The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 Points

Resolved: 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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/25/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,537 times Debate No: 9828
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)




Standard LD debate. I'll be taking the negative side of this resolution. Thanks, and good luck to my opponent :)

-No need to cite cards, I completely understand any wish you have not to. I trust them as legit :D


I affirm, Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.


The only particularly hazy term of the round is "justify," which I will define per Aristotle's definition of "justice," which is giving each his or her due. Therefore, the verb "justify" will revolve primarily around what is entitled to human beings or citizens of a given society.


V: Natural Rights. Per the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, natural rights generally consist of the rights to life, liberty, property, and safety of person. Hence, the affirmative will attempt to prove that compulsory immunization is necessary to maximize these rights, which will adequately justify its usage, as all human beings are due natural rights.

C: Achieving Herd Immunity. Herd immunity, as will be discussed at length in my second contention, is the epidemiological principle that the more people we immunize against disease, the better protected an entire society is. Because of prohibitive medical conditions and the occasional failed vaccination attempt, 100% immunity within a population cannot be achieved. However, by achieving herd immunity (up to 95% immunized), we not only protect individual citizens against epidemics, but the world community.

1. The principle of liberty, which is a requirement of all just states, requires compulsory immunization.

A. The state of liberty does not entail absolute individual freedom. In general, all human beings are entitled to a certain set of natural rights. However, those rights are finite and governed by the principle of liberty, as discussed by John Stuart Mill. He elaborates:

"Everything that makes life worth living for anyone depends on restraints being put on the actions of other people...
So this is the appropriate region of human liberty…liberty of conscience in the broadest sense…Liberty of tastes and pursuits, of shaping our life to suit our own character, of doing what we like…all this without hindrance from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do doesn't harm them even though they may think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong."

To summarize, liberty gives a human being the right to do just about anything he or she feels will increase his or her quality of life, excepting those actions which threaten the rights and safety of other human beings. This is the guiding principle behind compulsory immunizations, as well as a wide variety of other public concern legislation. Since those that I come into contact with (which has vastly increased in the contemporary world) are immediately put into danger if I am a carrier of disease, as well as the exponential number of people exposed after initial contact, I am violating the principle of liberty. It is not just to put fellow citizens in harms way to protect my own sentimentalities.

B. Objections other than medical violate the principle of liberty. As stated prior, the balancing point between individual freedom and public governance is the harm to others' rights or person. If we use this weighing mechanism to examine the current objections to vaccinations, those being conscientious, medical, & religious, the only one to pass the acid test would be medical. Obviously, if the state mandates a vaccination that is likely, per expert medical diagnosis, to harm or kill an individual, the exemption is justified as it meets the standards of liberty. However, if there are no sound medical objections to contend with, then the individual's rights to autonomy, including parental autonomy, may and should be subjugated for the protection of the right to life of others.

C. Violations of the principle of liberty with regards to immunization lead to unnecessary loss of human life. Alice Park details an outbreak of polio in Nigeria that occurred in 2001. The disastrous effects of the outbreak were caused directly by the violation of this principle of liberty and entirely preventable. She states:

"That's what happened in the current measles outbreaks in the western U.S., and that's what happened in Nigeria in 2001, when religious and political leaders convinced parents that polio vaccines were dangerous and their kids should not receive them. Over the next six years, not only did Nigerian infection rates increase 30-fold, but the disease also broke free and ranged out to 10 other countries, many of which had previously been polio-free."

The ramifications of respecting the falsely bestowed right of absolute personal autonomy are far too costly to the human race.

2. Immunizations are both medically sound and empirically beneficial to human survival of epidemics and pandemics.

A. Vaccinations have been proven medically safe for general populations. Though little evidence is needed to prove this claim, vaccinations have been successfully used in myriad human populations to prevent and even eradicate diseases since the 17th Century. Alice Park states:

"In the past century, vaccines against diphtheria, polio, pertussis, measles, mumps and rubella, not to mention the more recent additions of hepatitis B and chicken pox, have wired humans with powerful immune sentries to ward off uninvited invasions. And thanks to state laws requiring vaccinations for youngsters enrolling in kindergarten, the U.S. currently enjoys the highest immunization rate ever; 77% of children embarking on the first day of school are completely up to date on their recommended doses and most of the remaining children are missing just a few shots."

Considering that a little over � of U.S. schoolchildren alone are multi-vaccinated upon entering schools, the soundness of the vaccine is evident. If it were, droves of U.S. students would be negatively affected by these vaccines, as well as people in every other nation that employs vaccines in any part of its operations. However, a broader perspective is delivered by Dr. Michael Pazos:

"To be clear, there is no such thing as a perfectly safe vaccine. Like any other medical treatment, there are side effects and risks involved. In rare cases, live attenuated vaccines could induce the illness they protect against, which could even be spread to those who are not vaccinated. Most of the known risks are rare and relatively minor—most people are familiar with the redness and swelling following a flu shot—and the benefits of vaccination far outweigh them."

B. Vaccines' benefits to both the individual and society clearly outweigh any harms, real or perceived. As Dr. Pazos stated previously, the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the minor risks. Besides the individual protection that vaccines provide, the real impact of vaccines was discussed previously by Alice Parks and her analysis of the Nigeria polio outbreak. Dr. Pazos continues, discussing the concept of herd immunity:

"...vaccines are broadly administered in order to establish what is referred to as "herd immunity." Most infectious diseases require a ready supply of healthy hosts in order to continue spreading. So, if enough people get vaccinated, entire illnesses can go from serious public health threats to occasional isolated incidents. This way the young, the elderly, the sick, and even those who are unsuccessfully vaccinated are protected by the majority. Vaccination rates necessary to establish herd immunity vary by the pathogen, but they can be as high as 95 percent—very little room is left for those who voluntarily choose not to get vaccinated, which is why mandatory vaccinations are widely instituted."

If we review the principle of liberty, and consider the populations of people who medically cannot be vaccinated, then herd immunity is a necessary state that we must achieve to maximize the protection of all citizens. Hence, with vaccines presenting no general medical dangers and with people's lives resting on whether herd immunity can be achieved, the only just action is compulsory immunization.

Bring it, Ginger. >:)
Debate Round No. 1


First, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and hope that it will be an overall good learning experience for the both of us. Given my opponents reputation as an excellent debater, I know I for one will benefit from this experience. Second, I feel as if I should apologize for not only my late reply, but for the condition in which my neg case is in :) I've been sick with strep for the past week, and composed this with a 102 degree fever. Hopefully I was coherent enough to at least make some sense :D

Anyway, I wish you luck, and hope that this debate will be enjoyable for you.

Resolved: Public Health Concerns Justify Compulsory Immunization

Observation 1, Definitions:
I accept the definitions provided by my opponent

Observation 2, Standards:
Value: My value for this round will be justice defined by Aristotle as giving each his/her own due. Essentially, what �€œought to be�€�.

Criterion: My criterion for this round will be the protection of individual rights (natural rights) through a legitimate system of government. To best define a legitimate form of government, we must look to John Stuart Mill�€™s philosophic work of �€œharm principle�€�, which defines a legitimate system of government as one that still has the ability to exercise soft tyranny, but mutual liberty at the same time. In a philosophical sense, it can be said that morality must supersede tyranny in any legitimate form of government. Otherwise, people are left with a societal system rooted in backwardness, disorder, and regression. In order for the natural rights of an individual to be protected in any just society, a legitimate system of government must exist. By forcing any one individual to get vaccinated, you are denying them of their natural rights granted to them at birth by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and are therefore becoming a tyrannous and empirically unjust government.

Contention 1: Compulsory immunization legitimizes individual governments to force whole groups of people to abandon religious practices and beliefs

Many religions, such as Islam and more conservative Christian groups, prohibit vaccination because of religious beliefs.

A: Compulsory immunization violates article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights which grants the right to practice one�€™s own religion to every individual, and therefore becoming a tyrannous government.
�€� Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

This being said, it is important to cite Article 2 as well, as everyone is entitled to liberty, and clearly taking away the right to practice religion is not just and proves an inherent lack of liberty.

�€�Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

At this point it might also be helpful to define a tyrannous government, and seeing as both myself and my opponent build at least some case framework from the UN Declaration of Human Rights, I shall use the UN definition of a tyranny, which is any government that exercises absolute power, especially unjustly or cruelly. Seeing as there is no exception provided in the resolution or by the affirmative as to who can be exempt from vaccination, the government issuing the immunization mandate has become a tyranny as no one/group can oppose him/her. Since morality isn�€™t superceding tyranny here, the government is illegitimate, and therefore unjust.

B: When compulsory immunization has been exercised in the past, wide upheaval resulted and put civilian lives at risk, rather than preventing risk. I shall provide one such recent example in the following:

Opposition by Muslim fundamentalists is a major factor in the failure of polio immunization programs. In Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Taliban have issued fatwas opposing vaccination as an attempt to avert Allah's will, and as an American plot to sterilize Muslims. The Taliban have kidnapped, beaten, and assassinated vaccination officials, including assassinating the head of Pakistan's vaccination campaign in Bajaur Agency. Vaccination campaigns in Nigeria and Afghanistan have also been hampered by Islamic extremists, especially in the Nigerian province of Kano in 2003, which has resulted in the infection returning to 8 previously polio-free countries in Africa (2).

It is evident that by taking away the rights of even just a single sect of religion, chaos and violence is an expected and likely result. It is also evident that efforts in the �€œright direction�€� simply get reversed because of opposition.

C: Upheaval and disorder within a society empirically leads to societal detriment

Throughout history we can see the results of societal upheaval as pockmarks on the face of civilization. A prime and modern example would be the ever increasing suicide rates in China. After three decades of reform, citizens of the Middle Kingdom are now feeling increasing pressure to be something more than they are (mainly in the economic and professional sense), and many are simply having a hard time adjusting to this overbearing pressure. As a result, every two minutes a suicide is committed in China, every year, over 300,000 Chinese citizens commit suicide. In the case of compulsory immunization, any protest of the aforementioned will inevitably cause societal detriment.

Contention 2: Historically, those who have shown adverse effects of vaccines will still be required to get vaccinated
For example, of the thousands who get vaccinated for influenza every year, a small fraction of these people get incredibly sick or even die because of the shot. Forcing people to get a shot that they know could make them incredibly sick or even kill them is extremely immoral and exponentially unjust. I provide you with a quotation from Red Cross worker Pamela Jordin detailing the latter:

"I used to work in a private nursing home, we would not give flu shots because the one time we did, it made everyone sick and three people died. All other years ( no shots ) only a couple of people would get the flu and no one died from it. We heard the same story from other elder care faculties. I would not want to be old in a state or federal institution."

I look forward to my opponents responses :)


I appreciate my opponent's response, and hope that this will be a fruitful debate. My opponent was quite ill, so I shall forgive his tardiness...this time... :)


On the Standards Debate (Justice vs. Natural Rights/Preservation of Natural Rights vs. Achieving Herd Immunity)

1. My opponent has yet to give a hard and fast definition of our natural rights, with the sole exception that the UN Declaration of Human Rights is the document that lays them out. Therefore, the round will be dictated by the list that I provided in the AC: life, liberty, property, and safety of person.

2. Since I am arguing that what is "due" to people is their natural rights, we are both essentially striving for the same end goal in our standards. Hence, whoever can preserve those natural rights the best will win this round.

3. My criterion is precluding my opponent's standards, as well as any benefits he might be trying achieve in his case. Herd immunity, per the warrants in my case, saves the greatest amount of lives. Since being alive clearly precludes one's ability exercise any other auxiliary right, if I can prove that achieving herd immunity does not violate any essential, natural rights, I will this round.


Negative Case Responses

Contention 1 Tag Line:

1. Cross-apply my contention 1, subpoint B to this tag and all its underlying subpoints. When an auxiliary right comes into conflict with another's natural rights, the natural rights will always be preferred. If one's religious doctrine gives one permission to kill anyone who does not believe said doctrine is true, my opponent is claiming that killing in the name of religious doctrine is 100% justified.

2. Cross-apply my entire contention 2 here, but especially subpoint A. This conclusively proves that those who religiously or philosophically object to vaccinations are in little to no mortal danger by being vaccinated. Hence, this proves that an auxiliary right and natural right are in clear conflict.

3. Extend my contention 1, subpoint C impacts here. My opponent is actually costing more natural rights than he is protecting them, in that a lack of herd immunity not only affects the infected individual, but easy affects other communities, cities, and nations. The only way to prevent these deaths (again, dead people can't exercise their individual rights) is to compulsorily immunize.

Contention 1, Subpoint A:

1. By my opponent's rationale, we should also abolish traffic laws, as they are a product of a tyrannous state because they are mandatory. Laws in and of themselves are compulsory, even if they were instilled via popular consent (which not all of them are in just governments). My opponent assumes that a single directive constitutes a tyrannical government, when that is clearly not the case. In a democracy such as the U.S., that would make all executive orders signed by the president, or all acts of Congress not directly influenced by the population, acts of tyranny.

2. Cross-apply my contention 1, subpoint A here. The concept of liberty may not be violated if we are expected to live in a free and equitable society. Much like the US Constitution (if I may draw a parallel between a universal and non-universal document), the UN Declaration of Human Rights does outline basic religious and ideological freedom. However, these are not static rights. One may practice one's own religion until it comes into conflict with another's right to life or safety of person, for instance. Unless, of course, my opponent would like to also defend practices such as ritual human sacrifice. Another perfect example is the freedom of speech. I may say whatever I want, but I may not, to use a tired example, yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, as I would be actively violating other's right to life and safety.

Contention 1, Subpoint B:

1. This subpoint assumes that religion has the right to freely exercise all of its doctrine in the first place, which is not true.

2. My opponent's card only deals with religious fundamentalists who do not represent the major body of religious persons in the world. Unless my opponent can prove that compulsory vaccination will end the world, the impacts won't outweigh unchecked pandemics. I doubt we are going to nuclear war with a terrorist organization about vaccines.

3. What he is suggesting is that, because a few fundamentalists may object to vaccination, we should disregard a policy that has the ability (as I've clearly shown in my case) to save millions upon millions of lives. By his rationale, we should also discontinue health and well-being projects around the globe, or anything that a fundamentalist would object to, for that matter.

Contention 1, Subpoint C:

1. My opponent makes absolutely no link between Chinese suicide rates and compulsory immunization programs. He just states that societal upheaval leads to increased suicide, but can't prove that societal upheaval would ever occur to the extent of driving people to suicide.

2. TURN: with SARS, Malaria, Yellow Fever, Swine Flu, etc. affecting the largest population in the world, alleviating the rapid spread of infectious diseases amongst the Chinese population would do far more to stabilize the society than would a lack of vaccination. Look to the SARS panic of the past decade for all the evidence you need.

Contention 2 Tag Line:

1. My opponent's card doesn't actually prove his subpoint at all. The card states that an undetermined number of elderly fell sick from a dose of flu vaccine. Nowhere does he warrant his actual claim, which is that people who are likely to die from vaccination are oftentimes not medically exempted.

2. My opponent's card is incredibly isolated. Since "compulsory immunization" does not imply flu at all, his warrants cannot outweigh those that I provide in the affirmative case. I have conclusive data and expert medical opinion which states that while, yes, there are some rare and serious risks, the benefits still far outweigh those harms. The affirmative readily acknowledges that vaccinations are not perfect. To reuse an earlier analogy, neither are traffic lights. Every once and a while, one might malfunction, allowing for a head on collision at an intersection. That collision will result in property damage, injury, and possibly the loss of innocent life. However, does that mean that we eliminate all traffic safety devices?

Of course, the answer is "no." We don't eliminate those other public health preservation measures because every system has inherent risks. However, if the benefits outweigh the risks enough (which they do—check out my contention 2, subpoint B), then the measure is deemed justified.
Debate Round No. 2


I'll first be going over standards, then neg, followed finally by aff.


As far as Values go...
1.) First and foremost, my proposed value of justice is really what's being weighed in this debate, per the resolution. Is compulsory immunization JUSTIFIED (implying the value of justice).
2.) Second, my value of Justice pretty much subsumes the value of Natural Rights, as the right to life, liberty, property, and safety of person are all elements of a just society. Furthermore, natural rights is my CRITERION, the mechanism in which I achieve justice!
3.) For clarification as to our natural rights... they are all rights guaranteed by the UN Declaration of Human Rights... how is that unclear? For convenience, I will provide a link to the actual document to prevent further confusion: I refrained from listing all of them originally because there are over 50, well over my character allotment :)
4.) As my opponent states... "Since I am arguing that what is "due" to people is their natural rights, we are both essentially striving for the same end goal in our standards. Hence, whoever can preserve those natural rights the best will win this round." I will accept this as fair. But by natural rights, I expect my opponent to uphold all natural rights, as all natural rights are due to people, not just the few listed by my opponent.

On the Criterion side of things:
Seeing as I can achieve both my opponent's value and my own, my criterion of the protection of natural individual rights is clearly the preferred. There is no way I can possibly achieve herd immunity, and therefor my opponent's criterion is also abusive.

Aff Contention 1:

1.) Basically what my opponent is saying is that anyone who is sick is automatically violating the principles of liberty! This is absurd and hyp. Not only are there alternatives to vaccination (like "staying home sick", or basically separating yourself from others until you get better), but hyperbolic. In addition, cross-apply subpoint A of Contention 1 (on neg), which explains how taking away the right to practice one's own religion undermines liberty.
More importantly, cross apply my second contention. When an individual is forced by his/her superior to essentially take a suicide capsule to the arm, the superior (or in other words, the government) is threatening the rights of the individual-the right to life! This is effectively a turn, in which the government is not upholding the principle of liberty, and therefor compulsory immunization undermines the principle of liberty.

2.) When medical doctors and nurses are killed as a result of forced inoculation (as in example one), there is no one left to treat citizens with the disease, therefore violating the 3rd article of the UNDHR which grants all the right to life. This is effectively a turn as well.

Cross apply the aforementioned rebuttals to subpoints A, B, and C, as the responses are all relevant.

Aff Contention 2:

Subpoint A and B:
GENERAL populations is the key here. As my opponent does not deny that people HAVE indeed died from getting vaccinated, this statement in no way supports her value of Natural Rights, or mine of Justice. Just by killing one person from a vaccine, you are taking away their natural right to life- one of the main rights my opponent is trying to PROTECT!

Contention 1 tag: Even if compulsory immunization could prevent an epi/pandemic, this is only protecting the majority of life, not EVERY life. The government, by not enforcing compulsory immunization, is not killing any individual. However, by enforcing compulsory immunization with no guarantee of epi/pandemic prevention, the government is actively killing people.

Onto the Negation...

Contention 1:

My opponents first response to contention 1 tagline really doesn't address the fundamental issue! She is advocating upholding natural human rights, but a huge natural right- probably the most conflicted in history- is the right to practice religion. By not upholding this natural right, you are not upholding natural rights as a whole. Feel free to link this back to (4.) ) on the value standards debate ;)

Unfortunately, I can find no definition for "auxiliary rights" so cannot answer adequately. Auxiliary, most commonly defined as "assisting", makes very little sense in this context so I must ask my opponent to specify to avoid confusion and allow for an accurate response.

On her third rebuttal, my opponent forgets that those infected can easily choose for themselves to get vaccinated and therefor protect human life. Freedom of choice allows us to make this decision. Freedom of choice also allows us to practice religion. As you can see, without freedom of choice much of whats good in life no longer has meaning.

Contention 1:A:

My opponent completely misinterprets my contention! Traffic laws are not arbitrary in the least, and for obvious reasons. Allow me to clarify for you. I simply mean that, keeping the philosophic framework of my value and criterion in mind, the more autonomous a society, the more legitimate the system of government. By affirming compulsory immunization, you are decreasing the autonomy of society, because, as proved in contention 1 and 2, compulsory immunization is illogical. Autonomy, by definition, is immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority. I do not contend that traffic laws are arbitrary :)

Cross apply all my responses to my opponent's contention 1, as she is essentially saying the same thing as her contention. I shall not bore you by restating my arguments. In response to her slightly new response of static vs non-static rights, what makes religious freedom any less important, or non-static, than any other right? If you care to note, many people have sacrificed their lives to protect this freedom. Obviously, these people valued the right to freely practice their religion as important or even more important to the right to life. Furthermore, people also devote their entire lives to the practice of religion, and denying them of this right (the right to religion), you are essentially denying them of their lives.

Contention 1, B:

My opponent's first response is logically flawed. Religion does have a right to practice all of its doctrine in the first place. Who says which religious practices are okay and which aren't? Provide some reasons to support your argument please, as I can simply state that you're wrong and we will still be on the same level (providing a conclusion with no warranted premises).

Again, I wish to ask, should the major body of religious persons more important than the minority? Are Caucasians more important than African Americans or Asians, for example?

Yes, you are correct, I AM saying that forcing people to be vaccinated when they religiously object is wrong. Thanks for paying attention. BUT, my opponent has this vain idea that by my logic I'm also objecting to health and well being project around the world. However, my opponent conveniently leaves out the fact that you are harming people through compulsory immunization, whether religiously or physically! If these "well-being" projects end up harming people, or violating their natural rights, then yes, I do not support them.

1, C:

The upheaval within society is the result of constant revolution. The constant revolution has led to pressure economically and educationally. This excessive economic/educational pressure, while benefiting the country as a whole, has also adversely resulted in increased suicide rates.

Regarding her second response, keep in mind that disease is not the cause of societal upheaval in this example, but oppressive government control and reform. Meaning another mandate from the government would empirically lead to more societal upheaval, and in turn increased suicide rates.


I thank my opponent for his response, and have used his order from the last round to organize my responses. For consistency, I've responded to his argument in the comments in the same place.

On Standards:

1. Considering my opponent's response #4, you can ignore everything else he said about his value and/or criterion outweighing or subsuming mine, since he concedes that we are both essentially trying to achieve the same things, but just labeling them with different but philosophically synonymous terms.

2. What exactly a natural right is will become the crux of this debate, I believe. If the point of government in the first place is to protect its society as well as its individuals, there must be a balance between government intervention and individual freedom. The metric for this balance is explained in my first contention. Lest my opponent can prove that it is justified to take one's life involuntarily in order to respect the religious whims of another, you will prefer my interpretation of natural rights and vote affirmative. Bottom line: not every right outlined in a given governmental document, even the UN Declaration of Human Rights (DHR), is to be respected equally. My mechanism provides the most justice (as outlined on both sides of the debate), as it saves the most lives without totally eliminating other rights. My opponent can claim a perfect respect for religious or philosophical freedom, but kills millions in the process. Hence, natural rights should be only those that are most important to ensure a just existence. As outlined in Article 3 of the DHR, those are life, liberty, and security of person. Religious and ideological freedom, while important, are not irreducible at all times.

Aff Case:

His First Response to Aff 1:

1. Speaking of hyperbolic, let's throw the suicide capsule in that pile. My opponent has yet to even link his unrelated China card to vaccinations at all. Look to my contention 2 for proof of widespread safety and the benefits of vaccinations.

2. This is a straw man. One who objects to vaccines for any reason other than medical violates the principle of liberty, just like any person driving a car violates that principle if they choose to run a red light and put others in danger.

3. My opponent presents the alternative of "staying home sick" that supposed to present enough solvency to answer the harms in my case?

His Second Response to Aff 1:

1. My opponent gives a single example, ignores what I've said repeatedly about the danger of vaccines being extremely rare, and then states that doctors and nurses will be dying from vaccines at such an intense rate that none shall be left to treat all of us when we fall ill. Turn? Not so much.

2. Extend the impacts coming out of this entire contention, as my opponent has yet to say anything that will outweigh or counter my Parks card or the analysis in my sub C. Because pandemics spread rapidly and across countries, irrational vaccine fear costs millions of lives.

3. My opponent also effectively drops my sub B, which details why any exemption besides medical is unjust and a violation of other's natural rights. When he concedes this, he highlights his inability to achieve the standards set out for this debate.

His Response to Aff 2, Sub A & B:

1. My opponent misses the boat with his argument about general populations and how I do, in fact, end up killing people at the end of the day. I will remind you of my traffic control device analogy. Every single measure of protection that a government can instill can cause the death of human beings. That does not automatically unjustify them. The negative is holding me to a totally unfair burden at this point. Since I prove clearly that I save far more people than the negative can, I am still winning the standards.

Even if I can't protect every single life in the world with compulsory immunization, I still protect life way more than the negative does. If we are only affirming or negating based on who saves EVERY human life, then we've both lost this debate already.

Neg Case:

Neg 1 Tag:

His Response to My 1:

The right to practice one's religion, as I stated previously, is curtailed when it violates someone's right to life or safety of person. One cannot practice ritual human sacrifice, even if it is entailed in their religious doctrine, because it takes away the natural right to life.

His Response to Auxiliary Rights:

As I stated in a text message to my opponent, "auxiliary rights" is a descriptive term that I made up to encapsulate those rights which can be curtailed when they come into conflict with the outweighing rights I describe throughout. The term does not represent an offensive argument. Extend the cross-application, however, as that went unaddressed.

His Response to My 3:

This is a slippery slope argument disguised. My opponent assumes that all freedom of choice will go away with this particular choice eliminated. Not only is slippery slope a logical fallacy, but it is unwarranted entirely. Compulsory immunization programs exist in multiple countries already, including the U.S. for schoolchildren, and no such harms have been witnessed.

Sub A:

His Response to My 1:

My analogy, being an example of autonomy compromised for the safety and health of the general public, is in direct correlation to our debate. Notice that my opponent calls compulsory immunizations arbitrary, but never defends that claim. On the contrary, they are just as arbitrary, according to my case, as traffic laws (which is to say that they are not arbitrary). If we maximize autonomy as my opponent suggests, than all laws which seek to protect the right to life or security of person should be abolished, as all of them compromise autonomy in some way.

His Response to My 2:

First of all, I can't make new arguments the first time that I respond to your case. Hence, it isn't even slightly new. Second of all, static and non-static rights are, again, descriptive terms for concepts I've already forwarded in my case. As to the actual argument made by my opponent, there must be a brightline if just governments are to exist. Practicing one's religion is not entirely compromised by requiring vaccines. Said government is never saying: "abandon your entire religion." That government is saying that religious practices which hurt others cannot be practiced.

Sub B:

His Response to My 1/2:

I did give reasons. Religions cannot practice doctrine which harms others. The metric is provided clearly in my case (with reference to all that stuff I said about the principle of liberty). The decision is made by this metric, which my opponent has yet to prove is unjust. Also, liberty has nothing to do with discriminatory practices against ethnicities.

His Response to My 3:

My opponent again assumes that all rights deserve equal and immutable protection, which they do not.
If he feels this way, then he must object to all public health projects, as fundamentalist religious groups tend to object at different times and in different ways to every single one of them.

Sub C:

His Response to My 1:

There's still no link to compulsory vaccinations provided. I get that societal upheaval can increase suicide rates, but there's no evidence to suggest that compulsory vaccinations will cause this upheaval.

His Response to My 2:

Again, no warrant here. My turn is more evidenced via the vast amounts of panic and media coverage that were given to the SARS outbreak in Asia, which would lead to societal stress and to the harms he outlines in his case. The idea of dying from a mystery disease tends to do that to people. On the other hand, that slippery slope argument is buried in here again, at which point you can cross-apply what I already said about them.
Debate Round No. 3


LuxEtVeritas forfeited this round.


Unfortunately, my opponent was ever so slightly forgetful (I know b/c I asked him) and forfeited his voter's speech. I shall be kind to him, but encourage an affirmative vote for the myriad reasons presented in the above debate.

Thanks for reading!
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by alto2osu 6 years ago
Though I put my response to his response to my second response on his contention 1, subpoint C in the round (try figuring that out :D), here is my full response to his response on his contention 2:

1. My opponent's card still doesn't prove his tag. I have admitted, in card and case, that people will, on rare occasions, die from a vaccine.

2. If we are talking about justification and just governments, any compulsory program must have some exemptions. Just because the resolution doesn't tack on a phrase about exemptions doesn't mean that they won't exist. Just as with the draft, compulsory institutions require some exemptions, as I discuss in my case (brief reiteration: I spend my entire contention 1, subpoint B talking about why medical exemptions do and must exist in an affirmative world).

3. There is no turn here, because there is no offense here. My opponent gives a single, isolated example of one nursing home, with no contextual information, and then attempts to apply it as I do my one example of harms. However, my Nigeria example involves like 11 countries. His involves a single old folks' home. Which, I ask you voters, is more universally applicable?

Gracias and vote aff :D
Posted by LuxEtVeritas 6 years ago
Sorry about the rebuttals in the comments section, but DDO hasn't been working for me these last few days. About thirty seconds after opening the text box to type, the screen reverts back to either the previous one, or a random screen from DDO. I haven't a clue why, it may be my laptop, or perhaps DDO. Either way I apologize and hope that this will not interrupt the flow of our debate.

Also, a line between responses indicates a rebuttal to separate responses you have made. For example, on my contention 1, subpoint b, you have made three responses. You will note that I made three rebuttals to those responses. Instead of numbering them, I simply put a space.

Lastly, sorry for the double post :) Yet another problem I'm currently having with DDO. I actually think it may be my browser. I just switched to Firefox to post this, and everything seems to be working fine. Very strange....
Posted by LuxEtVeritas 6 years ago
Regarding her second response, keep in mind that disease is not the cause of societal upheaval in this example, but oppressive government control and reform. Meaning another mandate from the government would empirically lead to more societal upheaval, and in turn increased suicide rates.

Contention 2:
:| The card was intended to prove that people can and DO die from flu vaccination. I need no card to say that these people are not exempt, as clearly the resolution does not include exemption of anyone. I might as well state once more that there are no exceptions to the people forced to get vaccinated specified in the resolution, nor has my opponent provided any. Meaning even if someone knows that they could easily die from the vaccine, even if their doctor knows, they are STILL forced to get vaccinated- VIOLATING THEIR RIGHT TO LIFE! Turn :) (not a new argument, as you will not that I made it several times above).
Flu was an example, just as my opponent makes examples.
I thanks my opponent, and look forward to her responses.
Posted by LuxEtVeritas 6 years ago
Regarding her second response, keep in mind that disease is not the cause of societal upheaval in this example, but oppressive government control and reform. Meaning another mandate from the government would empirically lead to more societal upheaval, and in turn increased suicide rates.

Contention 2:
:| The card was intended to prove that people can and DO die from flu vaccination. I need no card to say that these people are not exempt, as clearly the resolution does not include exemption of anyone. I might as well state once more that there are no exceptions to the people forced to get vaccinated specified in the resolution, nor has my opponent provided any. Meaning even if someone knows that they could easily die from the vaccine, even if their doctor knows, they are STILL forced to get vaccinated- VIOLATING THEIR RIGHT TO LIFE! Turn :) (not a new argument, as you will not that I made it several times above).
Flu was an example, just as my opponent makes examples.
I thanks my opponent, and look forward to her responses.
Posted by LuxEtVeritas 6 years ago
Indeed I did :P
Posted by alto2osu 6 years ago
alto2osu had formatting issues :P
Posted by LuxEtVeritas 6 years ago
Sorry, I composed my case in a word document and then copied it into the text box here- I was not aware that punctuation like quotation marks would not be recognizable. I apologize for the confusion, and please ignore the random characters :)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by alto2osu 6 years ago
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 studentathletechristian8 6 years ago
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 ryanschultheis 6 years ago
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:43