The Instigator
Lafayette_Lion
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Itsallovernow
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Lafayette_Lion
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2010 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,405 times Debate No: 11065
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Lafayette_Lion

Con

I am opening a new debate. Would the affirmative please post their arguments. Thanks in advance.
Itsallovernow

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent, in advance, for what I am sure is going to be a well-fought and interesting debate. Now, without further cordialities, let us begin this debate.

Resolution: Public health concerns justify compuslory immunization
I will now present unbiased definitions that will better define this debate.
Definitions:
1. Public Health (google dictionary)- Public health is "the science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life and promoting health through the organized efforts and informed choices of society, organizations, public and private, communities and individuals.

2. Concerns (google dictionary) - something that interests you because it is important or affects you

3. Justify (google dictionary)- something (such as a fact or circumstance) that shows an action to be reasonable or necessary

4. Compulsory (google dictionary)- required by rule (law).

5. Immunization (again, google dictionary)- the act of making immune.

Observations:

1. Public Health Concerns- This is the overall health of the general populace. Since it does not specify a specific region, I will assume this is the global populace.
2. Immunization- This could relate to any illness or disease

GROUNDS FOR AFF WIN: If I can prove that just ONE illness justifies (see definition) immunization of a particular disease for the concerns of public safety in ANY place in the world, then I have won this debate.

=DEBATE FORUM (Doc.1)=

Did you know that millions of people each year die from "easily preventable" diseases? Albiet a small percentage is due to lack of healthcare systems. Even so, this large number can be prevented in almost every case. Also, this site (http://www.fas.org...) states that the people that the people who die from preventable diseases, outwiegh the deaths caused by all global conflict. In this aspect, many people consider warfare to be the chief concern of health. Indirectly, the consider it personally affecting to their lives (eg. Economy, which affects everything, including healthcare, medical research, etc.). However, diseases still lie hostile in our domestic territory. Swine Flu (H1N1) is an example of a disease.

Now, there a public lawsalready in which certain vaccinations are required (e.g. The ones you must get before starting school). Since my opponent uses the term "justify" and this is not a policy debate, I cannot win alone by providing an example of it's existance. So, even though it's already been done by the USA government, I'll have to prove again that these diseases (which will be the foundations of my debate) justify it to become a legalized law in which potential students require immunizations. (On a side note: I heard that when you make trips to Mexico and America, it is mandatory before you enter the US to get shots)

The Supreme Court, which holds legal right as the final law/constitutionality decider, ruled 'Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations.' I paraphrase there, in case that arouses suspicion of embellishment. The Court observed Constitutional Infringement claims by Jackobson, for he declared it unconstitutional that 'his liberty is invaded when government fines or imprisionment for refusal to submit to vaccination'.

So, my opponent CANNOT use the defense that it infringes upon civil liberties/rights (which was quite possible), for I have proven that somewhere in the world that the resolution stands correct, and by technical observation, the arguement and results I have presented affirm the resolution in it's entirety with unequivocal proof.

Thank you

VOTE PRO
Debate Round No. 1
Lafayette_Lion

Con

OK MAJOR screw up on my part. I was looking for an Lincoln Douglas debate...That's the problem with online debating...If my opponent agrees I would (since its not fair to limit this to two rounds with only a day remaining) like to nullify this debate and begin again Lincoln Douglas. If not, then feel free to switch over now to the LD format. Uncharacteristic of LD I will give my NEG case first wont respond to my opponents arguments since we are(hopefully) changing styles of debate.

These two quotes are John Stuart Mill's. "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." The next quote: "The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns him, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." I agree with John Stuart Mill on these two quotes, and stand in absolute negation of the resolution: resolved, Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

Definitions:
Public health concerns: field of medicine and hygiene dealing with the prevention of disease and the promotion of health by government agencies. (From the Columbia Encyclopedia)
Justify: (Merriam Webster Online) to prove or show to be just or right
Compulsory: mandated, required
Immunization: the fact or process of becoming immune, as against a disease.
For the sake of this debate I am confining the "Compulsory Immunization" stated in the resolution to the United States

Value: Justice defined as fairness: Justice is a prerequisite to any other value. Anything applied unjustly has no value. For example Equality can be achieved by equal oppression. Before it holds value for itself, equality must be just. This can be applied to any other value as well.

Value Criterion: Individual Rights: the freedom that everyone has to be free from any oppression, as long as the individual's choices only effect themselves.

Contention 1: Compulsory Immunization makes the problem of class discrimination worse:
By definition a compulsory action must have a punishment. Otherwise the action is no longer "compulsory" but "recommended" If there was no punishment for breaking laws then following them would no longer become compulsory. My argument is that the affirmative mindset will be furthering the marginalization of lower classed by placing them in a system of continuous punishment. Low-income communities will be directly hurt by compulsory immunization policies due to decreased access to medical care. Brietta R. Clark in 2005 explains. This fear is neither unusual nor irrational in light of one of the most visible, yet ignored, problems for minority communities - hospital closures and relocations. Increasingly, hospitals, private and public, have closed or terminated services in areas populated by minorities, while relocating services to more prosperous neighborhoods. These closures have for the most part 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 care is effectively foreclosed or they are already overburdened and understaffed. Hospital closings and the crumbling of a medical framework is already an issue faced by the poor. Compulsory Immunization Policies will make this worse. Compulsory immunization programs will increase the strain on the remaining medical facilities making care almost impossible. These immunization programs would force low-income families to either travel to receive care or wait in line for hours to maybe receive a vaccination before supplies are exhausted. Only limited amounts of vaccines can be stored by a medical facility at a time and if the facility is already overcrowded the increased strain will push it over the edge. This would be an outrageous injustice.

Contention 2: Compulsory immunization takes away the democracy we live in: As I said above, the term compulsory means forced. It's mandated, required. Meaning if one doesn't comply something will be done to punish the so said "offender". This is wrong and unjust. We have a choice as to what we put into our bodies. "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." Meaning in this context not that the man who doesn't want to take a vaccination should make everyone else NOT take it, but that he should have his unalienable rights.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." This means that a person's personal health is not determined or mandated by any form of government. I have never seen the government FORCING us to exercise 60 minutes every day because it's healthy. It's advised, but not mandated. That's because it's our choice how we deal with our own bodies and it affects no one but us. This is the same with immunization. If one gets an immunization, then they are IMMUNE to the disease. Therefore implying ones immunization actually WORKED, the person would have no harm done to them by someone who DIDN"T get a vaccine. "The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns him, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." If non vaccinated people are not a threat, then how is compulsory immunization justified by a public health concern? It is clearly not just for someone to be mandated to take a shot that is out of their personal want. The Affirmative would be making our democracy a dictatorship and one step away from a massive killing of anyone who doesn't want a vaccination because they are a "threat " to society when really they are less a threat than the mindset of the individuals who think of themselves as the victims. The affirmative is not just and more importantly it does not comply with the Constitutions promise of unalienable rights to an American Citizen.

Thank you and sorry for the lack of communication on my part.
Go NEG
Itsallovernow

Pro

I hereby nullify and submit that this debate is to be discarded, on the conditions that both my opponent and I nullify our points and the audience does not vote. (It's fine. Are you doing this for a school debate? If so, I understand completely!)

DON'T VOTE PRO =) For that matter, DON'T VOTE CON EITHER!
Debate Round No. 2
Lafayette_Lion

Con

I agree. Thanks for understanding. Nullified it is. This is an old topic we used so i was using my case.

Don't vote NEG OR PRO.

Wow. Typing that feels weird...
Itsallovernow

Pro

Again, I must assert with my opponent, "Don't vote neg or pro."
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Itsallovernow 6 years ago
Itsallovernow
Wonder who voted? = /
Posted by Itsallovernow 6 years ago
Itsallovernow
DON'T vOTE!!!
Posted by Lafayette_Lion 6 years ago
Lafayette_Lion
DON'T VOTE on THIS DEBATE ITS NULLIFIED!!!!!!!!
Posted by Lafayette_Lion 6 years ago
Lafayette_Lion
I guess it is.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
this is another one of those common debates, tisn't tit?
Posted by Lafayette_Lion 6 years ago
Lafayette_Lion
Oh yeah...
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
I was born in Lafayette, Louisiana.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ari.marshank 6 years ago
ari.marshank
Lafayette_LionItsallovernowTied
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 Nails 6 years ago
Nails
Lafayette_LionItsallovernowTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 6 years ago
wonderwoman
Lafayette_LionItsallovernowTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30