The Instigator
CaleBREEEum
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Grape
Con (against)
Winning
27 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 6 votes the winner is...
Grape
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2010 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,172 times Debate No: 11155
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (6)

 

CaleBREEEum

Pro

LD ONLY!
Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.
V: Governmental Legitimacy
VC: Authoritative Sovereignty
Public Health Concerns- reflection of a society's will
Just- carrying out one's duty to one's station (defined by Plato)
OBSV1: Public Health Concerns are valid.
People don't like dealing with infectious disease many of which have compulsory immunizations today including Mumps, Measles, Rubella, Oral Polio, Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Hepatitis B. Protecting ourselves from such illnesses is in no way irrational, in fact the State's exercising its right and fulfilling its duty to protect the lives of its citizens.
OBSV2: Since PHC's reflect society's will they're justifiable in acting.
The public is concerned for there own health and well being therefore the State is justifiable in taking action that protects the people just like any law that can be justified.
OBSV3: Stats are irrelevant
The Resolution NEVER calls for action the debate is solely theoretical. If the State had to make immunizations compulsory it is justifiable in doing so because it has the right to.
C1: State is Legitimate in acting.
The State has complete Governmental Legitimacy to act over the people due to its Authoritative Sovereignty, and is justifiable in doing so since it is fulfilling its purpose of protecting its citizens. It not only has the obligation but the right to take the actions necessary to protect its citizens given to it when it was created. In 1328 the Bubonic Plague also known as the Black Death where nearly a third of the worlds population died had great effects on Europe as well as many other countries so they took justifiable action to protect its people, in this case with quarantines. Since the disease first started following Caravan routes then with the help of European shipping and accompanying rats the disease spread throughout the world. With such high mortality rates it was not uncommon for a whole town or city to become depopulated and since Trade Routes ensured the spread of the "Black Death" this greatly devastated international trade. Farming communities also took a large hit, when their owners were hit with the Plague the livestock and people perished. This decline of the farming communities resulted in food shortages. A major consequence of the disease was famine - and even more people perished. Surviving populations of villages and towns were forced to move or starve to death. In order to prevent the entire crumbling of its infrastructure Europe began quarantines to help limit the spread. So as we can see disease poses a large threat to the economic state of a Government so they were justifiable in doing so since they were fulfilling their obligation as the State to protect its citizens and had the right to do so.
C2: Disease Damages education.
Since in recent times various forms of influenza and disease have damaged the educational opportunities of children attending school and by in large society as a whole, not making immunizations compulsory causes' citizen's harms that the State must make an effort to prevent. Damaging a child's ability to attain an education subjects them to much potential harm however we'll talk about one large one, poverty (Every Child Counts, London): When one is subjected to poverty the harms are as follows:
•No voice in policies or in the delivery of livestock services
•Limited access to education, resulting in reduced literacy rates
•Limited access to health services
•Limited access to land and water, or insecure rights of access to these resources
•Poor access to credit facilities, extension services and agricultural services
•Premature birth, and or birth defects due to fact that poor women in effect have poor prenatal care
•Limited or difficult access to markets
•Low household incomes, related to generally high levels of unemployment or under-employment.
Iskra Beleva- "The larger and longer the unemployment, the deeper and more complicated are the social and economic problems it causes in society. The existence of stable long-term unemployment extracts a segment out of the labour force and isolates it economically and socially. Long exemptions from labour life and labour environment lead to losses of professional qualification. For society this means a loss of economic and social gains and no return of investments made. Reintegration of unemployed into working life requires new investments. Moreover, unemployed people represent a vulnerable economic and social group. In their struggle to survive, they are inclined to join the shadow economy and to conduct criminal and violent behaviour. Many consequences of unemployment are manifest in psychological and behavioural deformations of personality." Long-term unemployment turns into psychological and behavioural deformations this is because people look for outlooks to survive whether or not they're legal. Lastly, crime which is quite possibly the most harmful George Winslow writes- "the reality is that crime is largely a product of poverty. Street crime is most rampant in poor neighborhoods, and crime rates rise and fall in proportion to how the national economy is doing". Well-paying jobs, concludes Winslow, are far more effective than police or prisons in reducing crime. It's the States duty to take action that protects the citizens from crime or to establish institutions that do thus far (police, military, etc) and from poverty as well. The State does not have the option of opting out of this obligation and duty as is it is purposed to fulfill.
C3: Religious Groups do not surpass the State.
An individual or group of individuals cannot prevent the State from fulfilling its duty in taking justifiable action to protect its citizens solely on the objection of a religious belief or ideal. The more difficult problem is religious or cultural groups that oppose immunizations. These groups tend to cluster, reducing the effective immunization level in their neighborhoods, schools, and churches. In addition to endangering their own children, such groups pose a substantial risk to the larger community. By providing a reservoir of infection, a cluster of unimmunized persons can defeat the general herd immunity of a community. As these infected persons mix with members of the larger community, they will expose those who are susceptible to contagion. The law does not state this to be an issue of freedom of religion. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Jacobson v. Massachusetts,207 held that an individual could not refuse smallpox vaccination: "We are not prepared to hold that a minority, residing or remaining in any city or town where smallpox is prevalent, and enjoying the general protection afforded by an organized local government, may thus defy the will of its constituted authorities, acting in good faith for all, under the legislative sanction of the State" (p. 37).
In the later case of Prince v. Massachusetts,208 the U.S. Supreme Court spoke directly to the issue of religious objections to vaccination:
But the family itself is not beyond regulation in the public interest, as against a claim of religious liberty. And neither rights of religion nor rights of parenthood are beyond limitation. Acting to guard the general interest in youth's well being, the state as parens patriae may restrict the parent's control by requiring school attendance, regulating or prohibiting the child's labor and in many other ways. Its authority is not nullified merely because the parent grounds his claim to control the child's course of conduct on religion or conscience. Thus, he cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child more than for himself on religious grounds. The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death. No states exempt religious groups from child abuse laws or other criminal laws intended t
Grape

Con

Resolution Negated: That public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

Introduction: I will respond to my opponent's arguments on a point by point basis and then offer arguments of my own. My argument will focus on two factors: the right of the state to intervene in personal affairs and the level of health concerns present by unimmunized persons.

OBSV1: Public Health Concerns are valid
My opponent contends correctly that people don't like dealing with diseases. If they are immunized against such disease, those diseases no longer present a health concern for them (they are immune). So if others are not immunized, it does not negatively affect immunized people because immunized people cannot contract the disease. It is not necessary for the state to force people to become immunized to protect others; if those others want protection they can get the immunization for themselves.

OBSV2: Since PHC's represent society's will they're justifiable in acting
The public may be concerned for there own health, but that does not mean they will take action to preserve their health and it does not mean the government should do the same. Approximately 25% of Americans are obese (1) but there is not a major public outcry to correct this. It is very doubtful that people would respond positively to government mandated dieting and exercise, such would certainly be considered a violation of people's right to live as they wish.

OBSV3: Stats are irrelevant
By this I am assuming that my opponent means it is not relevant to cite the impracticality of actually applying this idea. I agree that the resolution does not call for action and therefore this is irrelevant. However, all statistically information is not irrelevant because of this.

C1: State is Legitimate in Acting
This is a highly assumptive point that is backed up by largely irrelevant details. Compulsory immunizations are not necessary for the government to protect its citizens, in order to fulfill that role it must merely offer them to those who desire them. It is not necessary for the government to override the desires of an individual in the name of protecting said individual from harm. Furthermore, the example of the Bubonic Plague is completely irrelevant. Immunization did not exist at that time. In any case, this example weighs heavily against my opponent has government attempts to combat the spread of the plague were obviously unsuccessful considering the death rate. The quarantines my opponent describes do not indicate the government is acting in the name of its people's health since they condemn those in the quarantined area.

The deeper flaw in assumption is that it is assumed the government has the duty of defending its people. Is there an intrinsic trait possessed by governments that mandates they must protect their people? Once the arbitrary designation of "government" (an abstraction) is placed on something, is it magically endowed with the mandate to protect its people? Governments are purely a construction of the human mind, they have no objective moral initiatives.

C2: Disease Damages Education
Disease only damages the education of those who get the disease. Those who reject immunization may suffer the consequences, but it will effect only them and not others. There is nothing stopping an immunized child from getting an education just because other people in society may reject the immunization. My opponent seems to assume that the alternative to compulsory immunization is widespread disease. On the contrary, it is highly likely that given optional immunization a large number of people would seek out vaccines. Flu shots are not mandatory but a very large number of people in the US and Canada get them (2). If some people, for whatever reason, do not wish to be immunized, than that is their personal business. It will not have a huge negative impact on society, it will not lead to widespread poverty. The worst thing that happens is a few people get the disease and they regret not getting vaccinated. I urge readers to remember that the resolution was that immunization should be compulsory, meaning required by law, not merely available to all those who desire it. My opponent's entire argument about poverty is irrelevant because it does not logically follow that unless all individuals are forced to be immunized, widespread poverty will occur. This result is too unlikely to warrant consideration.

C3: Religious Groups Do Not Surpass the State
This is basically a straw man argument. My opponent assumes I will argue that people have the right to refuse vaccines because of religious considerations. I do not argue this. I believe that an individual has the right to refuse a vaccinate for any reason, as I will outline latter. My opponent's reference to the Supreme Court is a pointless appeal to authority. This debate is over what is just, not over what is legally correct. The Supreme Court has made rulings that were morally reprehensible. The case of the Dred Scott decision is so elementary and famous that it needs not even be discussed. To compound what I have already stated, diseases are not communicable to those who have been immunized, the word immunized by definition means that the immunized person is now immune and cannot contract the disease. Non-immunized people only present a health risk to other non-immunized people (who are free to seek out the vaccine at any time, since we are arguing about whether it should be mandatory and not whether it should be available.)

I will now present my own cases.

C4: An Individual Has the Rights of His/Her Own Body
Compulsory immunizations represent the ultimate surrender of the individual's rights to privacy to the State. It designates the right to determine what goes in to a person's body to be that of the government and not that of the individual in question. If people do not have the right to determine the composition of their own physical form, then what other rights can they possibly possess? On a philosophical level this proposal is authoritarian in the extreme. There can be no further exercise of government power of individual freedom then to deny an individual the right to determine what does and does not go into their body. The body of an individual belongs to and is owned by that individual and not by the State. To hear it suggested otherwise is frankly terrifying to me. Alleged health concerns (which I have demonstrated are illogical considering how vaccines actually work) do not justify the ultimate surrender of individual rights.

C5: Power Is Inherently Illegitimate
Those in authority have the burden of proof to demonstrate why their authority is justified. If this burden of proof cannot be met, the authority in question should not be obeyed. My opponent's arguments rest on the assumption that the authority of the State is intrinsically justified and it must therefore use it for certain purposes, but the reverse is true. The State must prove that its exercise of power is legitimate prior to having the right to exercise any power at all. My opponent does not demonstrate that protecting people, from themselves, not others, is a just use of power. I suggest that it is not.

Conclusion
I have additional arguments against this resolution but I am running out of room. I trust I have adequately dismantled my opponent's arguments so I will put more focus on developing my own in the next round. Best of luck to my opponent in coming up with a rebuttal.

Sources:
(1) http://www.obesity.org...
(2) http://www.who.int...
Debate Round No. 1
CaleBREEEum

Pro

I had a few sentences left on my Aff however I will not post them as I'm sure my opponent would not see it fair to do such. I'll provide the analysis for the round and work down the flow.........
First- OBSV1:The Neg is trying to claim some kind of herd immunity here and it completely fails, he provides no warrant that herd immunity is even successful as to what he claims for one, and two never proves why it's not necessary for the State to intervene and this is largely his sole argument against the AC.
OBSV2: His first sentence proves the AC true, people may be concerned with their health however they will not act to do so, however I'd even claim his statement about American Obesity is false since certain incentives were given to many large fast food chain restaurants we've seen ads about calorie crunching and the "Drive Thru Diet." 2nd the AC specifies the State's mandated obligation as set by every major State theorist in history including Locke,Hobbes,Nozick and more that a State's primary duty is to protect the lives of its citizens. If does not do such it cannot legitimize its very existence which is why the AC says it is JUSTIFIABLE in acting. I'll further specify this later on....
OBSV3: He mishandles this completely I was talking about statistics that say CI's cause harm after the fact, since he didn't post any in his original arguments it shouldn't be necessary to bring this up again no one gains any offense off this.
C1: He claims this argument is largely irrelevant. I say this is false for many reasons starting with one, he mishandles the Bubonic Plague example completely where I'm stating that not until the State's got involved, already too late, and enacted quarantines there's nothing to say that anything would have stopped this disease from wiping out more people than it already did (Third of the World's pop). It is completely relevant to the fact simply because I'm again showing how the State is justifiable in infringing on Individual Rights, to protect the lives of its people. He questions whether or not a mandate even exists, yes. The first and primary claim to any sort of legitimacy in existing as a State is to protect the lives of its citizens, if one does not hold this as a primary value it is impossible to do anything that is even relevant to citizens entering the State because they will be dying off. If he claims this is arbitrary once more here's empirical examples of how States do such....Health Care Systems, Local Protecting (police), International Protection (Military), Seat Belt Laws, Regulations of Drunk Driving, Abuse and Murder. All State mandates that show the State is concerned with protecting its citizens as it should be since it is its primary obligation again linking back to my rebuttal of the OBSV1.
C2: The Neg drops this and submits to the harms he says first sentence again, Disease damages those who get the disease. This accepts the harms posed in the Neg world by the AC. The Neg is also advocating for a disgusting hierarchy in which he says ones who choose to are the ones who will receive the education and its okay if others suffer as a result of not getting immunized. Second his arguments are still completely UNWARRANTED his statements are "unlikely to happen." This is another argument with nothing backing it if he is trying to claim some outweighing mechanism on the Neg he has to provide some actual warrant to why this is so on Probability. I never claimed "widespread disease," however my impacts outweigh in the round regardless because my opponent has provided you with none.
C3: First off I'm not sure my opponent knows what a straw-man argument even is in the first place, regardless he says an individual can refuse vaccines for ANY reason. If this is the case whats to prevent citizens from doing so to other mandates the State sets forth? Should we stop obeying laws simply because others in the past have not been moral, which is irrelevant to the round since we're not debating morality, no we subject ourselves to regulation that infringes on our Autonomy willingly. The State saying you can't drink and drive is not a bad thing, he provides no impacts again for an unwarranted claim. Second, this is not whether or not they are JUST. JUST is a standard, Justifiable is completely different as it varies on a situational basis. This is not a blanket claim as I specified in the AC. Which again in case you've forgotten is the State is Justifiable in acting to make CI's due to the fact that to maintain any kind of legitimacy in existing it must protect the lives of its citizens. It posses the Authoritative Sovereignty as well, which went unrefuted, that it is the sole power that can regulate Autonomy, and if any Individual was to deny the State it's right to do so negates its Legitimacy in existing and advocates for a free society also known as the State of Nature according to Locke, also known as Anarchy. Now to his arguments...
C4: I'm going to sum this up quickly as I've already answered much of this, "There can be no further exercise of government power of individual freedom then to deny an individual the right to determine what does and does not go into their body." C5: I guess this is an argument so I'll answer it....He says Legitimacy is determined before the State can even act. First off, why? Second, it already was when it was created, and submitted willfully to by its citizens. I'm pretty sure preventing people from shooting heroine isn't a bad thing, he says he suggests its not and thats its not a JUST use of power. If there was actually an argument behind this I might handle it more professionally however this again like many of his other arguments goes unwarranted. He simply suggests.....Since this again is an LD STYLE DEBATE ONLY as I specified at the top I'd suggest that he adhere to the rules and not post any new arguments as they will be invalied in judging however if he chooses to, I'll gladly answer as I have his many unwarranted claims against the AC.
So you're voting Aff again for the following reasons:
His sole argument is the State is not JUST in regulating Autonomy of individuals, it not only goes unwarranted and carries no impacts if it is regulated, but I've given answered this in 3 different places again OBSV2, and C1/3.
Second, he mishandles the resolution completely in saying I have to provide a JUST standard that's is right in every circumstance which is false again I've proven why the State's justifiable, in many instances again the C1/3/4/5, and why the State is being able to maintain its legitimacy in even existing it must protect the lives of its citizens, and posses the Authoritative Sovereignty to do so which went unrefuted.
Third, none, again, none of his arguments have any impacts, you cannot look to the Neg for Two main reasons, he has no weighing mechanism in the round, and two no warrants for any arguments.
The Aff has linked back to the resolution and through the V/C debate, since their wasn't a rebuttal of the V/C, shown you various instances as to why Full Autonomy is bad, and provided various impacts as to what will happen if the State cannot regulate the Autonomy of its citizens, and refuted all unwarranted Neg arguments that hold no offensive ground. So even if you don't like any of the arguments I've made in the Rebuttals or against the NC you have to default to Aff because he never even gives you one single impact as to what happens if you don't vote Neg, or as to why you even should.
Grape

Con

OBSV1: The claim I made has nothing to do with herd immunity. It has only to do with the fact that it is not necessary for the state to force vaccinations on unimmunized individuals in order to protect immunized individuals. Those who are not immunized do not present a risk to those who are immunized. Thus, the State does not have to make immunization compulsory to protect individuals who are immunized willingly, which I later stated comprise a large majority of the population.

OBSV2: My opponent seems to have misinterpreted my point yet again. People may be aware of major health concerns yet have no wish for the State to get involved to correct them. The regulation of fast food chains is a false analogy because it does not force individuals to conform to a uniform standard of health. Would it be justified for the State to mandate a certain diet and exercise routine in the name of protecting its citizens?

OBSV3: This literally stated that all statistical information was irrelevant. I had not idea what statistics this referred to but it obviously could not refer to all statistics. In any case it is of no concern to my arguments.

C1: I will say this again: this debate is specifically about compulsory immunization. Immunization protects only the immunized individual in question and does nothing for others. Considering the lack of immunization at the time of the Bubonic Plague, the State intervened to protect individuals from others (plague victims). My opponent claims the first and primary claim to any sort of legitimacy in existing as a State is protecting the lives of its citizens. I content instead that the right of a State to exist comes from the consent of the people. A State that "protects" people against their will is not legitimate, it is tyrannical. My opponent offers many examples of State laws that protect individuals, but none of them are a proper analogy to compulsory immunization. I will explain each of them:

Health Care Systems - these are not compulsory
Local Protection (Police) - this protects you from others, not the consequences of your own decisions
International Protection - same as above
Regulation of Drunk Driving - same as above
Abuse and Murder - same as above
Seat Belt Laws - I reject that these laws are justified and there is no evidence provided to the contrary

The primary obligation of the State is to defend the rights of its citizens to freedom and safety from others, but it is not under obligation to take the away the right to do something simply because it may be a bad idea for the individual in question.

C2: Apparently my opponent once again does not understand what I am arguing for. If someone chooses to get an immunization than their education will not be compromised. If someone chooses not to get an immunization and they get sick, compromising their education, they are simply suffering the consequences of their own decision. My opponent also claims not to have argued that disease would become widespread. If disease is not widespread, how will it result in poverty. Surely a small number of people who chose not to get an immunization will not cause poverty to increase throughout society. The possible impacts of a few people getting sick are too small to outweigh the egregious offense of taking away the rights of the entire society. My opponent claims I have offered no impacts but systematic denial of individual rights seems to be a large impact in and of itself.

C3: I apologize for mislabelling my opponent's claim as a strawman argument. What I meant to say here was that my opponent presupposed an argument and presented a case from there while I had offered no such argument. I did not state that laws should not be obeyed because they have been unjust in the past, I simply said that appealing to the Supreme Court to determine justice is illogical considering its poor record. Furthermore, I urge my opponent to reread the resolution. This debate is about whether public health concerns justify compulsory immunization, not whether compulsory immunization is justifiable. Justified and Justifiable are very different things, they refer to the state of being just and the potential to be, respectively. Again, the State does not have to protect its citizens from themselves in order to justify its existence, I have offered a better criteria to determine whether the State has the right to exist. I may not understand the LD format properly, but I fail to see how the Authoritative Sovereignty went unrefuted. I raised numerous cases against the authority of the State throughout the round.

C4: My opponent says, "If this is so I should be able to shoot up heroine, snort cocaine, smoke marijuana, drink underage and in excess, and the State can say nothing about it." Unless your irresponsible behavior is harmful to others, I would agree. My opponent has not provided an adequate reason to believe that the State, rather than the individual, should be responsible for personal health decisions. The States does not have any more of a right to say that you cannot take harmful drugs than it does to insist you eat fruit every day simply because it is better for your health. This oversteps the bounds of protecting citizens and takes away the right of an individual to control their own body. My opponent does not seem to understand that the ramifications of this extremely authoritarian view are a negative consequence.

C5: My opponent makes the grave error of assuming the State was submitted to willfully by all of its citizens. Simply by being born in the United States one becomes a citizen. Does that mean that the newborn babies in US hospitals have knowingly and willfully submitted to the rule of a government they cannot even comprehend? The State determines who is and is not a citizen so that citizenship represents consent to the State is completely illogical. I did not make myself a citizen, the State did. Using citizenship as a justification for control is therefore completely irrational. To address the heroin argument again: provided a heroin user does hurt anyone else (as my opponent stated in OBSV3, this is irrelevant) than the State would have no right to intervene. That person has the right over their own body, not the State. Furthermore, I doubt the heroin user submits willfully to the State if the State wishes to infringe on his right of self hood. The belief that my arguments go unwarranted stems from automatic assumptions about the rights of States and a failure to understand that a violation of rights is a consequence in and of itself.

Conclusion: My opponent has proposed that the State, not the individual, should have the right over the body of said individual. This is a flagrant and extreme violation of human rights that steps outside the rights of the State. My opponent has not shown that compulsory immunization offers enough of a benefit to society to warrant this extreme abuse. I have demonstrated that without compulsory immunization, only a small number of individuals would be harmed. My opponent conceded that he never argued widespread disease would result if immunization is not compulsory, so we can see that the any negative impact on society that may occur would be negligible compared to the human rights violation. Furthermore, the only individuals that would be hurt by optional immunization would be those who willingly refused immunization and thus suffered the consequences of their own actions. Apparently my opponent did not understand that a gross violation of human rights is a negative consequence.

I apologize if my lack of understanding of the LD format interferes with this debate. This is my first LD debate and I was not entirely certain about the rules. I will not be posting any new arguments. Best of luck to my opponent; I hope I have adequately clarified my case.
Debate Round No. 2
CaleBREEEum

Pro

OBSV1: Again him saying it's not necessary to immunize people because the illness will not affect the people who didn't get a vaccination will be ok, because others chose to and no longer have the illness to spread IS Herd Immunity sorry to say, but again has offered no warrant to why we should look to the Neg world other than "it's not necessary."
OBSV2: He says people have no wish for the State to get involved in correcting major health concerns, again unwarranted. He's pulling claims out of thin air with absolutely no evidence or even a shred of support of this statement other than of his own intellect. Second I would say his response to my analogy is false, it does force individuals to conform to a certain measurable standard of health when you no longer offer certain products that may have been in the past, this prevents individuals from getting these foods through the same avenues, thus regulating. Again it's not if it is JUSTIFIED it's whether or not it's Justifiable. I've reiterated this numerous times continue it across the flow. OBSV3 is not necessary to be discussed.
C1: My original argument is barely even refuted if at all. First to start the Bubonic Plague is an empirical example in which the State exercised power over individuals under its authority in order to protect its citizens. The successfulness of such action is completely irrelevant, because 1 I never claim as the Aff some solvency of any disease or illness, and 2 no such burden is placed on the Aff by the resolution nor can one be by the Neg. Next his response begins with, "I content," still not warranted by ANYTHING, he has provided you with no reason to look to the Neg other than his own opinion on the matter which is nowhere near sufficient for this debate. He next tries to refute my examples of Governmental Regulation of Autonomy, he misses the argument again completely, just because I don't just use specific examples of CI's doesn't mean I can't link it with all other Governmental Regulations as I already have he fails to see the links as what my argument was which again I'll list in my voters at the end. Even the fact that he agrees with just one (Seat Belt Laws) is sufficient enough to not look to the Neg, because it's a Justifiable circumstance in which Autonomy is regulated by the State and he accepts this which directly links to CI's, with this alone you can vote Aff because he's accepting the entire Aff Standard on this one statement. The last part of his argument says the primary obligation is to defend the rights of its citizens is freedom and safety, first again I'd say this is unwarranted, but if you don't like that I'd say you can Turn that standard as the Aff I gain more offensive ground off this argument. Rights cannot be exercised without life, so if the State is concerned with the freedom and rights of its citizens this is best served if the State first looks to protect the lives of its citizens so it can even provide those services after the fact.
C2: I'm not denying rights I'm regulating the exercise of such rights as far as they could jeopardize the State's ability to possess Authoritative Sovereignty and maintain Legitimacy. Second ANY poverty is bad, Third he accepts that individuals who do not become immunized may become sick and be subjected to harms that could damage their lives, you can use this to negate his rebuttal of my OBSV1 where he says people won't get sick the simple fact of him accepting that people can suffer as a result of not being immunized keeps this argument as gaining offensive ground for the Aff.
C3: I never said the Supreme Court determined justifiability, I simply used an empirical example again of how a judiciary didn't see religious objections as valid, however since you didn't even argue that we must not immunize people due to the fact of their religious beliefs this argument can continue to be flowed as he has yet to actually refute the argument in this contention. He agrees the difference between Justify or Justifiable and Just, he fails to provide a reason for why my definition of an English word is incorrect I see no clear refutation of such. I have a very clear understanding of the resolution, I'd ask that my opponent and judges go back and read his NC he never attacks the fact that the State has SOLE Authority to impose regulations on its citizens, he simply says infringing on rights is bad. Again unwarranted and not weighed by any sort of impact.
C4: I'd like to start off by saying wow. "Unless your irresponsible behavior is harmful to others, I would agree." The sad part is it does harm others, thousands every year in America alone are killed by drunk drivers, and if you think that drug abuse only harms the abuser I apologize that in your ignorance you follow such flawed logic. The ramifications of such abuse to oneself is catastrophic and this is widely agreed upon by many including REHAB CLINICS. My opponent is advocating for a standard that says one should be able to do anything they wish to with their body, under no regulation, so I guess parental laws are out of the question as well? The Neg standard is advocating for a society where prostitution, and narcotic drug abuse is not only allowed, but widely encouraged by the imaginary citizens who don't want ANY regulation or protection from the society they willingly submitted to. He never warrants why this oversteps any boundary nor does he even say why it's bad to prevent people from shooting heroine, smoking marijuana, abuse, and underage drinking.
C5: The "grave error" I made is poorly described and supported. First, yes you do submit to the State's laws in which you were born, had your parents wished you not be under regulation by the State then by all means leave and go to another. By living in the U.S., using the example he provided, you have to follow the laws this is not an option, the same way we have laws against narcotic drug abuse and suicide is to prevent individuals from harming themselves even though they may willingly choose to. Second I'd say he makes an assumption that drug abuse only harms the abuser again this goes unwarranted and is of his own opinion and is false. When you go to get you driver's license you sign a paper that says you agree to follow ALL the traffic laws, not the ones you choose.
To sum up the round with voters I'll start with the V/C debate or again lack of which,
He never says why the State taking action to maintain legitimacy is bad other than that it "violates individual rights," I'd say that simply the words violating individual rights is not a harm in itself, he never gives any warrant to why CI's step outside of the State's Authoritative Sovereignty nor to why violating individual rights is even bad, or outweighs the State. Second, remember he completely contradicts himself at the OBSV1/C2 debate when he says people won't be harmed then they will, but it's not sufficient to warrant action. This is thoroughly flawed, and again he tries to claim he outweighs, but with what? He never specifies what violating individual rights causes. Third, I don't have to prove that they benefit "ENOUGH," to affirm I simply have to Affirm the Resolution, his solvency burden he tries to place on me is unwarranted and illegitimate. So you're going to be voting Aff for the following reasons:
-Every argument my opponent has made just about is COMPLETELY of his own accord and has no warrant and his claim to any such must be ignored (if you don't believe me read the round again)
-Second I've proven that it is Justifiable, not JUST (a standard), for the State to regulate Autonomy and to retain any sort of legitimacy must look to protect the lives of its citizens first so as such can follow even the existence of the exercising of individual rights.
-Third I'm outweighing on every argument because the Neg NEVER provides you with any Impacts as to any of his arguments or to why we should even look to Negate
Thank you opponent and voters
Grape

Con

OBSV1: Since it is apparently not clear to my opponent what herd immunity is, I will explain what it is and why I am not arguing for it. The principle of herd is that if you are not immune, you will not get sick if everyone around you is immune because there will be no one to spread the disease. This is not my argument because it does not matter to me either way if the unimmunized people get sick, it is their risk. My point is that the people who are NOT immunized won't spread the disease to those who ARE, thus my opponent cannot argue that unimmunized people are a risk to others.

OBSV2: I never stated the people never want the State to get involved in health concerns, I merely provided an example to suggest that this is not universally true. Furthermore, regulating the fast food industry is not equivalent to compulsory immunization because it simply encourages certain choices, it does not force them. My analogy more accurately describes the involuntary nature of what my opponent is proposing.

C1: I apologize if my use of certain phrases has apparently detracted from the significance of my argument. Let me reiterate in a more objective tone. My opponent has described a historical example of State intervention to protect the health of citizens which is not directly related to the debate and which ended in failure. I don't see how this supports the resolution that public health concerns justify compulsory immunization, but apparently that's just my opinion. It seems my opponent was trying to prove that the State can justly act to protect the health of its citizens, but this is a terrible example and in any case I never argued against all forms of protection, just those which were forced on people against their will.

To clear something else up, I did NOT agree with seat belt laws. To quote myself: "Seat Belt Laws - I reject that these laws are justified." My opponent may have misread this but it's fairly clear that I disagreed with every one of his examples or proved it to be a false analogy.

The last part of this is rather confusing. My opponent says my claim that the State has an obligation to protect the rights of its citizens is unwarranted, but his assertion that it's purpose is to protect citizens is equally unwarranted. I could engage in mindless appeals to authority but both are valid viewpoints. Rights may not be exercised without life, but that does not turn the State into some kind of babysitter protecting people to make sure they stay alive to exercise those rights. Perhaps, again, this is just my opinion, but my opponent has not offered anything concrete either.

C2: My opponent's argument here relies on his misunderstanding of my argument in OBSV 1. I will reiterate this again more clearly and objectively since I seem to be having trouble getting my point across. A small minority of people will not get immunized. They may get sick, and I never argued otherwise. Anything that happens to them will not have a significant effect on society as a whole. Their own suffering would result from their decisions and the State is not responsible for creating "Don't Run With Scissors" laws to maintain legitimacy.

C3: Apparently I failed to refute the argument in this contention because I did not argue that religion justifies exemption from compulsory immunization. Let me once again try to be clear. If I say people should have the right to refuse immunization for ANY reason, that includes religion. I'm not going to continue with the semantics argument because I see no adequate reason why it matters.

To continue on, I would like to address one statement in particular: "he never attacks the fact that the State has SOLE Authority to impose regulations on its citizens, he simply says infringing on rights is bad."

Why should I argue about whether or not the State has the sole right to impose regulations on its citizens? I am not arguing for anarchism; I am only arguing one case from an anarchist perspective. This debate is about one right: the right to choose whether to accept immunization. I am only arguing for that right. It is in no way necessary for me to discredit the right of the State to regulate citizens in all cases.

C4: My opponent's response here is frankly rude and condescending and seems to show an intentional misinterpretation of what I believed to be plain English. Let me yet again reiterate:

In no way did I say drugs were not harmful to others. In no way did I say drunk driving was not harmful to others. In no way did I say prostitution was not harmful to others. I said that IF something is harmful only to the individual choosing to do it, it should not be regulated by the State. I already explained in OBSV1 why refusing immunization is ONLY harmful to the individual in question. I profess my apology for the ignorance I showed by not giving in to this ridiculous false analogy.

This is simply an alarmist and exaggerated attempt to paint my point of view as encouraging chaos and disenfranchising all order when I do no such thing. Person X refusing immunization does not hurt Person Y or Person Z, except perhaps by some indirect, hypothetical, and negligible drain that Person X might put on society (which I understand to be the point of C2).

C5: I'm going to once again apologize for how confusing my statements seem to be and reiterate them since they seem to have been ignored or misconstrued.

"First, yes you do submit to the State's laws in which you were born, had your parents wished you not be under regulation by the State then by all means leave and go to another."

Because I was born in the State (a factor we can agree I had no control over) I therefore have willingly submitted to the State. Needless to say, this is a contradiction. The statement that I can go somewhere else seems to mean that the justification for the State's control over me has shifted from the fact that I gave my alleged consent to the fact that I am located in a certain area.

"By living in the U.S., using the example he provided, you have to follow the laws this is not an option, the same way we have laws against narcotic drug abuse and suicide is to prevent individuals from harming themselves even though they may willingly choose to. "

Again, being located in a certain area is now the criterion to justify control. Needless to say, it is I who makes unwarranted statements.

"Second I'd say he makes an assumption that drug abuse only harms the abuser again this goes unwarranted and is of his own opinion and is false."

Once again, I never said this. I said IF.

Impacts:

My opponents main argument seems to be that I never offered "impacts." I believe that the impacts were very strongly implied, but I will spell out what I thought was obvious: Unjustly denying rights is a negative impact. If a person is subject to the humiliation of no being the master of their own body, that is a negative impact. My opponent does not seem to acknowledge that this is a negative consequence. I have shown that there are no positives to compulsory immunization anyway ('protecting' people against their will does not count for the reasons I described) so I don't see how my opponent has the advantage of weight.

Conclusion:

My opponent describes nearly all of my arguments as simply being my own opinion and not supported by fact which cleverly disguises the fact that his are much the same. He has offered no evidence of his opinions being more valid except his own presumptuous diction. I have dismantled the logic of all three of his contentions and his own argument has been to say that my reasoning is automatically invalid by virtue of being my opinion. His own attempts at refuting my contentions were completely illogical and based on intentional misunderstanding. Mindlessly subordinated your opponent's opinion to your own without reasoning is no argument.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 6 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
But thanks for the link. I know how I'm prepping for nats now =).
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 6 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
Those look like long LD cases. I'm not a fan of LD spreads =/. They annoy me to no end...
Posted by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
Advice: If you feel the need to be arrogant, in the future I would suggest winning.
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
1. No, this is a topic from this school year, meaning if you had any sort of bid it would be on there.
2. I don't know what you're talking about. It lists ALL bids, not just those with two or more.

If you want to throw your weight around, be sure to be able to back it up.
Posted by CaleBREEEum 6 years ago
CaleBREEEum
Too bad this is an old topic and those bids are as of 09-10 ;) and notice how they only register those who have received two bids or more ;) nice try though. I find it cute though that you're concerned enough about me to do that much research want my number next cutie? ;)
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
"This case was written and gained TOC bids"

Nobody from your school has attained any bids to the TOC.
http://circuitdebater.blogspot.com...

Conduct to CON for blatant lying by PRO.
Posted by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
Vote Summary:

Voted 7 points to self to balance opponent's vote.
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
You'll notice the separate categories under 'Vote Here'. I'll vote for you in arguments if I think you won the debate on an argumentative level (which you didn't) but that doesn't mean you get the votes in other categories also.

About the value and criterion, an unwarranted argument has NO weight in the round, whether it's refuted or not. YOUR job is to establish reasons to prefer your criterion of your opponent's. You do not simply state it and wait for a refutation any more than you would just state the tagline of a contention and wait for a refutation.

Linking arguments back to your criterion does not make your criterion legitimate. I could establish a criterion of 'increasing compulsion' and make arguments that compulsory immunization increases compulsion, which would link back to the criterion. That does not make the criterion itself legitimate.

If you want to see how your standard should be properly warranted, you can see the full cases of national circuit debaters here:
http://debatecoaches.org...
http://circuitdebater.wikispaces.com...
Posted by CaleBREEEum 6 years ago
CaleBREEEum
As to respond to your "case" you posted in response. First, it's completely circular, and illogical compared to the links I provide in mine as to look to Resolution in a more "abstract" way if you wish to call it. I completely meet the Aff burden you've seemed to fail miserably in following those arguments because I didn't limit myself to the poor logic of CI's are justifiable because they help these many people.....This case was written and gained TOC bids and a State invitation, if TFA/NFL judges can see and follow the logic and you can't I wonder what the issue is....
Posted by CaleBREEEum 6 years ago
CaleBREEEum
I'm a complete hypocrite that's cute...."how were you a better speller?" This reaffirms my first assumption that you're a clown and have very little knowledge as far as debate. The debate, you know the part that mattered ;), is why I voted Aff. You're probably a UIL judge that has made kids lose because his opponent spoke "prettier," or he went too fast. The point is you know very little obviously and when I established LD as the standard, I assumed I'd be judged on such a basis and since none was ever created by the Neg and it was never refuted and since EVERY single argument and link I made went right back to the V/C I would assume an intelligent, knowledgeable judge or any human being with a measure of mental competence would be able to see such.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Kenostic 6 years ago
Kenostic
CaleBREEEumGrapeTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
CaleBREEEumGrapeTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
CaleBREEEumGrapeTied
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 CaleBREEEum 6 years ago
CaleBREEEum
CaleBREEEumGrapeTied
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 ciphermind 6 years ago
ciphermind
CaleBREEEumGrapeTied
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 Awed 6 years ago
Awed
CaleBREEEumGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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