The Instigator
zneuser93
Con (against)
Winning
47 Points
The Contender
luigimen14
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 11 votes the winner is...
zneuser93
Started: 11/9/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,387 times Debate No: 10023
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (11)

 

zneuser93

Con

I will negate the resolution. Some things my not apply to todays debate becuase I debate this case at tournaments. LD AC, NC, AR, NR, AR2! Let's begin

"Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all." Edmund Burke an English philosopher (1797) once said this. Compulsory immunizations take away the justice in society, taking this justice away is like not having it at all. Taking away justice takes away a person's individual rights. If I do not agree with the fact that the vaccine may or may not cure me, then why should I be forced to get it? This goes against the unalienable rights of any person in the world in our individual right to the pursuit of happiness. Therefore I negate today's resolution Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

My value for this round is justice, moral rightfulness or lawfulness and my criterion is individual rights what a person gets in accordance with what is good, proper, or just. Justice protects all countries law under their way of justness. Individual rights are part of a person's justice along with freedom, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

I'd like to start off with a few definitions from Random House Dictionary:
Public health: health services to improve and protect community health, esp. sanitation, immunization, and preventive medicine.
Concerns: to trouble, worry, or disquiet
Justify: to defend or uphold as well-grounded
Compulsory immunization: required or mandatory vaccination that makes an individual immune, as against a disease, only exemptions by law.

Observation 1:
LD is a moral debate, and with this debate you must choose the side which upholds their value and criterion better than their opponent, through the side's arguments and how it relates to today's resolution. In my arguments you will see me uphold my value and criterion extremely well, numerous times. To win this debate I must show you why my values triumphs my opponents and why I should when today's debate. A person is not topical anymore if they get off the subject of the resolution, and therefore loses today's debate.

Observation 2:
For my opponent to successfully when this debate they must uphold their value and criterion to show why we should have MANDATORY immunizations better than I show we shouldn't and show this through their arguments. If they drop my arguments, observations, sub points, value or criterion my opponent should lose this debate. They should also concede if I have better arguments that tie to the resolution and contentions. Also, just as a reminder opponents my not bring up new arguments after attack. Compulsory is NO room for exceptions, no matter what. My case however says we should still have these immunizations and inform citizens and persuade them to get vaccinations, but we should not FORCE the public to get these.

Contention one:
Vaccines may cause adverse side effects. Saying the government can do whatever they want is not right.
Sub Point A: Many parents are worried that there are side effects to vaccines, particularly fears over some vaccines being a factor to autism. Dr Andrew Wakefield provided evidence in the lancet journal that there is a link between vaccination and autism. "We saw several children who, after a period of apparent normality, lost acquired skills, including communication. They all had gastrointestinal symptoms, including abdominal pain, diarrhea, and bloating and, in some cases, food intolerance."
Sub point B: One in three people that get vaccinations get side effects. Some side effects can be fatal some paralyzing. Cheerleader got flu shot and got neurological problems. More regularly there can be a slightly raised temperature, sickness, tiredness and headache. However most people don't know they are allergic till after the harm is done, and compulsory immiz. Wouldn't leave room for allergic side effect exemptions.
Contention Two:
Compulsory immunization requires unnecessary spending.
Sub point A: Local and federal officials require ordinary citizens to spend large amounts of time, money, and energy to exempt themselves and their family members from vaccinations that are known to be highly toxic and dangerous. They do this because most of these officials honestly believe immunizations are useful. They are uninformed and should not be blamed for their uninformed beliefs. It becomes your duty to protect your family from their uninformed beliefs and the current injustices of the world and do the required paperwork to exempt your family.
Sub point B: The governments of the world don't think about how they are ripping justice and individual rights from their people's hands. These CI's aren't giving people there individual rights to choose whats just to put in their body. A global ban on all compulsory vaccinations as the law will end this unjust nonsense and burden on the general public and inform those uninformed citizens to stop receiving these harmful immunizations. A global ban on all compulsory vaccinations and immunization would also keep uninformed citizens from being misinformed by local officials who state that vaccinations are mandatory. A global ban on all compulsory immunizations will give true "free choice" to vaccinate or not and restored justice and individual rights' to the public under the law.

Contention Three:
These immunizations can get in the way of a person's beliefs.
Sub point A: The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from discriminating between people based on their religious beliefs. In most countries the same rules apply. So it would be safe to say that these compulsory immunizations are unconstitutional. If a person's religion says that they may not take these vaccines, but their government is making them, then the person's government, to them, is deeming them to hell.
Sub point B: Governments can't go against a person's religious beliefs because it is taking away from their justice and individual rights. Wouldn't you be infuriated if your government was to tell you that they don't care what God tells you, you will listen to what they think is good for you? Religious experience is hard for anyone to go against and to ask them to do so is like a slap in the face.
luigimen14

Pro

I affirm, Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

I would like to offer the following definitions to clarify the topic.
Justify: to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable.
The Value for today's round must be:

Maximization of the Principle of Safety of Person. Safety of Person is the freedom from a risk, a risk can be
an infected person with a disease that will infect you with the disease at some time.
The Criterion for today's round must be:
Achieving Herd Immunity. Herd immunity is the epidemiological principle that the more people we immunize
against a disease, the better protected an entire society is. However, by having up to 95%
immunized, we not only protect individual citizens against epidemics, but the world community.

Contention 1
The principle of safety of person, which is a requirement of all just states, requires compulsory immunization.
Sub point A
Safety of person is the guiding principle behind compulsory immunizations, as well as a wide variety of other
public concern legislation.
Since those that I come into contact with are immediately put into danger if I am a carrier of disease, as well
as the exponential number of people exposed after initial contact, I am violating the principle of safety of
person.
Sub point B
Violations of the principle of safety of person with regards to immunization lead to unnecessary loss of human
life.
Alice Park details an outbreak of polio in Nigeria that occurred in 2001. The disastrous effects of the outbreak
were caused directly by the violation of this principle of safety of person and entirely preventable. She states:
"That's what happened in the current measles outbreaks in the western U.S., and that's what happened in
Nigeria in 2001, when religious and political leaders convinced parents that polio vaccines were dangerous and
their kids should not receive them. Over the next six years, not only did Nigerian infection rates increase 30-
fold, but the disease also broke free and ranged out to 10 other countries, many of which had previously been
polio-free."

Contention 2
Compulsory immunizations save more lives than it puts at risk.
Based on the latest World health organization estimates for 2008, trends related to Global vaccination coverage
continue to be positive, Compulsory immunization currently averts an estimated 2.5 million deaths every year
in all age groups from many different diseases. More children than ever before are being reached with
immunization. In 2008, an estimated 106 million children under the age of one were vaccinated with three
doses of DTP3 vaccine and the estimated number of deaths that year of kids less than 1 due to DTP3 was
roughly 150,000 children.
Due to this amazing result in 2008 more nations have been making more vaccinations compulsory.
Three regions the Americas, Europe and Western Pacific maintained over 90% immunization coverage.

Number of countries reaching 90% or more immunization coverage with DTP3 vaccine in 2009: 120 countries

compared to 117 in 2008. Number of countries reaching over 80% DTP3 coverage in 2009: 151 countries in

2009 compared to 150 in 2008.

Contention 3

Immunizations are both medically sound and empirically beneficial.
Sub point A
Vaccines' benefits to both the individual and society clearly outweigh any harm, real or perceived.
As Dr.Pazos stated previously, the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the minor risks. Besides the individual protection that vaccines provide, the real impact of vaccines was discussed previously by Alice Parks and her analysis of the Nigeria polio outbreak. Dr. Pazos continues, discussing the concept of herd immunity:
"...vaccines are broadly administered in order to establish what is referred to as "herd immunity." Most infectious diseases require a ready supply of healthy hosts in order to continue spreading. So, if enough people get vaccinated, entire illnesses can go from serious public health threats to occasional isolated incidents. This way the young, the elderly, the sick, and even those who are unsuccessfully vaccinated are protected by the majority. Vaccination rates necessary to establish herd immunity vary by the pathogen, but they can be as high as 95 percent—very little room is left for those who voluntarily choose not to get vaccinated, which is why mandatory vaccinations are widely instituted."
If we review the principle of liberty, and consider the populations of people who medically cannot be vaccinated, then herd immunity is a necessary state that we must achieve to maximize the protection of all citizens. Hence, with vaccines presenting no general medical dangers and with people's lives resting on whether herd immunity can be achieved, the only just action is compulsory immunization.
For these reasons I urge you to affirm, I now stand for cross examination.
Debate Round No. 1
zneuser93

Con

First I would really like to thank my opponent for accepting my debate. Seond I will being debating the way I debate at tournaments in Texas.

As a brief roadmap I will attack my opponents case, I would usually follow by rebuiding my own, howevr that is not possible since my opponent didn't attack my case.

My opponents value is Maximization of the Principle of Safety of Person however to be honest to be on the affirmitive is to take away safety. The definition of safety is the condition or state of being safe; freedom from danger or hazard; exemption from hurt, injury, or loss. Exemption is defined as complete freedom or aviodance of. So his vaule defined is Maximization of the principle of complete freedom or aviodance of hurt, injury or loss of a person. However his value automatically falls. It is saying that there will be 100% freedom from injury of loss. I bet my opponent didn't know that 1 in 3 people that get immunized have adverse side effects. So if compulsory immunizations were put in place then 2 billion of the 6 billion people on earth will suffer side effects. Some as serious as death and parylization. If these were put in place me and you the voter even my opponent could die. So to say have compulsory vaccinations is to maximize a persons saftey is a completely fase statement. On to his criterion of achieving herd immunity. This idea of herd immunity doesn't support compulsory immunization. Herd immunity is the idea that if most people are vaccinated then the rest of society will recieve benefits. This can't comply with compulsion because compulsion is to FORCE every individual to to recieve vaccinations. So if everyone is vaccinated then herd immunity couldn't take place, so his criterion fails. With out these his case can't stand because the v/c is the foundation, however I will still show how the rest of his case crumbles with his value and criterion.
His contention one falls in it self becuase I have already shown why his value and criterion fail which is the base of his contention.
His Subpoint A: How is safety the guiding principle if you are putting two BILLION in danger? This makes no sense. Those he comes in contact with aren't immediately in danger unless the disease is 'super disease and can transfer by touch. Also most people will still volunteerly get these vaccines without compulsory immunization, then herd immunization will take place protecting everyone else, so his criterion better works for my side.
Sub point B: There will not be unneccasary loss of life, if a person feels that a disease is dangerous enough they will VOLUNTEERLY get vaccinated. Also your quote makes no sense, did you know that Polio is only endemic in Afganistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, and India. There were only 2000 cases world wide in 2009. This drastict reduction occured because of voluntary immunization, so you are helping me state my point again, thank you.
Contention 2: I'm not denying that vaccines are good, they are great. However as individuals we should have free choose to get vaccinated or not like Burke said "Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all." To make immunizations compulsory is to take away justice and individual rights from the people of the world, which is like not having it at all. Once the government starts controlling some parts of life, it will turn them to control all aspects of life. Another thing is that your statistics are a futile effort to support your case, since this is only one disease of hundreds.
On to contention 3: Well this contention has nothing to do with COMPULSORY immunization. He is just stating that immunizations are medically sound, which is true; however, to FORCE everyone in the world to get ALL vaccinations is obserd. Back to his doctors statement, well it does outweigh the side effects, but only 2/3 to 1/3 so two BILLION people still suffer. Obviously human life isn't too important to his case, much less a presons safety. His quote should be in my case because again there is no way herd immunization can fall in to place in his case, so that quote fails. Ahh the end. ell since he didn't define compulsory and I did he considers my definition true, so compulsory is required, mandatory, obligatory. Under the definition he considers true there can not be any exceptions, NO EXCEPTIONS. Even medically unable people he will FORCE them to get these vaccines, so herd immunity is obviously out.

Well with this case you can see why I've obviously won, I mean I have torn this case up and down, back and forth. However I will still finish and go over my case briefly.
So his value and criterion fail, badly. His contentions don't show why compulsory immunizations are neccasary he just says why we need immunizations, which I never denied. In my case I want immunizations, but I want true free chioce to actually decide what I want in my body, then the government can't be blamed for side effects, because I did it to myself.

On my case, since he didn't attack it there isn't much to say besides the fact that my criterion and value are both uphold tremendously by my contentions and since he didn't deny my case he considers all aspets of it true

There is no way my opponent could possibly win this and I must insist you vote CON.
luigimen14

Pro

Ok my opponents bases his arguement in his stastic that 1 of every 3 people die from the vaccination.
I just want to say one thing where did you this statistic from? I read and you MADE IT UP because man it is impossible for 2 billion people to die due to a vaccination.
For that reason he is making up his whole case so i should win because according to the LD Debate rules any fake statistics leads to immidiate desqualification
Debate Round No. 2
zneuser93

Con

Umm well my statistic is from http://www.cdc.gov... so he is wrong. Also this round was his rebuttal since he didnt rebut abything he considers them true. This means I should win this case by all means. Just as a pointer I would like to tell my opponent that you dont get disqualified from LD for fake statistics, this is moral debate and obviously he doesn't know that. Like Iaid I've taken this case to tournanents in Texas, so if they didn't disqualifiy me, how could you. As well this proves you don't know what your doing.

So, this debate should be over here since he technically concidered every statement I made true. Thank you for voting con since my opponent obviously needs some practice.
luigimen14

Pro

People People i urge you to go to the website it never says anything about people dying it just talks about side effects.

And also how does your Contentions link to your value and criterion
ok you also didnt argue against any of my contentions properly you just said this is wrong you never gave evidence while in my case i give evidence and in my take to your case i attack nothing because it all just revolves around a single false stastic come on how can 2 billion people die due to the side effects of a vaccine that means that all the people that have been on debate.org will die due to a vaccine.
For those reasons i urge to vote affirmative in the case

thank you
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by bestdebater 2 years ago
bestdebater
it is true that the website didn't say anything about people dying due to vaccines. It only said that some people got mild and severe side effects, but there are no deaths recorded so it is ridiculous that you would use a statistic about 1 out of 3 people getting headaches or upper respiratory infection against pro's points. I also didn't like the fact that you stated that your opponent obviously needed a practice because you should never say that in a debate no matter it's at a tournament or just an online debate. Also, LD's not about morality
Posted by luigimen14 3 years ago
luigimen14
fuckkkkkkkkk
Posted by Nails 4 years ago
Nails
"I would like to tell my opponent that you dont get disqualified from LD for fake statistics, this is moral debate and obviously he doesn't know that."

This is a complete lie, particularly when your 'moral debate' centers around whether those statistics are true.
Posted by tombomb25 4 years ago
tombomb25
In advance, sorry about being blunt. I'm in a somewhat sour mood after reading those cases.

@Neg (zneuser93)- Don't run autism. There is no causal link between vaccines and autism. I don't care what backwards lying statistics you have that say there is, because there is not.

Do you really debate with this case? If so, I'd advise getting rid of both of your observations. They're both retarded.
1. LD is not necessarily moral debate. It's whatever we want to to be, that's why we have theoretical interpretations.
2. Even if you won your entire case, I could still outweigh using impacts. Winning things don't necessarily make you win the round.

Provide justifications for Justice as your value. It should be taken for granted with this resolution, but people always find annoying ways to use it otherwise.

1 in 3 people do not have side effects. And just citing the CDC for falsified evidence is called cheating by most people. Even if you aren't, you're still taking it out of context. The website itself says only 1 in 100000 have a serious side effect which might not even be fatal.

C2 A: Saying the gov't is uninformed is stupid. You provide no evidence for it, and then try to make it out as if you're smarter/know more than the whole gov't combined. No.

B: A global ban makes no sense. Not to mention a good AC would take out your entire case before you even read it, I know all of mine would.

C3: A: Your constitution argument is getting raped, I assume? We aren't talking about the US
B: We aren't talking about the gov't either.

All in all, this is a fail neg case. You need justifications for value and criterion, ditch the failing observations, get some real evidence, and try making a strategic case.

Aff critique forthcoming.
Posted by rawrxqueen 4 years ago
rawrxqueen
zneuser93, your case is really weak. You need to have a case that talks about why the government has no right to override people's right to their own body.
Posted by NItEMArE129 4 years ago
NItEMArE129
Wakefield's essay on autism was written in 1998, and as to date, 10 of its 13 authors have retracted their statements. Should be careful about that.
Posted by Korashk 4 years ago
Korashk
To qualify I support the Instigator in his belief for this debate.

With that said, the 33.3% is a gross overestimation of the average percent of individuals that receive side effects from vaccines. Based on the source you sited in Round 3 the percent is more like 5 to 25. Those side effects include soreness at the injection site, a slight fever or a headache. Going into the more severe side effects that percentage drops dramatically. To about .000007%. It is my opinion that having a sore arm for a day or two is a good trade for not getting polio. Since this and the human rights point are your two main ones you should research better.
Posted by newbie101 4 years ago
newbie101
There wasn't that much of an attack or defense in this round. Pro, you should have attacked his argument on side effects.
Posted by isthereagod 4 years ago
isthereagod
Con, what's up with the attitude. Begging me to vote for you doesn't make me want to. Pro, you didn't show me anything wrong with the Negative's case. Your attack on the stats was a Straw Man Fallacy. He didn't say 1/3 died.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by bchblondie 4 years ago
bchblondie
zneuser93luigimen14Tied
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 gamingmaster42 4 years ago
gamingmaster42
zneuser93luigimen14Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Flipper 4 years ago
Flipper
zneuser93luigimen14Tied
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 newbie101 4 years ago
newbie101
zneuser93luigimen14Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by Lucky120 4 years ago
Lucky120
zneuser93luigimen14Tied
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 NightLane 4 years ago
NightLane
zneuser93luigimen14Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by Panzersharkcat 4 years ago
Panzersharkcat
zneuser93luigimen14Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Amazing 4 years ago
Amazing
zneuser93luigimen14Tied
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 4 years ago
oceanix
zneuser93luigimen14Tied
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 Nails 4 years ago
Nails
zneuser93luigimen14Tied
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 
Research this debate: United States