The Instigator
Matthew-Thacker
Con (against)
Losing
25 Points
The Contender
Nails
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 9 votes the winner is...
Nails
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,362 times Debate No: 10275
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (21)
Votes (9)

 

Matthew-Thacker

Con

A single vaccine given to a six-pound newborn is equivalent to giving a 180-pound adult 30 vaccinations on the
same day.
Because I agree with Dr. Boyd Halley and believe that compulsory immunization should be justified by public health concerns, I stand Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations.

In order to clarify the debate, I begin with the definition of terms and offer the following definitions from Webster's College Dictionary, Kented.org, and worldnet.web.princeton.com

1.Concerns: to trouble, worry, or disquiet
2.Justify: to defend or uphold
3.Immunization: the act of making immunized (immunize) to make immune
4.Compulsory: using compulsion, mandate
5.Public Health: refers to the well being of the whole community

The value I will uphold will be that of Individual Autonomy.

The criterion for determining the truth of the resolution shall be the Individual Autonomy, which, The condition or quality of being autonomous; independence The side, which best provides for promoting a higher standard of health thereby upholding the resolution should win the debate.

1. Government does not have a right to forcibly inject substances into people's bodies without the individual's consent. Under a compulsory immunization regime, people would be forced to be injected with a substance that they know little about and would have to take the word of the government that it is safe. This is not comforting given the fact that the vaccines are made by companies who bid the lowest for the contract and that with liability shields, neither the government nor the manufacturers can be sued if the vaccines end up injuring or killing people.
2. Cost-benefit arguments treat people as just a statistic. Cost-benefit justifications of compulsory immunization programs are dehumanizing and treats people as a number. In matters that affect health, if not life itself, citizens should have a choice in participating in immunization program. That is a hallmark of a democratic society. Forced immunization is more in line with what authoritarian, dictatorial, and communist countries would do to their citizens.
3. Risk statistics that "prove" that vaccines are safe are questionable at best. These
statistics take the total population (even in areas that are not likely to be affected) and divides it against the number of potential patients that will likely have a deadly adverse reaction. This number is kept as low as possible and is frequently defined as being in the highest risk factor who is likely to have the most severe reaction (serious injury and death). Under this criteria, the number of patients with adverse reaction would be quite low because it does not include patients who have moderate risk profiles but who would still have an adverse reaction and patients who have a bad, but not severe reaction. But the risk statistics overall are just a guess, not based on empirical evidence of that patient population using that particular vaccine.
Nails

Pro

CON gives no warrants for why individual autonomy is a good thing. I contend that it is bad, because it allows the individual to make wrong decisions. If Big Brother forces you to do the right thing, it's impossible to break the law or act immorally.

Thus, extend CON's 3 contentions that compulsory immunization limits individual autonomy and vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 1
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Ctrl+C
Ctrl+V
Posted by Matthew-Thacker 7 years ago
Matthew-Thacker
Okay, then explain how i got my argument
Posted by daniel_t 7 years ago
daniel_t
Matthew-Thacker,
"I wrote it in a word processor then copied pasted it in here"

Please don't insult our intelligence with such an obvious lie. Over 69% of your argument was written by somebody else, and over 300 words of your argument was a direct copy paste of a single block of text from the source document cited earlier.

You gave no credit whatsoever to the original author of the text and now you dare to claim that you wrote it yourself?

The only part of the argument you wrote was the definition of terms and the criterion statement. This explains the impression I expressed earlier that the argument put forth seemed to have nothing to do with the criterion you said it should be judged by. Did you even *read* what you copied and claimed as your own?

At least save face by reading the definition of plagiarism I provided in an earlier comment, admitting you did wrong and promising to never do it again. I noticed your profile says that you are 15 years old, consider this a learning experience. If you try something like that in college, you will be severely reprimanded.
Posted by Matthew-Thacker 7 years ago
Matthew-Thacker
I had no idea that I plagiarized my case, I wrote it in a word processor then copied pasted it in here
Posted by daniel_t 7 years ago
daniel_t
I have reported the argument. Matthew-Thacker has broken clause B of the "Content Posted and Code of Conduct" terms of use, and possibly broken the law (I'm not sure what the legal status of plagiarism is in California.) http://definitions.uslegal.com...

I suspect that the votes are coming in from people who agree with his position without bothering to read the debate or comments. I urge everybody to vote against Matthew-Thacker, he has behaved unethically in this debate and should not profit by it.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Am I just being vote bombed or something? The guy posted a plagiarized case that made absolutely no sense.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
"Con's entire argument is plagiarized from http://paulbui.net...;

Ironically, that source is itself plagiarized from: http://www.planetdebate.com...
Posted by daniel_t 7 years ago
daniel_t
Thank you logicalmaster17. Con's entire argument is plagiarized from http://paulbui.net...

Therefore, I change my vote and give all possible points to Pro.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Keen eyes!
I should have noticed it was plagiarized. I've read that brief atleast 3 times.

...and yet he's still only 2 days from winning this.
Posted by logicalmaster17 7 years ago
logicalmaster17
wow, the negative for his contentions, just copied the Min brief. lol, better to make original cases
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Madoki 7 years ago
Madoki
Matthew-ThackerNailsTied
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 ReginaldJeeves 7 years ago
ReginaldJeeves
Matthew-ThackerNailsTied
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 daniel_t 7 years ago
daniel_t
Matthew-ThackerNailsTied
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 7 years ago
oceanix
Matthew-ThackerNailsTied
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 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 idkmybffbill 7 years ago
idkmybffbill
Matthew-ThackerNailsTied
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 7 years ago
Nails
Matthew-ThackerNailsTied
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 Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Matthew-ThackerNailsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
Matthew-ThackerNailsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
Matthew-ThackerNailsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03