The Instigator
emmons
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Freeman
Pro (for)
Winning
22 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 6 votes the winner is...
Freeman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,998 times Debate No: 10397
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (6)

 

emmons

Con

"Society exists only as a mental concept; in the real world there are only individuals." Said Oscar Wilde who is an Irish writer. What Osacr Wilde was saying is you can live anywhere or be in any group, but you are still an individual that needs to make your own choices and decide your life how you want, not how your told. In this round I will tell you why the resolution must be negated to save millions of lives. Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

I would like to offer the following definitions from Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary.

Moral Rightfulness: The fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom while having a valid or just claim
Public health: health services to improve and protect community health, esp. sanitation, immunization, and preventive medicine.
Concerns: to trouble, worry, or disquiet
Compulsory immunization: required or mandatory vaccination, only exemptions by law.
Justify: to defend or uphold as well grounded

My value for the round will be moral rightfulness. Everything that the law says is not always morally right. If it is the law to get a vaccination but it is against a persons beliefs or traditions, they should not need to get a vaccination.

My criteria for the round will be individuality. Any person should be able to make the choice to get a vaccination or not. A person should not be told what to do especially if it involves something going into their body.

Contention 1: Vaccinations may cause severe side effects to anyone.Studies show that people who have gotten repeat vaccinations have higher chances of impaired blood flow and chronic illness. According to vactruth.com, this evidence must be circulated broadly in light of the passing Fall, health workers plan to turn North American schools into vaccine centers to institute triple flu vaccine to us all. Children will be the first to be injected with experimental flu vaccines. The entire vaccine industry, as it turns out, has been experimental. Some vaccines are causing impaired blood flow and chronic illness, sometimes resulting in stroke. The damages are microscopic and cannot be seen as they occur, but we can see the aftermath, within hours and days of getting these vaccinations. 1-3 people will experience side effects. Any person who is getting a vaccination is vulnerable to any kind of side affect; some are very mild others become very serious in a short amount of time. A tetanus shot can cause any mild effects from a high fever to soreness and redness around the vaccination area. Any moderate side effects can be from seizures to an extremely high fever of 105 degrees and higher. Any severe problems tetanus can do to you are long-term seizures, coma, and permanent brain damage. According to cdc.gov

Contention 2: The people should be able to decide for themselves if they want a vaccination or not. People have the right to control what goes into their bodies and should be able to have the choice of getting any vaccination. Forcing anything upon a person is against our own constitution. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The Fourth Amendment, United States Constitution. People will not feel secure if vaccinations are forced on them if there is even the smallest chance of a side affect or death. So affirming the resolution would be against our own constitution.

Contention 3: Affirming the resolution gives too much power to the government. If the people allow the government to make vaccinations mandatory to everyone, they are controlling just over 300 million Americans, and as I stated in my first contention 1 in every 3 people experience a side affect. Some resulting in death. If there is the possibility of even 100 people getting harmed the resolution must be negated because having 100 people harmed, is too many when none could be getting harmed. Imagine if you were one of the 100 million Americans that has something go wrong or 2 trillion of the 6 trillion people in the world.
I urge a negative vote.
Freeman

Pro

Let me begin by thanking emmons for creating this debate.

My opponent cites vactruth.com, a lunatic fringe conspiracy website, in order to lend credence to his views. However, the claims of this site are entirely unsupported by science. In order to win all I must do is show that there is at least one scenario where compulsory immunizations would be justified.

Contention 1: Compulsory immunizations are justified to prevent the spread of polio, smallpox, and SARS.

In the case of an outbreak of dangerous viral infections, compulsory immunizations would be morally necessary. Even if I were to grant the fabricated claims of my opponent the negative effects of polio [1], smallpox [2], and SARS [3] would still warrant compulsory immunizations.

People do not have a constitutional right to jeopardize the life of other people by refusing to get vaccinated any more than they have a right to murder someone. (Resolution affirmed)

---References---

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
emmons

Con

First off I'd like to say I just went 6-0 and got first place using this exact case and thank you to my opponent.

My opponents said vactruth. com will not work as a source but he did not say why and has no proof there's no scientific reasoning.

Onto my opponents case. My opponents only contention says compulsory immunizations are justified to prevent the spread of polio, smallpox, and SARS. Which is incorrect because the diseases can be stopped by affirming or negating. Immunizations are not to be used during an outbreak either, they are precautions that do absolutely nothing except hurt people and their own rights. He also used wikipedia which everyone knows is NOT to be used as a source for anything!!!!! Because it can be changed by the public so his contention is not legit so therefore to be thrown out.
Freeman

Pro

I think I understand your case. However, you did write a few things that caught my eye.

"My opponents only contention says compulsory immunizations are justified to prevent the spread of polio, smallpox, and SARS. Which is incorrect because the diseases can be stopped by affirming or negating."

The poliovirus can spread back into a society if everyone isn't vaccinated. Even if only a small number of people don't get treated it can become resurgent. Therefore, compulsory vaccinations would most certainly be justified. The fact of the matter is that there is no other way to stop certain viruses apart from mass vaccinations.

"Immunizations are not to be used during an outbreak either, they are precautions that do absolutely nothing except hurt people and their own rights."

It is now obvious that my opponent's case rests on nothing more than the unsubstantiated claim that vaccinations are useless at preventing disease. This claim is demonstrably false, vaccinations are an effective method to prevent disease. For example, the polio vaccine was largely responsible for the eradication of polio in the 20th century. [1] –[2]

Wikipedia isn't the greatest source in the world, but it is largely useful in many occasions. Moreover, the disastrous affects of polio, smallpox, and SARS are quite well known even if I didn't use sources.

---References---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.accessexcellence.org...
Debate Round No. 2
emmons

Con

1-3 people have a side affect some potentially life threatening. ASo yes vaccines are useless and hurt people and their rights. It is not my claim either it has said on multiple websites they hurt people and do not do what they are supposed to do.
Freeman

Pro

I thank my opponent for what has been a spirited debate.

::Case Pro::

"1-3 people have a side affect some potentially life threatening. ASo yes vaccines are useless and hurt people and their rights. "

My opponent provides no evidence for this claim, so it can therefore be dismissed. Despite the unsubstantiated beliefs of my antagonist, vaccines are effective at combating disease. I would imagine that some vaccines have minor side effects. However, the side effects of polio, smallpox, and SARS are far worse than the side effects of any vaccine.

My opponent has not provided any sound arguments in his favor and has had nothing of significance to say in response to my arguments. (Vote Pro)
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by emmons 6 years ago
emmons
Thank you master, finally someone can see that there is no possible way i could lose this debate except stupidity on some of the voters parts.
Posted by logicalmaster17 6 years ago
logicalmaster17
it was pathetic because you didnt give values, had one short contention and it was intended to be LD which is values based
Posted by daniel_t 6 years ago
daniel_t
@Freeman: "I won every category, except conduct. That area was a tie."

How do you know that? Is there some way to see vote statistics?
Posted by emmons 6 years ago
emmons
How am i losing? His case couldn't even be used in a real round. It only is one contention nad he didn't attack my case.
Posted by daniel_t 6 years ago
daniel_t
Emmons: I certainly can be wrong about it this time (that's why I didn't vote against you for it,) but your entire first contention looks like "The use of an author's ideas in paraphrase without accurate references or footnotes."

http://vactruth.com...

An article which itself has no citations proving any of its contentions.

I will accept that maybe you just didn't know how to properly cite your source(s) (you did say "according to vactruth.com" at one point,) so I will retract my earlier statement. Sorry about that.
Posted by emmons 6 years ago
emmons
I didn't copy my case. I fricken wrote it
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
"'1-3 people have a side affect some potentially life threatening.'
That is a blatant lie. Do not ever use that statistic in a real round."

It actually isn't a lie. 1 in 3 people do have side effects. Some are life threatening. He just states it in a way to make it sound far worse than it actually is. Almost all side effects are along the lines of 'minor soreness at injection site,' 'mild headache,' 'loss of apetite,' and they wear off in a day or so. Life threatening side effects have been reported, but are incredibly rare, about 1 in 1 million.
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
I find this incredibly hard to believe: "First off I'd like to say I just went 6-0 and got first place using this exact case and thank you to my opponent."
Posted by daniel_t 6 years ago
daniel_t
Why does it seem that there are so many debates about this topic, and in all the ones I've looked at, the instigator has plagiarized his argument? Is this the resolution in some regional debate contest? At least this time, the instigator took the time to paraphrase the original rather than simply copy/pasting it.

http://definitions.uslegal.com...

Neither side backed up his claims and I can't give a "convincing argument" vote to an argument full of unsubstantiated "facts".

Conduct to Pro, at least he didn't steal his argument.
Posted by emmons 6 years ago
emmons
Well no you didn't. You never attacked my case nad only had 1 short contention, therefore it's not possible for you to win.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by emmons 6 years ago
emmons
emmonsFreemanTied
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 Mixer 6 years ago
Mixer
emmonsFreemanTied
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 Nails 6 years ago
Nails
emmonsFreemanTied
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 daniel_t 6 years ago
daniel_t
emmonsFreemanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by GeorgeCarlinWorshipper 6 years ago
GeorgeCarlinWorshipper
emmonsFreemanTied
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 rougeagent21 6 years ago
rougeagent21
emmonsFreemanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00