Resolved: The United States Federal Government should enforce mandatory vaccinations.
Debate Rounds (4)
I would like to thank my opponent ahead of time for accepting this debate.
This debate's resolution is as follows: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should enforce mandatory vaccinations.
1. No forfeits
2. Citations should be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and act civilly/decorously in the debate
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions
8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate (unless otherwise specified in R1)
9. The BOP is evenly shared
10. Con must present their case in R1, and must waive in the final round
11. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate such rebuttals' appropriateness)
12. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a loss
R1. Pro's terms and definition; Con accepts
R2. Pro's Case/arguments; Con generic Case/arguments
R3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R4. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people. (http://definitions.uslegal.com...)
Should-must; ought(used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): (http://www.dictionary.com...)
Mandatory- permitting no option; not to be disregarded or modified (http://www.dictionary.com...)
Vaccine-any preparation used as a preventive inoculation to confer immunity against a specific disease, usually employing aninnocuous form of the diseaseagent, as killed or weakened bacteria or viruses, to stimulate antibody production. (http://www.dictionary.com...)
I thank my opponent for accepting the challenge in this debate and wish them good luck.
Contention 1: Utilitarianism and the Ethic of Care
This contentions will be devided into two seperate sections and I shall choose to over over Utilitarianism first.
For this case of Utilitarianism I will be focusing on John Stuart Mill's case of Utility here. We have to look at the Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number of Sentient Beings. This means that we have to look at the needs of the whole vs. a few individuals. Another key thing we have to look at from Mill is Net Pleasure. If the vaccinations create a greater net pleasure than pain then it must be implamented for the betterment of soceity.  Before my opponent comes in and argues that shots hurt, Mill goes and argues that short term pain and pleasure are irrelevant and long term pleasure and pain is what should be looked at in general.
Throughout history the human race has been ravaged by illnesses. After the beginning of the Age of Reason science advancement has launched into the field of medical science and illnesses have begun to be cured. Under the status quo they have found that these children vaccinations have cured 90-99% of these diseases.  This is something that is already pushing towards the betterment of soceity and is something that will factor in to the over all status of the soceity as a whole. The United Nations have found that these vaccinations save 2.5 million children a year and over 285 children are saved every hour.  Another key thing is that the CDC estimates that 322 million cases of childhood illnesses were prevented throughout the United States as 732,000 children were saved, which once again helps our soceity by increasing future developement. 
The next key area of analysis is that of Herd immunity. This is the method of greater amounts of immunization reduces the possibilites of a disease. With the infection rate be driven down this, once again, moves the disease to a possible erradication.  This has been shown time and time again that when this threshold for this level of Herd immunity is not met then the likelihood of a break out increases. The greatest example of this occured in 2011, when 49 states failed to meet the Herd immunity level and the greatest outbreak of Whooping Cough had broken out since 1955.  This outright shows that there is a gargantuan demand to meet this level of Herd Immunity or we will begin massive breakouts of diseases again. The same occured in 2009, when the people who had failed to have their children vacinated had to have their children quarentined due to the lack of vaccinations had caused the 48 children to contract the measles.  Thus right off the bat we can see that there's a dire need for the manditory vaccinations in order to protect the soceity from disease and death.
We can see that this argument has a massive impact in todays debat to the point of if this plan isn't implamented by the US Federal Government then we will see a detteroation of the very fabric of soceity that we have fought so hard to defend and build up in order to create a stable soceity. With the detteroation of the soceity then there will be a massive break down to the microlevel, which I'll get into next, and it will break the very foundations of soceity.
Ethic of Care
The Ethic of Care, or also known as the feminism argument, revolves around the protection of special relationships. The Utilitarian argument reguards the improtance of the protection of the soceity and this argument will get down to the individual level. The Ethic of Care values special relationships like that of family, but as well as the relationships between generations as the Eco-feminism argument pushes for the preservation of future genreations.  In order to win this argument I must show that the manditory protects and preserves future generations.
Doctors today even recommend pregnant women to get vaccinations again in order to protect their children from pre-mature deaths. This is a key issue that is needed to protec the unborn as they are an immidate generation that is being saved from death. In the 1960's before the vaccination for ruebella, also known as Germany Measles, there was 20,000 child premature deaths which was and increase from the previous 11,000.  Mothers who get these vaccinations not only save their children, but have a higher chance of preventing birth defects. This again is a key argument here as we can see that the saving of future generations have helped saved people and a long chain of further generations. If this plan isn't implamented then we will see the breakdown of the family unit and a cause of harm at a microlevel which will harm soceity as a whole at the macrolevel. This will have a ripple affect with a great deal of ramifications and if this plan isn't passed.
Contention 2: Economic Impact
Now that I have already shown that doing this is ethically justifiable, I will now move to why this is economically sound and is benefitical for the United States Federal Government to implament this plan.
The CDC has shown that in the past 20 years the US has saved $1.38 Trillion in costs that would have occured each year. This means that the savings would have been well over $20 Trillion!  Though this maybe true another key factor that we would have to look at is how effective is the industry itself. They have found that for every $1 we have put into the DTaP vaccination we $27 and as for the MMR vaccination, though it may be smaller, for every dollar that we put into the vaccination we save $13 in total costs. This is already showing that we can save economic strength and increase the American powerhouse economy if this plan is implamented. In the case in California that I had described earlier it had major costs. Over $120,000 out of the economy due to the lack of working from the parents and other issues that arrose out of the issue. 
When it comes to simple illensses like the flu the CDC states that it does it's toll on the parental units is that of it costing anywhere from $222 to $1,456 which is extremely harmful in today's economy for the average family and this even isn't accounting for the additional $300 to $4,000 in medical expsenses which just continue to destroy the family unit by digging them deeper and deeper into debt.  Under the current Affordable Care Act it is possible to get vaccinations even without copay as those poor families who didn't have the ability to get these vaccinations before will have a greater amount of vaccinations which would not only increase the amount of economic effiecentcy, but will also lead to an increase and betterment of the individual as they will save a massive amount of money from getting these vaccinations. 
2. American Academy of Pediatrics, "Vaccine Safety: The Facts," www.aap.org, 2008
3. Shot@Life, "The Solution: Vaccines," www.shotatlife.org (accessed June 4, 2014)
4. US Department of Health and Human Services, "Community Immunity ('Herd Immunity')," www.vaccines.gov (accessed June 5, 2014)
5. Mark Fishetti, "Too Many Children Go Unvaccinated," www.scientificamerican.com, May 14, 2013
7. MacGregor, Sherilyn (2006).Beyond mothering earth: ecological citizenship and the politics of care. Vancouver: UBC Press. p. 286
8. CDC, "About Rubella," www.cdc.gov, Apr. 29, 2011
9. Bahar Gholipour, "Vaccination Has Saved 732,000 Children's Lives Since 1994, Says Report," www.huffingtonpost.com, Apr. 25, 2014
10. CDC, "CDC Study: Treating Children's Flu Illness Costly," www.cdc.gov, May 21, 2012
11. US Department of Health and Human Services, "The Affordable Care Act and Immunization," www.hhs.gov, Jan. 20, 2012
12. Bahar Gholipour, "Vaccination Has Saved 732,000 Children's Lives Since 1994, Says Report," www.huffingtonpost.com, Apr. 25, 2014
I assume my opponent means all people in the USA will be subject to these mandatory vaccines. I mean what would be the point otherwise? I see no list of exceptions, so I expect an easy win. I made a similar debate and got nailed for this.
0. Medical contraindications.
Sometimes for whatever reason a person is unable to receive medication. This is called a contraindication. This is true for vaccines. 
By forcing everyone to take vaccines you are exposing them to unnecessary risk and harm. People with contraindications should not be forced to take vaccines.
1. Severely immunocompromised patients should not have vaccines.
"In general, these patients should not be administered live vaccines" 
At this point I think I've effectively destroyed my opponent's premise. Forcing people who have contraindications and are severely immunocompromised is dangerous and cruel. I see no good reason to force these people to have to go through mandatory vaccines.
Note this could fall under "6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)"
I don't think so, I think this was a vast oversight by my opponent. Assuming my above arguments fall into kritiks of the topic, I apologize and have therefore forfeited the debate. Thanks for your time.
To answer my opponent's question, his argument was not a kritik and he has not violated the rules in this debate. This round, as per rules, I shall be focusing on the attack of my opponent's case.
My opponent brings up minor areas of this where some people are uncapable of recieving these types of vaccinations. Many of these issues are quite serious and can harm many. If this does occur, death will certainly come to the few that this occurs to. We would see that the government would likely accomidiate these people with their issues, though, I didn't clarify this and will refute this argument.
We have to weigh the impact calc in this debate via the Utilitarianism argument which shows that we must do whatever helps benefit more people. If these vaccines occur, we could see, at worse case scenerio, 500,000 deaths in the US, which are the amount of people with the immune system disorders that my opponent has brought up . I have shown that the US saved 732,000 children. The UN showned that this saves 2.5 million children a year, 285 a year world wide. It may seem heartless, but it benefits the majority of the people on the face of the Earth that this resolution is ennacted. This is just taking my opponent's DA vs. children saved. This doesn't even accomidiate the amount of adults and others saved as a response. Just looking at Rubella alone, we have nearly erradicated it saving 12.5 million that were infected in the outbreak in the 60's . We have erradicated this disease and can do more will a multitude of others.
1. ( ttp://tinyurl.com...)
My opponent first uses utility and argues benefits the most sentient beings. The problem being of course that animals are sentient beings. Vaccine research causes much suffering to animals. This is unjust. Though this is within the confines of utility. Sacrifice twenty people to save more. Scapegoating is allowed in utility.
"The degree of suffering, which may include both physical pain and psychological distress, depends on the nature of the experiment. Generally, animals are 'given' a disease or condition then experiments are done to investigate:
how the illness develops
what effects it has
how it could be prevented or its progress halted
whether proposed treatments actually work
As well as pain and distress from the scientific procedures used, animals will suffer from the symptoms of the disease or condition that is being studied. Healthy animals are also then used to assess the safety of any treatments developed before trials are done on humans or on farm or pet animals. Animals are usually killed at the end of the tests."
I think this damages my opponent's overall argument that vaccine do more good than harm.
Second, my opponent states statistics about vaccines saving lives and the economy and so forth. I have my doubts. Honestly, this will sound like crazy talk, but I don't think vaccines have saved a single life nor prevented a single outbreak of a disease.
There are several reasons why this might be. I'll divide it into two sections.
First, disease is caused by sin, not microorganisms. There are many biblical references to God sending plagues.
Impact, this marginally weakens my opponent's claim. A small dent perhaps.
My second argument is that the medical establishment is blindly following incorrect science. The longer this goes on the harder it is to refute. The only reason I even give this a second though, is because I know that the cure for cancer has already been found.  Thus, if the cure for cancer has already been found, and the medical establishment ignores this, then there is a good chance vaccines are useless too.
Impact, the cure for cancer has already been found, yet the medical establishment doesn't acknowledge this fact, casting huge doubt on the confidence of the medical establishment and thus vaccines. This would then call for a through investigation into the credibility of vaccines, the scholarly peer review process, scientists, and doctors.
We cause animals to suffer for nothing. We save nobody from vaccines because the medical establishment is blindly following false science. The cure for cancer has been found, yet most people don't recognize it. Finally, there is a chance disease is caused by sin and not microorganisms.
I thank my opponent for such a speedy debate, but like all good things, this too must come to an end.
I will be refutting these by areas that I'm believeing that these are.
Now as we begin here I have to prove that through Animal Testing we would be providing the Greatest Utility in this case and henceforth win the debate on these grounds, because if the ultamate utility isn't achieved then we will have more pain than pleasure and thus harming humanity which will ultamately lead to our downfall and depletion of human progress. First let's look at the benefits that these animal tests have provided humans. If we can look at the past 100 years we can see that almost all of the medical break throughs have actually came directly from Animal tests.  There have been tests of which the dog's pancrease was removed and insulin was discovered this way. Now we save tons of diabetic patient lives each year. We have also used animals to test for polio and this has effectively helped bring down those numbers from 350,000 in 1988 to a mere 233 in 2012.  There's also progress and come close to vaccines and treatments on a long chain of other illnesses it has helped with that I don't have time to go into detail with them all, but to list a few: Hep B, Hep C, polio, Brain Injuries, Breast Cancer, TB, Leukemia, Cardic Valve Subsitutes, and several others. 
Let's move on to animals and how they actually benefit from this. Now I would like to clarify to the voters here. I'm not the anti-PETA guy who thinks that we should put lipstick on a bunny to see if it makes it bullet proof, but more of a reasonable expierements over these vacines and such. First we have to look at some of the cures that actually came from testing on animals and the animal diseases that had vacines for them. There has been a countless list, but just to name a few: Rabbies, CPV, Feline Hep, Distemper, Antrax, and Feline Leukemia.  We can see that in this case countless millions upon millions of animals lives would have been lost if it wasn't for animal testing. As for the number of research subjects it is just over 26 million total. We consume more than 1800 more animals than test subjects.  We cannot deem this unethical without attacking eating meat amongst other things. Thus, animal testing is not only completely moral, but it increases and maximizes the utility of all animals used in testing to create the vaccines, meaning that my opponent's DA can be flown in my favor.
My opponent's quotation from the youtube video doesn't appear to actually be from the video as it is more about having a healthy eating lifestyle and obesity than anything else. Please throw it out of the debate as a response.
Not saving lives
My opponent states that the disease is caused by sin. He has yet to actually show scientific proof of this and even if we accepted that it is Biblical, he has yet to show actual verses. Even if a cure for cancer has been found and not yet released, it has nothing to do with this debate as there are plenty of known vaccines out there that benefit the public. These are what the debate is about, not the ones withheld from the public.
My opponent has dropped this argument, please extend this across.
Ethic of Care
This argument has been dropped by my opponent, please extend it across.
With that I thank you and urge you to vote Pro!
Source 2 from last round. (http://www.cdc.gov...)
1. AnimalResearch.info, "Diseases & Research," animalresearch.info (accessed Oct. 15, 2013)
2. Elizabeth Fisher, "Why We Should Accept Animal Testing," huffingtonpost.co.uk, July 17, 2013
3. California Biomedical Research Association, "CBRA Fact Sheet: Why Are Animals Necessary in Biomedical Research?," ca-biomed.org (accessed Oct. 15, 2013)
4. Tom Holder, "Animal Research Is an Ethical and Vital Tool to Fight Disease," blogs.law.harvard.edu, Jan. 14, 2013
"My opponent's quotation from the youtube video doesn't appear to actually be from the video as it is more about having a healthy eating lifestyle and obesity than anything else. Please throw it out of the debate as a response. " lannan13
Of course, my last opponent completely ignored this issue when I brought it up. Seems if you don't follow the majority, nobody listens. The cure for cancer does exist, the medical establishment is failing. Chronic disease is on the rise. Diabetes is on the rise and so forth. Whatever, just say "please throw it out of the debate as a response." Look the other way. Pretend it does not exist. I find it funny you spend all your time on my weaker arguments and almost entirely ignored my strongest argument.
Perhaps, I should have only used my strongest argument. That way it would look more ridiculous if you ignored it. Since, then you couldn't focus on my weaker arguments. I think there is something in psychology about this. If you give someone $100 dollars versus giving them $100 dollars and a penny, people will perceived the first gift as more valuable. That somehow the extra penny lessens the perceived value.
I still think I have enough to win even with that thrown out and very simply that forcing mandatory vaccines upon people with medical contraindications and that are severely immunocompromised as per my round 2 argument is cruel and unjust. There is no good reason to do so. Thanks for the debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.