such a right represents a man's absolute power to seek an end. Under this process view of rights, the only duty imposed on others by such rights is the negative duty of forbearance – of not interfering with that to which a person has a right. If a person has a right to perform a certain activity, then others have the obligation not to interfere with that activity. It follows that there are no group rights – only individual rights. Group rights are arbitrary and imply special interests. The state is not involved in the creation of rights – it mainly exists to protect an individual's natural rights. Concerned with protecting the self-directedness of individuals, rights are a metanormative concept that provides law with a moral underpinning. Natural rights impose a negative obligation – the obligation not to interfere with one's liberty. Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another with respect to his life, liberty, or possessions. It is illegitimate to use coercion against a man who does not first undertake the use of force. The role of government is to protect man's natural rights through the use of force, but only in retaliation, and only against those who initiate its use.
Nails

Pro

=======
=Rebuttal=
=======

"My core value is Justice."

I'm glad to here that. Unfortunately, CON has provided no reason that justice should be the 'core value' of anything else, namely this round.

---

"First, government is the only entity with the right to compel individuals to behave in specific ways--in this case, to be immunized. Giving this power to any other entity justifies community witch hunts, lynch mobs, and vigilante justice."

Why is this a reason that the government should preserve natural rights at all? All CON is saying is that the government can compel people to do things. If anything, this is contradictory to his claim that the government must preserve natual rights, since according to this point, the government can compel us to give our rights up.

---

"Second, public health is within the government's purview because all questions of overall community welfare must be addressed by the government. This idea stems from social contract theory."

Again, I'm not really seeing the connection between this statement and CON's criterion. How does this in any way mean that the government must protect natual rights?

---

"Third, granting any other entity the right to compel individuals to get immunized would erode governmental authority and encourage anarchy."

1. This is the exact same thing he said in his 'First' point.
2. It still has nothing to do with natural rights.

---

CONTENTION 1: A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT HAS AN OBLIGATION TO PRESERVE NATURAL RIGHTS.

Well, instead of posting any thoughts of his own, CON just copies the words of William Channing and calls it a contention. It doesn't matter, since Channing contradicts my opponent any way. He argues that the government's "highest function is to protect the weak against the powerful." In that instance, protecting the weak from the powerful supercedes preserving natural rights (in this instance, those of the powerful.)

---

CONTENTION 2: NATURAL RIGHTS CANNOT BE SACRIFICED FOR THE 'GREATER GOOD.'

I would suggest to my opponent here that he actually read the book that he has quoted his entire contention (yet again) from. Rawlsian philosophy is about as far from 'to each his own' as one could get. Rawls's concept of justice is not that we allow everybody to do what he will with his own possessions (in this case, his rights) but that we ought to redistribute wealth so that everyone in society has equal benefit. [1][2]

---

CONTENTION 3: COMPULSORY VACCINATION VIOLATES INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

"anti-vaccinationists raise the classic American values of freedom and individualism"
-and vaccinationists raise the classic American values of not dying

"Groups opposed to government interference in personal lives vociferously argue that no one, especially not the state, can dictate what they can do with their body"
1. This contradicts my opponent's previous claim that: "government [can] compel individuals to behave in specific ways"
2. Who cares? Why does it matter what these 'groups' think?
3. The groups I formed have argued that the government can not not dictate what they can do with their bodies.

"In fact, nearly 4 out of 5 websites opposing vaccination argue that current U.S. immunization laws are a violation of civil liberties."

Despite the credibility of "4 out of 5 websites opposing vaccination," a slightly more credible source known as the Supreme Court ruled that compulsory immunization is entirely constitutional. [3]

"Antivaccinationists further characterize public health authorities as abusive, untrustworthy and paternalistic."
-But vaccinationists further characterize public health authorities as jovial, warm-hearted, merry old souls.

"Resisting forced immunization, on the other hand, is equated with the noble fight against government oppression."
-Resisting forced immunization, on the other other hand, is equated with children whining about getting shots.

---

CONTENTION 4: COMPELLING INDIVIDUALS TO GET VACCINATED VIOLATES A GOVERNMENTS LEGITIMACY.

Not a word of this is in my opponent's own words. For the 4th time, he has just cited some other person as a stand-alone contention. However, this entire spiel by Younkins never even once contains the worlds 'vaccination' or 'immunization'

=========
=Affirmative=
=========

The standard is public health, as explicitly stated by the resolution.

My opponent stated in his observation that:
"the Neg does not have to prove that all immunizations are bad, and that immunizations are not affective, just that immunization should never be made compulsory."

Thus, as long as I can give instances where immunization can be made compulsory, I've fulfilled my burden.

1. Immunizing animals who refuse to allow veterinarians to vaccinate them voluntarily

A. This hampers the spread of rabies.
B. This allows veterinarians to fulfill their job of providing for the wishes of the pet's owner.
C. This prevents terrorist attacks of live stock as a method to wreak havoc.
D. This better protects us from future diseases stemming originally from animals (Bubonic Plague, Swine Flu, Bird Flu)

2. Immunizing felons with the cocaine vaccine.

A. Felons have no claim to rights since they have violated the rights of others.
B. Felons can't be trusted to act in the best interest of society.
C. Drug use costs America $100 billion annually in total social costs. [4]
D. Many felons resist immunization simply out of a lack of willpower to fight their addiction.

3. Immunizing an area after a bioterror attack.

A. Not doing so allows the disease to spread to other areas, causing further damage.
B. The quicker the disease outbreak is eradicated, the less it costs society in health care/reparation.
C. This makes terrorists less satisfied with their results.

[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[3] http://www.fas.org...
[4] http://papers.ssrn.com...
Debate Round No. 1
IrishMafia

Con

I will defend and then attack.

First off my opponent attacked my three points on Governmental Legitimacy. I will defend his attacks which say my three statements have nothing to do with my case. I only used these three statements to show that in the Aff case the government is the only entity with the right to compel people to do some things. Secondly these three points were just mere observations, and they have no real baring on my overall case.
---------------------------
My opponent attacked my first contention by saying the words were not my own and Channing argues differently then my case. First off at least for my contentions I offer some bit of something to back them up, my opponent just makes claims. Secondly why does it matter if I use the words of others to further push my point? I am sure that Lincoln and Jefferson have been quoted in debates before, so any of my opponents claims of quoting someone else should not have any relevance. Also is it wrong to quote a person who probably has more experience then me with this area? Thirdly my opponents attack about how Channing says that "highest function is to protect the weak against the powerful", only helps my case because I would define the government as the powerful and the individual as the weak. So in that sense Channing would aprove of the government not being able to take away the rights of the individual.
---------------------------
First off in my opponents attack on my contention 2, he claims that I have not read the book (when actually I have) because Rawls says that we ought to redistribute wealth so that everyone in society has equal benefit, when actually this is in favor of my case. People are not receiving an equal benifit if the government is totalatarean and the government takes away the rights of the individual.
--------------------------
My opponents major attack on my contention 3 is that "who cares what these groups think?". Well I 'll tell you who cares, how about the government because our government was founded on the principals of a democracy, and in a democracy the government listens to the individual and these 'groups', who play a major role in our government. Secondly, why are the groups I use any less reasonable than my opponents?
--------------------------
Yet again my opponent attacks me in my contention 4 for not using my own words, but in a defense I will reuse the one I gave in defense for my first contention. Also my opponent attacks me because Younkins did not mention immunization, but all I am showing through him how the government does not have the right to take away an individual's rights.
-------------------------
ATTACKS
-------------------------
My primary attack is that my opponent offers no value or critereon, so his case has no bearing in this resolution. Since my opponent offers no value or critereon there is no reason to affirm.
Secondly my opponent offers no evidence in any of his contentions, and thus he has no warrant. And without evidence his contentions are just claims.
In his first contention he states that we must have compulsory vaccination because of our pets. This is a usreasonable assumption. I am not willing to give up my rights so that a pet can get vaccinated. And secondly, why does this have any bearing on whether humans should have compulsory immunizations?
In his second contention he states that we should have compulsory vaccinations because of felons, but once again this is a wild accusation without any warrant. Secondly, most people are not felons, so why should they have to get immunized.
For my attack on his third contention all I need to say is that he did not attack the beginning of my case which offers the alternative of an educational system, which he did not attack, (which leads me to believe that he agrees with it) will solve this.
Nails

Pro

========
Framework
========

My opponent has dropped his value of justice, then criticized me for not having a value or criterion.
He dropped his criterion as well. He says of his 3 points under the criterion that: "these three points were just mere observations, and they have no real baring on my overall case."

He has given absolutely no justification for his V/C and has dropped the arguments made against them. What's worse, he didn't even attack my frame work. Extend that 'The standard is public health, as explicitly stated by the resolution.'

========
=Neg Case=
========

Overview: Nothing in his case links to the standard of protecting public health.

---

C1: "my opponents attack about how Channing says that 'highest function is to protect the weak against the powerful', only helps my case because I would define the government as the powerful and the individual as the weak."

1. He can't just define terms in a quote to make it say what you want. He's no longer quoting their meaning, just text.
2. The way CON defines it is completely incoherent anyway. A government's job is to protect people from itself? Why would we create a government in the firstplace, then?

---

C2: "People are not receiving an equal benifit if the government is totalatarean and the government takes away the rights of the individual"

This is just an unwarranted assertion. I can't make heads or tails of it anyway.
All governments with compulsory immunization are totalitarian? France is totalitarian? America has been?
Violating rights somehow makes everyone inherently inequal? What about violation of rights in favor of maintaining equality?

---

C3: "Secondly, why are the groups I use any less reasonable than my opponents?"

The Supreme Court > 4/5 of anti-vaccinationist websites

If you seriously don't believe this, I hope you'll give a justification why.

---

C4: "I am showing through him how the government does not have the right to take away an individual's rights."

But the government necessarily takes away some rights. How do we punish people? We throw them in jail, violating their liberty. We fine them, violating their right to property. What makes these situations different from immunization. Younkins doesn't say.

=========
=Affirmative=
=========

"My primary attack is that my opponent offers no value or critereon, so his case has no bearing in this resolution. Since my opponent offers no value or critereon there is no reason to affirm."

In my very first sentence I defined the standard for the round, which has gone unaddressed.

---

"Secondly my opponent offers no evidence in any of his contentions, and thus he has no warrant. And without evidence his contentions are just claims."

Feel free to call me out on any particular point that requires evidence. They are all common sense, for example
"[Immunizing an area after a bioterror attack] makes terrorists less satisfied with their results." Terrorists want us to die, thus the reason they try to kill us. If we prevent people from dying through immunization, terrorism doesn't kill as many people, making them less satisfied.

---

SCENARIO 1

"I am not willing to give up my rights so that a pet can get vaccinated."
Nobody ever said you had to. I'm talking about immunizing pets here.

"And secondly, why does this have any bearing on whether humans should have compulsory immunizations?"

Who said anything about humans? Your definition of immunization specifically says 'organism,' not 'human':

Immunization: Treatment of an organism for the purpose of making it immune to subsequent attack by a particular pathogen, typically achieved by introducing the organism to the living or dead pathogen.

This means we can talk about animals, too.

---

SCENARIO 2

"this is a wild accusation without any warrant."

Feel free to explain why vaccinating felons is a 'wild accusation' and not a reasonable idea.

"most people are not felons, so why should they have to get immunized."

Ok. You said in your observation that your job is to defend all immunization as bad, not just most. This means you have to defend felons, too.

---

SCENARIO 3

"he did not attack the beginning of my case which offers the alternative of an educational system"

The beginning of his case is a cute, little anecdote and nothing more. He never draws any conclusions from it.
To say that this one example somehow disproves the need for immunization would be a faulty generalization. [1]

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

My opponent placed the burden on himself to refute all instances of compulsory immunization. I provided 3 examples, and so far is 0 for 3.

---First, animal immunization---

He doesn't attack this concept whatsoever. He seems to think the resolution talks only of people, but then defines it otherwise. The point that animal immunization is beneficial was dropped by CON, and that alone is enough to vote PRO.

---Second, felon immunization---

He just calls it a 'wild accusation' and drops all of my arguments. No rebuttal whatsoever here.

---Third, bioweapon immunization---

His only claim here is that the anecdotal introduction he provides somehow disproves this. It in no way does.

[1] http://www.clt.astate.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
IrishMafia

Con

IrishMafia forfeited this round.
Nails

Pro

What a shame.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
IrishMafiaNailsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by PoloX 6 years ago
PoloX
IrishMafiaNailsTied
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