The Instigator
Flyinglow
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
twsurber
Pro (for)
Winning
33 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  
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: 10/10/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,404 times Debate No: 9658
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (5)

 

Flyinglow

Con

This will be debated LD fashion.

Since I am negating, I will let pro go first
twsurber

Pro

Judges ready?
Opponent ready?

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE

I. INTRODUCTION: I concur with the stated resolution. In my presentation I will demonstrate that compulsory immunizations not are not only justified, but are also necessary as deemed by respected medical professionals.

II. STATEMENT OF RESOLUTION: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations.

III. DEFINITIONS:
I respectfully request that my opponent stipulate the terms: vaccination, immunization, and innoculation are synonymous.

PUBLIC HEALTH - Public health: The approach to medicine that is concerned with the health of the community as a whole. (source: www.medterms.com)

CONCERNS - 3 : to be a care, trouble, or distress to (source: www.merriam-webster.com)

JUSTIFY - 1 a : to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable (source: www.merriam-webster.com)

COMPULSORY - 1 : mandatory, enforced (source: www.merriam-webster.com)

IMMUNIZATIONS - : Vaccination. Immunizations work by stimulating the immune system, the natural disease-fighting system of the body. The healthy immune system is able to recognize invading bacteria and viruses and produce substances (antibodies) to destroy or disable them. Immunizations prepare the immune system to ward off a disease. To immunize against viral diseases, the virus used in the vaccine has been weakened or killed. To immunize against bacterial diseases, it is generally possible to use only a small portion of the dead bacteria to stimulate the formation of antibodies against the whole bacteria. In addition to the initial immunization process, it has been found that the effectiveness of immunizations can be improved by periodic repeat injections or "boosters." (source: www.medterms.com)

IV. VALUE PREMISE: Sensibility

V. VALUE CRITERION: The epert opinion of medical professionals is often sought not only in matters relating to health, but also to testify in legal matters. Therefore, it is sensible to value the expert opinions of medical professionals in this discussion.

VI. CONTENTIONS:

CONTENTION ONE: Three of the most respected "go-to" professional organizations not only endorse, but also encourage immunizations.
A. The Center for Disease Control states: "Vaccine-preventable disease levels are at or near record lows. However, we cannot take high immunization coverage levels for granted. To continue to protect America's children and adults, we must obtain maximum immunization coverage in all populations, establish effective partnerships, conduct reliable scientific research, implement immunization systems, and ensure vaccine safety". (source: www.cdc.gov)

B. The American Medical Association states: "Immunization has been one of the most successful public health advances of the century". "The physician's role in providing education and advocacy on important issues regarding vaccination is critical". (source: www.ama-assn.org)

C. The World Health Organization states: "Immunization is a proven tool for controlling and eliminating life-threatening infectious diseases and is estimated to avert over 2 million deaths each year". (source: www.who.int)

CONTENTION TWO: It is quite sensible to prevent illness and disease by the the most cost effective measure available. It is clear that when a person is healthy, they are much more capable, in regard to physical ability, to work. When people are ill, they are either forced to miss work, or work at an often reduced capacity. Further, it stands to reason that the same illness could potentionally be passed on to other people, causing further illness and reduced productivity. Visits to physicians and pharmacies incur costs to insurance companies, people, or both. While it is somewhat beneficial to the GDP, it is both reasonable and sensible to avoid or prevent illness when possible. To immunize simply passes the common sense test.

A. The World Health Organization states: "It (vaccination) is one of the most cost-effective health investments, with proven strategies that make it accessible to even the most hard-to-reach and vulnerable populations". (source: www.who.int)

B. To quote respected statesman Benjamin Franklin, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". (source: www.ushistory.org)

CONTENTION THREE: Despite claims to the contrary, vaccinations are virtually safe. With anything comes a certain degree of risk, yet where the rubber meets the road immunizations are worth the risk. By definition, vaccinations are certainly reasonable, right, and just. If there is a virtually safe way to protect against many illnesses, it is in fact just. Further, those who are able, cannot justify failing to receive immunization. False alarms issued by uniformed people cause undue panic and doubt. This is where the compulsory piece fits into the equation. Due to misinformation, people may elect to not get immunized. This should not be a choice, but a duty as a member of the human race.

A. The Center for Disease Control states: "Vaccines are held to the highest standard of safety. The United States currently has the safest, most effective vaccine supply in history. Years of testing are required by law before a vaccine can be licensed. Once in use, vaccines are continually monitored for safety and efficacy". (source: www.cdc.gov)

B. The Center for Disease Control states: "Evaluating Information on the Web
Is the vaccine info found on the web accurate?
Is there any regulation or standardization of info on web?
Sources
Are you confused by the amount of information on immunizations on the Internet? Concerned about the rumors linking vaccines and diseases like diabetes and autism? Below are some tips to help you navigate your way through all of the information available and determine its accuracy.

Is the vaccine info found on the web accurate?
Consider the source of information.
A good health Web site will display who is responsible for the site. Also, there will be a way to contact the information provider or Webmaster.

Information should not be slanted in favor of a Web site's sponsor or source of funding. Health information should be accurate and unbiased". (source: www.cdc.gov)

CONCLUSION: I have demonstrated that getting immunized makes sense from a variety of viewpoints. I have quoted from the some of the most respected medical authorities. If people will not choose to make the right, justifiable, and sensible choice to get vaccinated, then the choice will be made for them. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Flyinglow

Con

Flyinglow forfeited this round.
twsurber

Pro

Judges ready?
Opponent ready?

CROSS EXAMINATION:
- My opponent failed to present a negative constructive, there is no information to challenge.
- Does the lack of a negative constructive by the CON/NEG imply concurence with the PRO/AFF?

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL:
The pros greatly outweigh any cons (none stated notwithstanding) in regard to immunization.
FACT: Medical science proves that vaccine lots are routinely checked and deemed safe.
FACT: Medical professionsals are in favor of immunization.
FACT: Immunizations are a cost effective way to protect people and prevent many diseases.
FACT: The CON/NEG has not presented any argument.

Given the above, there is no reason whatsoever why people should not be vaccinated. It makes perfect sense to receive vaccinations. It is clearly in everyone's best interest to receive vaccinations. In concern for public health, compulsory immunizations are in fact justified.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Flyinglow

Con

Flyinglow forfeited this round.
twsurber

Pro

OBSERVATIONS: My opponent has failed to present a quality argument.

SUMMARY: One could say that making vaccinations compulsory is just more government interference in our personal lives. We're not talking about tickets for not wearing a seatbelt folks. We're talking about what is good for society. It makes perfect sense to make immunizations compulsory. Let's examine the PROs:
- Prevents most illnesses
- Cost effective
- Higher immunity equals less disease
- Less chance of disease spreading / epidemic
- Less disease equals the potential for higher GDP
- Fewer insurance claims
- Healthier people
- Creation, testing, marketing equals jobs

Requoting statesman Benjamin Franklin, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".

These are all facts of my case, and they remain undisputed. Thank you!
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
Metz
That's really the only thing. Anything that requires a judge to respond isn't needed.
Posted by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
Sorry Metz, I'm new to this and attempting to follow etiquette. It seems that folks can nit pick anything to death and I wanted to cover that base. LOL
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
Metz
tws, this is an online debate site... don't begin by asking if we are ready.... we cant exactly say no can we..
Posted by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
A value premise should be something which is positive for society, e.g. Justice, societal welfare, quality education. I think societal welfare works best for this one
Posted by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
Offer a suggestion Cody. I understand L-D is cutthroat carnage, but offer a viable suggestion, not just negativity. What is another way to defend the resolution? How would you have defended it?

Regardless, it would not be fair for me to change it now assuming my opponent is preparing his/her Negative Affirmative based upon my pro/aff.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Yeah, I don't really buy into the whole "Common sense" thesis of your case; I buy into your criterion even less.
Posted by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
Is common sense not defendable? Please offer a suggestion.
Posted by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
@ tws, change ur value premise to something defensible
Posted by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
Metz, thanks for the input, that's exactly what I am looking for. Unfortunately I got bogged down with other higher priorities and threw this thing together in an hour just before my time limit expired.

After actually reading it, I found a lot of areas that I didn't present as clearly as I meant to, or should have. My criterion intent was that it is sensible to rely on medical expert's opinions.

Recently, our debate team got hammered for not quoting enough sources. I guess I need to find a happy medium there. I am hoping to receive some good feedback such as yours to better prepare our L-D speakers for next month. Thanks, Thomas
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
Metz
What exactly is the affirmative criterion? From the description it sounds like the criterion is almost "using qualified sources" which is sensible? so whoever can used the most qualified sources wins?? What is a "qualified source"? don't medical professionals disagree about issues?
Debate is not about who has better source citations but who makes the best arguments. There exists a logical fallacy known as argument from authority. This can also be referred to as the majority of the Aff case.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by idkmybffbill 7 years ago
idkmybffbill
FlyinglowtwsurberTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by oceanix 7 years ago
oceanix
FlyinglowtwsurberTied
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 7 years ago
Nails
FlyinglowtwsurberTied
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 philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
FlyinglowtwsurberTied
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 twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
FlyinglowtwsurberTied
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