The Instigator
oceanix
Con (against)
Winning
70 Points
The Contender
skull95w
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: 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 10 votes the winner is...
oceanix
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,782 times Debate No: 9754
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (10)

 

oceanix

Con

This is the NFL November-December 2009 Lincoln Douglas resolution. Please only accept if you are willing to follow the Lincoln Douglas format. Due to the LD format, I (the negative) will not be posting an argument this round. The affirmative will lead with his or her constructive speech, after which I will post my constructive. The affirmative has three speeches, the negative two.

I thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate.
skull95w

Pro

ok so we should justify compulsory immunization because people can and will die from diseases.
Debate Round No. 1
oceanix

Con

Well, I had hoped to debate this in a Lincoln Douglas format, but if my opponent would rather not, I can accept debating it in a more casual format. Thanks to skull95w for accepting my debate.

As my opponent stated, t is true that people can die from disease; however, we need to see that requiring everyone to be immunized is unjust and immoral.

Requiring all to be immunized takes away the liberty of those who wish not to be immunized. Taking away the rights of others invalidates basic rights of humans. John Stuart Mill said: "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." We need to see in this round that Mill was correct, and that we need to negate the resolution in order to more fully deliver liberty to all. My opponent in his sentence seems to be arguing that we need to value having a life over liberty. However, if we have not liberty, then why do we need to have a life?

Sure, one may say that requiring a simple vaccination is not taking away enough liberty for it to be more important than life. However, we need to see that each individual believes in separate and unique ideas and beliefs, and many devote their lives to their ideals. Who are we as a government, a people, a society, to say that their beliefs are strictly wrong and our beliefs are strictly right?

Take the example of all those followers of the Jehovah's Witness faith. Their religion states that vaccines ought not to occur, and to accept vaccination is a sin. This faith also states that only 144,000 people get into heaven. Essentially, if the Jehovah's Witnesses are correct, and they are required to be vaccinated, you are condemning them to Hell. Is this just?

Really, we need to see that we need to negate because if affirmed, the resolution takes away our liberty, takes away our rights, and ultimately imposes a singles belief onto all. We must follow the words of Charles Kingsley when he states, "There are two freedoms - the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought." We need to see that through affirmation, a man is not free to do what he ought under all circumstances, and negate.
skull95w

Pro

ok have you ever heard of the Spanish influenza? well that killed 50 million people and that's as many people the are in south Korea. and they did not have good heath care. so people are saying that the swine flu is be coming the next Spanish influenza.
Debate Round No. 2
oceanix

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for a speedy response.

My opponent did not refute any of my specific points, so please cross-apply them here.

Moving on to refutation of my opponents argument. In the case of the Spanish Influenza, the national and global health care systems were particularly weak, nowhere near the levels they're at today. No one was vaccinated. It was near impossible to properly treat individuals. The swine flu is nowhere near as deadly as the Spanish influenza, and the health care system, globally, is much stronger. Vaccinations are also already being handed out.

I as the con am not suggesting that no one be vaccinated. I am proving that it isn't justified to mandate immunization for all. We must value liberty over life, and must not impose a single belief upon all. Given that my opponent didn't attack any of these, we must assume he agrees with them. Silence is consent. With that, I beg for a con ballot.
skull95w

Pro

ok well I would like to say that your arguments are to long and that's it so I give up.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by stevencho 3 years ago
stevencho
As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I can tell you that we most certainly accept vaccinations. Next time you post a belief of an organization that could have an influence on someone reading it, you should always post the source. In this case your accusations were not only completely wrong but also very misleading.
Posted by gamingmaster42 4 years ago
gamingmaster42
haha 70 to 0
Posted by rawrxqueen 5 years ago
rawrxqueen
really??? i dont understand why some ppl even make accounts on here
Posted by wonderwoman 5 years ago
wonderwoman
hmmmmm post your case and will debate
Posted by oceanix 5 years ago
oceanix
I've debated my pro case fairly thoroughly elsewhere, so I probably need more practice as Con. However, if you'd like, I'd accept the challenge if you were to repost this with you as con.
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
I would take as CON.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by twsurber 4 years ago
twsurber
oceanixskull95wTied
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 rawrxqueen 5 years ago
rawrxqueen
oceanixskull95wTied
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 LuxEtVeritas 5 years ago
LuxEtVeritas
oceanixskull95wTied
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 KimiLovesBoys 5 years ago
KimiLovesBoys
oceanixskull95wTied
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 philosphical 5 years ago
philosphical
oceanixskull95wTied
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 ToastOfDestiny 5 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
oceanixskull95wTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Barcs 5 years ago
Barcs
oceanixskull95wTied
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 oceanix 5 years ago
oceanix
oceanixskull95wTied
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 trivea 5 years ago
trivea
oceanixskull95wTied
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 skull95w 5 years ago
skull95w
oceanixskull95wTied
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