The Instigator
PoloX
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
wonderwoman
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations.

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...
PoloX
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,011 times Debate No: 10362
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (6)

 

PoloX

Pro

This is an Lincoln-Douglass debate November/December topic and this debate should be done just like the LD debate format except the CON goes last and there is no cross-examination session for questioning.

"It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong"

Because I agree with Jeremy Bentham (Philosopher and activist 1748-1832), I affirm the resolution which states: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

For further clarification I offer the following definitions that I am using for this debate round.
Public health concerns- the approach to health that is concerned with the safety of the community as a whole.
Justify- to show or have had a legally sufficient reason or cause.
Compulsory immunization- vaccinations, to increase immunity, reasonably required or compelled by law.

I will be valuing SOCIETAL WELFARE, which is paramount when considering the well being of the community as a whole. This value relates to the resolution because the well being of the community is dependent upon the society to decide, what the best action is to take when deciding society vs. the individual. You will see that with societal welfare, the greatest number ought to be valued more than the minority.

My criterion will be that of RULE UTILITARIANISM developed my John Stuart Mill. It establishes moral rules and sets forth the role of the government. With this there is one principle that explains where the restriction of liberty is justified. Harms principle: The legitimate reason for social restriction is to prevent a person from harming others. I would classify the action, choosing to be immunized or not, other-regarding. This type of action involves any other individual in a society and can be subject to restriction if necessary. It also states you may protect people against harms that violate their rights. This is the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This relates to the resolution and achieves my value in many ways. If you don't get immunized during a public health concern and it has a risk of affect on any individual of a society then it should be required by law to be immunized.

Contention 1: Compulsory immunizations prevent the spread of disease in a society. A quote on what immunizations do from cdc.gov states "If a child is not vaccinated and is exposed to a disease germ, the child's body may not be strong enough to fight the disease. Before vaccines, many children died from diseases that vaccines now prevent, such as whooping cough, measles, and polio. Those same germs exist today, but babies are now protected by vaccines so we do not see these diseases as often." This not only explains the importance of immunization during childhood but explains the importance of preparing each individual for a disease, and as to why we don't see these diseases often, it's because the disease is prevented from being spread easily. If children and any other individual weren't immunized for a disease, especially during a public health concern,then the disease could spread faster and cause more problems for our society. The immunizations prevent spread and it justifies compulsory immunization.

Contention 2: Compulsory immunizations are the greatest good for all individuals' safety. A court case in western district of Arkansas, McCarthy vs. Boozman, that I found on vaccinesafety.edu states "It has long been set that individual rights must be subordinated to the compelling state interest of protecting society against the spread of disease." That is the constitutionality of The United States, an example of a legitimate society. Individuals are immunized to receive a small portion a small portion of the disease, not enough to cause the actual disease, but enough to cause the immune system to create antibodies. It's proved to grant safety to society to receive immunizations during a public health concern and it is for the individuals' best interest to decrease their risk of catching that disease they're immunized for. An individual shouldn't have a right, to not be immunized, when it can effect others. To promote societal welfare, the greatest good for the greatest number. Compulsory immunizations are acceptable, necessary, and justified, when deciding for the safety of not only the society, but the individuals.

Contention 3: Compulsory immunizations are justified and do effect others of whether or not you get immunized. Schools require compulsory immunization, why would they if it didn't effect others. A quote, also taken from cdc.gov states "immunizing individual children also helps to protect the health of our community, especially those who are not immunized. People who are not immunized include those who are too young to be vaccinated, those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons and those who cannot make an adequate response to vaccination. Also protected, therefore, are people who received a vaccine, but who have not developed immunity. In addition, people who are sick will be less likely, to be exposed to disease germs that can be passed around by unvaccinated children. immunizations also slows down or stops disease outbreaks." To further be explained, the people not immunized are either too young , have a medical issue, or have failed to create antibodies and so they can't receive the immunization and are exempt from compulsory immunization. If you can receive the immunization and don't do it, that gives you a higher risk of being exposed to the disease and therefore gives the people who can't be immunized a higher risk of being exposed to the disease as well. To worry about the society, at the same time, worries about the individuals, That is why societal welfare is the best value to consider in this debate. Along with my criterion, rule utilitarianism, the society has a justified reason for compulsory immunization, especially during a public health concern.
wonderwoman

Con

Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations

Value: Elevation of Higher Man
Higher man can be defined as survival of the fittest. Although the phrase conjures up an image of a violent struggle for survival, in reality the word "fittest" seldom means the strongest or the most aggressive. On the contrary, it can mean anything from the best camouflaged or the most fecund to the cleverest or the most cooperative. Higher man is the most desirable outcome from the resolution because we can create the best society to better the world and better man. In the resolution the elevation of higher man refers the man with the with higher immune system.

Value Criterion Darwinism
Social Darwinism is a belief, popular in the late Victorian era in England, America, and elsewhere, which states that the strongest or fittest should survive and flourish in society, while the weak and unfit should be allowed to die. Higher Man is a necessity to have a strong nation and should be the ultimate goal of society.

Definitions
Justice: judgment involved in the determination of rights and the assignment of rewards and punishments
The value of Higher Man guides this principal and so does Darwinism in determining that has the right to live and be rewarding them with that life and the deciding who should be punished with death by the survival of the fittest.

Compulsory -: mandatory, enforced (source: www.merriam-webster.com)
If something is mandatory and enforced than it is almost certain that everyone will be receiving the action to say otherwise is a blatant disregard for the definition of compulsory. If things are compulsory they violate Social Darwinism because then the weak and unfit are able to survive and end up causing strife for society.

RA: The judge must be we are not here to debate if they immunizations work but whether or not compulsory immunization is justified. So, when aff is quoting blatant facts about them working they should be disregarded as the fact that immunizations work does not affect whether or not a mandate is just. Also, we must look to worldwide situations and worldwide examples because the resolution does not limit the debate to any particular area.

Contention 1) Survival of the fittest
This is the idea that species adapt and change by natural selection with the best-suited mutations becoming dominant. By 'fittest', of course, Spencer didn't have in mind the commonly used meaning of the word now the most highly trained and physically energetic. The 'fittest' referred to here are those animals which are the most suited to their environment. So, in the resolution Higher Man is the man equipped to be naturally immune or able to survive the disease when it strikes. To interfere with this process is bad because then we have viral mutation and viral adoption. Take polio and smallpox for example these viruses only infect humans, have no intermediary hosts, and they cannot survive for very long in the environment. If a person is infected and survives, they will have life-long immunity. Since viruses have such high mutation and reproductive rates, they can adapt to changing environments, needless to say we could have a big outbreak of a new breed of polio or smallpox if we compulsory immunize. Seemingly as we have a new breed of flu every couple years of so. Bird Flu and Swine flu are prime examples of this. What this ultimately means is that if we mess with the natural order of survival of the fittest, it is quite possible to destroy the human race as a whole just to save a few. That does not seem just at all now does it?

Contention 2) Social Mechanisms

Human survival seems to be enhanced by evolving both family and social loyalties. The social loyalties are described as "tribal," meaning there is a tendency to develop allegiances above the family level, and to benefit from that. A less strict definition of "social evolution" is to back off from the biological definition and claim that societies evolve incrementally, casting off bad ideas in favor of good ones. For example some claim that slavery was discarded because it was found not to work well as societies advanced. What this actually means is compulsory immunizations cannot be just because every time someone else makes a decision for you, especially by a government mandate, the social mechanisms that control society are diminished. Even if a person wrongly decides not to get vaccinated when he would be better off doing so, he is nonetheless making an independent and courageous decision. Society will be better off as a whole is the practice of independent decision-making is encouraged, rather than if it is suppressed. Moreover, if they get to choose, then more information is likely to be made available to the public encouraging them to get vaccinated. That has the advantage of getting government et al used to the mode of convincing rather than mandating. Society will thus evolve more quickly due to people making decisions and information being more available. Thus making my criterion of social Darwinism and my value of the elevation of higher man very valid.

I have 2.5k characters left I wil attempt to attack my opponents case.

V: Societal Welfare - well being of society
Works for me because people with lifelong immunity are better for society as well as stronger people as a whole.

VC: Rule Util - is a form of utilitarianism which states that moral actions are those which conform to the rules which lead to the greatest good
Greatest good is that people that are not able to adapt and become stronger die off and the natural immune or adaptable people are able to live and contribute to a better society welfare

C1) To attack this I will simply say If said child can not adapt and survive, said child should die. The reason we have strong diseases is because of vaccines, as seen through tuberculous outbreaks in the past. The immunized or vaccinated child got sick and died because the virus or bacteria or whateve you'd like to label it evolved because of the vaccines thus not helping societal welfare at all.

C2) No, the greatest good for the individual is death, natural immunity, or adaptibility, Adaptability allows them to survive the ever changing biological outbreak, as well s a natural immunity does. Death, would be the greatest good because in death you are void of everything. Worry, stress, disease, life, everything. So, I promote all 3 in my case and prove this contention wrong.

C3) Wrong, compulsory immunizations do affect others. It allows virus to mutuate and chane see attack on the c1.

I also want that when my opponent mentions the United States as an example of a legitimate society, we must be remembered that the resolution is not contextual a certain area and thus we must look to worldwide examples and a worldwide scale. Thus, it would be difficult to argue that every government is a legitimate government.
Debate Round No. 1
PoloX

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

I will begin by attacking my opponents case.

Value: My opponent is valuing elevation of higher man, individuals with a higher immune system. For this I have 3 responses.
1. My opponent is suggesting that we would have the best society to better the world and better the man, but how can you have the best society when more people are likely to die and not as many will survive? Just because they have a higher immune system, doesn't mean they can contribue more. That's common sense I believe, but if you don't buy that response then there is 2. Just because individuals, who survive, have a higher immune system, doesn't mean they can contribue more and better benefit societal welfare. This lacks proof as well as she doesn't explain how higher naturaly immune people benefit society better than others who aren't. you can't value her elevation of higher man when you can't prove to achieve the best of socieal welfare, which is how she attacks my value in this case. If you don't buy that argument then 3.At the point where she argues that violating her value is bad from immunizations, but then concedes in her C2: "Society will be better off as a whole is the practice of independent decision-making is encouraged, rather than if it is suppressed" here she agrees they should have a choice to be immunized. "if they get to choose, then more information is likely to be made available to the public encouraging them to get vaccinated." With this she encourages vaccines herself. She isn't even fully promoting her own value in this case, by her not able to uphold her value in all instances of only the man with the with higher immune system (accorind to her VC). You have look towards my value and how I uphold it, since I 100% uphold my value during a public health concern.

VC: with her criterion of Darwinism. In her description "while the weak and unfit should be allowed to die." She is disproved here also. Cross-apply my argument 3. against her value to here making this 1. and according to her VC, we should allow the weak and unfit to die, but we aren't doing that when we even offer immunizations on a voluntary basis as she is suggesting. 2. In her description of VC she states "Higher Man is a necessity to have a strong nation and should be the ultimate goal of society." She not only disproves it by suggesting voluntary immunization, but there is no way to prove it either when there are more than enough societies that offer immunizations to know this is false.

Over my opponents counter definitions.
Justice: I can win the round regardless of this definition, but I do need to prove how I stand true to this definition more than her. Again she mentions her V and VC here, you can just cross apply all those arguments, because this isn't a debatable definition as it doesn't matter to my win, but rather how her V and VC are upholding it.

Compulsory: Ntice she uses a source and I don't. I have 2 responses. 1. This is a philosophical debate and since when would a society immunize someone when they have a medical issue or are too young? That would be violating my V which is why I offer exemptions for those two reasons only. Also there is herd immunity and that is what the society and others would rely on when giving exemptions. 2. she is suggesting people with weak immune systems should be allowed to die, I have exemptions for people with medical issues which she argues against, does this not contradict herself?

RA: She didn't attack my defintion of PHC. and the effectiveness of an immunzation is a PHC itself to the individual when they decide to get a immunization, which may I remind she promotes in C2.

C1: there is 2 response for this and that is 1. She again contradicts herself in C2 by promoting choice of getting immunized. it doesn't matter if immunizations are compulsory or voluntary, they still have the same result in a human being, which means the virus could have the same result in a human. This shows that she can't uphold her V and VC in this instance. 2. In her RA she states how the effectivness of an immunization doesn't matter to justify it, when she is arguing what the effect it could have with a virus herself. So you have to conclude that with my definition of PHC and while she argues effectiveness herself, that My case fully supports the justification of Compulsory immunization.

C2: there are 2 responses. She stated "Thus making my criterion of social Darwinism and my value of the elevation of higher man very valid", while promoting her V and VC at the same time with voluntary vaccines contradicts herself according to her definition of ehr V and VC. Also in her C1 she stated that "To interfere with this process is bad", with this C2, you see she is interfering with the society herself. therefore it's perfectly fine for me to interfere if she does. doesn't matter if it is compulsory or vouluntary, since they could the same effect on a single human and so it could cause the same effect of a mutation of a virus.

I will now be rebuilding my case.

V: I have 3 responses. I have three responses. cross apply 1. and 3. against her value to here as 1. and 2. There is also 3. I would like to point out that becasuse she is wanting to promote a better society as well, you have to look to my value when A. I don't contradict myself as much as her, if at all. B. I also pointed out how she can't prove she upholds societal welfare better than me, when higher immune system people don't necessarily contribute more.

VC: She argues how Rule util works best for her. I have 2 responses. 1. Cross apply the argument of how she can't prove it is best for society and so she can't prove it is the greatest good for the greatest number either. 2.Does the weak immune people effect the higher immune people? Possible they could contract the disease to each other, which is why compulsory immunizations are justified, since she wants the man with the with higher immune system to live.
This also means that she fails to argue against Harms principle under Rule util, which was all together by John Stuart Mill. This wasn't a 2 in 1 VC. This was 1 full VC by the same person. Consider this a drop and and know that the government is legitimate in restricting the rights of individuals when it harms others.

C1: I have 1 response. 1. This argument falls do to the fact that she still supports voluntary immunizations in her C2.

C2: She stated when attacking my C2. "I promote all 3 in my case and prove this contention wrong." I have 1 response. 1. This argument also falls when you aren't upholding all three, since your C2 contradicts what you are promoting.

C3: I have 2 responses. she stated "Wrong, compulsory immunizations do affect others." while attacking my C3. I states in my C3 " Compulsory immunizations are justified and do effect others of whether or not you get immunized". 1. She is agreeing with me in this instance and so unless this was a typo or she misunderstood, She concedes the point to me, that it effects others, and that promotes Harms priniciple under my VC. " It allows virus to mutuate and chane see attack on the c1." alright, 2. also see my attack on C1. Compulsory and voluntary immunizations have the same effect on a single human and so could effect a single virus cell the same way as my opponent is suggesting.

She argues about my example of the U.S. She mentions the context of the resolution. and states "Thus, it would be difficult to argue that every government is a legitimate government." 1.I'm not trying to prove that every government is a legitimate government, because I don't have to. I am arguing that any government is legitimate in restricting rights, when it can effect others, which harms principle states.
wonderwoman

Con

wonderwoman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
PoloX

Pro

Since my opponent forfieted the round, my refutations and rebbutals still stand and I ask that you, the voter, let this be a weighing standard towards your vote and do not let my opponent address the issues next time. Thank you for your time and I urge a pro vote.
wonderwoman

Con

My case is not contradictory a my opponent claims because elevation of higher man is met. It also allows society to evolve which is good as well.

His attack on my Value. is false because he cannot support higher man with compulsory immunizations (extend my definition from above). I promote my whole case upon higher immune system and the elevation of higher man which as I explained comes in many forms.

Attack on My Vc. When they are voluntary you promote social evolution which is necessary for the society to evolve and it still helps the elevation of higher man as explained it comes in many forms.

Counter attacks
1) my opponent claims to have an R.A. , yet I don't see it. So, ignore his whole point about me dropping it. Besides your R.A. doesn't matter if it was there.

2) Justice - extend my definition, only my case can support that definition because it is the only one giving out a reward (life) and a punishment (death)

3) Compulsory - extend definition and it does violate my opponents value which makes his value not plausible.

His Case
His c1) not really extended or defended. Like I said if the child can't adapt and survive it should die. Because vaccines cause mutations which cause more death. Tuberclious ring a bell?

his c2) Not defended upon.I explained how death is the greatest good for the individual so I promote the most utilitiarian outcome no matter how my case goes. (people dying or people living due to higher immune systems)

His c3) Meh. Really now he defends it by saing I agree with him about viral mutuation. this is true which is done through.....wait for it VACCINES. So, I don't see how it works for his case seeing as it will occur on the aff side more often.

My case

My C1) Not contridactory as am arguing evolution (darwinism) of society as well as the individual. I defined many ways this can be done, intellect was one which comes from knowledge and the higher immune system or natural immunity.

My c2) Not contridactory as stated. Yes, to interfere with natural selection is bad but to have society evolve is good. Both, can happen with the government not mandating and it would promote intellect as well as the individual evolution(higher immune systems) because you have the choice and knowledge to risk whether or not you can adapt and change.

Like I said his whole Societal Welfare value works for me because people with lifelong immunity are stronger people as a whole in terms of viruses and bacteria and all that good stuff.

His VC of Rule Util works for me because the Greatest good is that people that are not able to adapt and become stronger die off and the natural immune or adaptable people are able to live and contribute to a better society welfare

We must use my definition of justice as none was provided and I sourced it through webster.

Justice: judgment involved in the determination of rights and the assignment of rewards and punishments
The value of Higher Man guides this principal and so does Darwinism in determining that has the right to live and be rewarding them with that life and the deciding who should be punished with death by the survival of the fittest.

So, the only way to promote justice is through my case as rewards and punishments are on dealt by nature and societal evolution.

I urge a con ballot.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Kenetic 4 years ago
Kenetic
PoloXwonderwomanTied
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 Jaylik 4 years ago
Jaylik
PoloXwonderwomanTied
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 PoloX 4 years ago
PoloX
PoloXwonderwomanTied
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 Vi_Veri 4 years ago
Vi_Veri
PoloXwonderwomanTied
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 Justinisthecrazy 4 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
PoloXwonderwomanTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 4 years ago
wonderwoman
PoloXwonderwomanTied
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:25