The Instigator
ramkrupa
Pro (for)
Tied
14 Points
The Contender
wonderwoman
Con (against)
Tied
14 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 4 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,649 times Debate No: 9863
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

ramkrupa

Pro

I affirm the resolution, Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. For clarification of this debate round, I offer the following definitions from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary.

Public: of or relating to people in general

Health: the condition of being sound in body, mind, or spirit; especially: freedom from physical disease or pain

Public Health: the art and science dealing with the protection and improvement of community health by organized community effort and including preventive medicine and sanitary and social science

Concerns:to be a care, trouble, or distress to

Justify:to show a sufficient lawful reason for an act done

Compulsory: mandatory, enforced

Immunization: to make immune from disease

Immune:having a high degree of resistance to a disease

My value for this round will be that of justice. Because the resolution concerns whether immunizations are just, the value of justice is of paramount value in this debate. Justice is defined as "the quality of being just, impartial, or fair." The criterion with which I will be upholding my value is that of utilitarianism , which states "that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number". Only by ensuring "the greatest happiness of the greatest number," can one be just, impartial, or fair.

Observation:

Because the resolution does not specify any specific community, we cannot limit this debate to any particular society, community or nation. This debate must be about the international community.

Contention 1:

Immunizations guarantee the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

A: Immunizations are effective in remedying public health concerns. The World Health Organization states that, "Immunization is a proven tool for controlling and eliminating life-threatening infectious diseases and is estimated to avert over 2 million deaths each year." The World Health Organization also states that, "An immunization campaign carried out by the World Health Organization (WHO) from 1967 to 1977 eradicated the natural occurrence of smallpox."
B: Through its cost effectiveness, immunizations reach the greatest number of people. The World Health Organization further states that, "It [immunization] is one of the most cost-effective health investments," and that, "A recent study estimated that a one-week "supplemental immunization activity" against measles carried out in Kenya in 2002 ─ in which 12.8 million children were vaccinated — would result in a net saving in health costs of US$ 12 million over the following ten years," while preventing 3.85 million cases of measles and 125,000 deaths. Cost-benefit analysis also shows that every dollar spent on immunization in the United States saves up to $27. From a purely materialistic and economic perspective, that is a 2600% profit.
C: Immunization reaches the greatest number of people due to its accessibility. The World Health Organization states that immunizations are "accessible to even the most hard-to-reach and vulnerable populations"

Contention 2:

If immunizations are not compulsory less people will choose to get them or have access to them.
A: The World Health Organization states that pharmaceutical companies are reluctant to manufacture immunizations because it is difficult for producers to forecast the demand for the immunizations.
B: Making immunizations compulsory removes the need to forecast the demand since everyone will be required to get them, and so the producers will make enough immunizations.
C: Therefore by affirming the resolution, utilitarianism is achieved and through that, justice.

Contention 3:

Negating the resolution causes diseases to spread and people to die, especially in third world countries. Because negating causes the most deaths to occur in underprivileged nations, it is a form of discrimination.
A: According to the CDC, if we stopped immunizing the number of cases of Measles, Polio, Type b (Hib) Meningitis, Hepatitis B, Pertussis (Whooping Cough), Pneumococcal, Rubella (German Measles), Varicella (Chickenpox), Diphtheria, Tetanus (Lockjaw) and Mumps would dramatically increase, particularly in developing countries.
B: Therefore, negating is a form of discrimination, since it affects mostly citizens of developing nations.
C: Because negating equates to discrimination, it can in no way be considered in close to justice.

Contention 4:

Negating violates individual liberties.
A: According to the French Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen, "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law."
The American Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Therefore, negating the resolution on the basis of freedom is unfounded.
B: By not immunizing, one is infringing upon the rights of others by voluntarily spreading diseases and violating the "unalienable Rights" as set forth by the Declaration of Independence.
C: Condoning and supporting the violation of individual liberties is not only unjust but also inhumane. Negating is therefore, unjust.
D: Therefore, only by immunization and so ensuring the good of the greatest number of people can one be just.

Just to summarize my whole case, immunizations are just because they ensure the greatest good for the greatest number of people and in that way they are fair and impartial. Negating the resolution is not just because it equates to discrimination and infringes upon individual rights and liberties. Therefore, I urge you to vote affirmative, in order to achieve utilitarianism and thereby justice.
wonderwoman

Con

John Locke once said

"Every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his." Because I agree with this quote
I therefore negate the

Resolution Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

Value: Natural Rights
I would like to suggest that the protection of an individual's Natural Rights should take precedence to all else when the decision lies with the federal government. Those Natural Rights include life, liberty, and property.

My Value Criterion is: Limited Government
I use the criterion of Limited Government to show how our Natural Rights are jeopardized every time we give the government any more control than necessary. Limited government is a government where any more than minimal governmental intervention in personal liberties and the economy is not usually allowed by law, usually but not mandatory, in a written Constitution. A limited government provides no room for bickering on issues; what the people want is what the people get. Compulsory immunization is a violation of Natural Rights and of Limited Government. It is important for me to define government as any authoritative direction or control.

Resolutional Analysis: The judge must be we are not here to debate if they immunizations work but whether or not compulsory immunization is justified.
Now before we start my case I would like to offer some

Definitions:
Justice - judgment involved in the determination of rights and the assignment of rewards and punishments.
Concerns - a matter that engages a person's attention, interest, or care, or that affects a person's welfare or happiness
Public Health - Refers to the well being of the whole community

Contention 1) Choice
As free people we have the right to pursue happiness as we see fit insofar as this behavior doesn't injure innocent bystanders. We do not, for instance, have the freedom to drive down the freeway blindfolded even if this behavior were to produce copious amounts of happiness in the driver. The problem with compulsory immunizations is not in the act itself but the fact that it threatens our natural rights to liberty. Immunizations between consenting adults infringes upon no one else's rights and this much is beyond dispute. The declaration of independence guarantees our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To deny or infringe these rights in any way without sound reason is unconstitutional and it is unfair. We have a constitution to guarantee us freedom from the tyranny of the majority. It follows from this that we are not at liberty to deny people rights merely because we find their sickness to be sordid.
Subpoint a) equal liberty
You can also look to John Rawls' Principle of Equal Liberty, in which, to set up a just society, people must be outfitted with a scheme of basic liberties, compatible with the liberties of others. He argues that self-interested rational persons behind the veil of ignorance would choose two general principles of justice to structure society in the real world, without exactly duplicating, libertarianism in its commitment to extensive liberties. Liberties are imposed upon by the government when compulsory immunizations are made legitimate.
.Subpoint b) Preserving individual autonomy
Autonomy is the right to set your own agenda to conduct your own affairs with a minimum of outside interference. A self-directing freedom and especially moral independence that is given through Natural Rights. It is when the government forces something upon you that you break this right to autonomy and thus threaten liberty and life. It also violates my value criterion to not preserve autonomy. It violates my criterion because government is considered that outside interference and you are allowed to conduct your own affairs without that interference present. Mandates and compulsory things do not allow this and thus are unjust.

Contention 2) Safety/security
I'd like to point out first that American society and our Constitution are originally based a lot off of John Locke's 2nd Treatise on Civil Government and Locke states that the first purpose of government is for the protection and enlargement of natural rights; life, liberty, and property; without the protection of government, man is free to take another man's natural rights without restriction; this is the state of nature. So, while my opponent claims that life/liberty/justice is our most important value (and believe me, I agree that it IS important), security is a necessity, because without being in a state of security provided by the government, liberty can not be protected, and ultimately we would have no say in our government.

Contention 3) Role of Government
People need government, the question is the scope of that government's powers. Power is delegated by the people to their government. As such, the people choose what level of power they want to give to their government. Government exists because the people set it up and is legitimate only to the extent that it does only those things that the people gave it the right to do. What this does is it argues that legitimate government is a limited. government based on consent, in which the majority rules but may not violate people's fundamental rights, I.E. their Natural Rights. Even our founding fathers pointed out the issues with an overpowerful and not limited government "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government. I'd like to highlight the words, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it." What this is basically saying, is that if the government becomes oppressive/destructive/non-productive, then they are to be removed It is oppressive to force compulsory immunizations as it interferes with the natural rights to life and liberty.

Not enough characters to do a real LD , so I can't attack your case this round
Debate Round No. 1
ramkrupa

Pro

As a brief road map, I will first attack my opponent's case and since she did not have enough characters to attack my case, I believe it is unnecessary for me to go over my case until she attempts to refute my case.

Let's begin with her value of natural rights such as life liberty and property. Negating the resolution actually violates these rights. As I had mentioned in the affirmative constructive, the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen, "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights." By negating the resolution, one is violating the limits of natural rights and thereby infringing on another person's natural rights. For example, let us consider the natural right of life. By not immunizing and thereby facilitating the spread of deadly diseases one is infringing upon another's right to life. Therefore, negating the resolution cannot and does not ensure natural rights, it in fact compromises them.

And so, since affirming upholds both values in this round much better than negating, I win right here. I do not have to argue anymore, but for the sake of debate I will continue.

Moving on to her value criterion of limited government. My value criterion of utilitarianism take precedence over her value of limited government because ensuring the greatest good for all people is more important than the size of the government. Limited government tend to support the wealthiest people of a society and so hurt the rest. For example, in a limited society, there would be no healthcare for the poor or welfare. So limited government is a form of discrimination against those who have small means, and therefore it is not just. On the other hand, my value criterion of utilitarianism, ensures the greatest good of the greatest number, not just the wealthy or the poor, for all of them, and therefore it is just.

Also, the first part of her definition of justice can be used in conjunction with the definition I provided. The second part (regarding the assignment of rewards and punishment), however is irrelevant in this debate, since we are not discussing rewards or punishment.

On to her Contention 1. I agree with her when she says, "As free people we have the right to pursue happiness as we see fit insofar as this behavior doesn't injure innocent bystanders." Affirming the resolution ensures that the "innocent bystanders" aren't injured. Not immunizing is the same as driving down the freeway blindfolded (which was the example that she gave), in that one is facilitating the spread of diseases. The mere airborne particles from sneezing, coughing, spitting or just speaking, can effect an "innocent bystander" and cause him or her to contract that disease. Immunizations prevent this from happening and therefore they protect natural liberties much more than negating. So it is not true when she states that affirming infringes upon our "unalienable rights". In fact, negating infringes upon these rights that we hold as self-evident.
Her subpoint a: Affirming ensures these equal liberties much better than negating. Let's look at this simple logic: If you are immunized and your whole society is immunized your rights of life and liberty are compatible with everyone else. Someone else cannot infringe upon your right of life by spreading a disease that can be fought by immunizations. Similarly, you cannot infringe upon another's right of life. Therefore, affirming upholds equal liberty.
Her supoint b: Affirming promotes individual autonomy and negating endangers it. According to her, "autonomy is the right to set your own agenda to conduct your own affairs with a minimum of outside interference." Affirming minimizes the "outside interference" mentioned in that definition. The spread of diseases through the lack of immunization is one of the interferences that hinders autonomy. Therefore, cross apply what I mentioned while refuting her subpoint a over here. By affirming, one is minimizing "outside interference" by minimizing the spread of diseases while negating helps maximize these interferences.

Her contention 2: Once again, as I have stated, affirming protects natural rights. I have provided ample evidence for this above and therefore, will not repeat everything yet another time. As to her point of safety and security, nobody will deny that immunizations make us safer and more secure by minimizing the spread of diseases. Therefore affirming promotes safety and security while negating doest he opposite.

Her contention 3: Government has the consent, rather it is charged with the duty of protecting natural rights (just as my opponent stated) and by affirming, government is fulfilling its duty to the people. Therefore, affirming fulfills the government's duty to the governed and by negating, government is not fulfilling its duties.

Basically, affirming the resolution helps protects natural rights and therefore it upholds her value AND my value much better than negating. All her contentions focus over protecting natural rights and affirming is the only way of doing so. Therefore, her entire case falls (all of her points) and so you must vote affirmative.
wonderwoman

Con

wonderwoman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ramkrupa

Pro

Since my opponent forfeits, I win this debate.
wonderwoman

Con

wonderwoman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by wonderwoman 4 years ago
wonderwoman
1 Just because I forfeited does not mean I lose entirely, although it gives you a heavier chance of winning seeing as I must analyze your first case/defend mine and defend your attacks
Posted by wonderwoman 4 years ago
wonderwoman
im thinking of which criterion to throw at you social darwinism or limited government I can't decide
Posted by ramkrupa 4 years ago
ramkrupa
yes
Posted by wonderwoman 4 years ago
wonderwoman
ld style is what you want right?
Posted by ramkrupa 4 years ago
ramkrupa
@wjmelements - voting period has been fixed.
@wonderwoman - it is in the case
Posted by wonderwoman 4 years ago
wonderwoman
wheres the value?
Posted by wjmelements 4 years ago
wjmelements
"The voting period will last indefinitely."
Darn. Fix and I will accept.
Posted by alto2osu 4 years ago
alto2osu
If this is still open after I write my neg, I am so taking this...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 4 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
ramkrupawonderwomanTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by idkmybffbill 4 years ago
idkmybffbill
ramkrupawonderwomanTied
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 wonderwoman 4 years ago
wonderwoman
ramkrupawonderwomanTied
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 Amazing 4 years ago
Amazing
ramkrupawonderwomanTied
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