The Instigator
InnovativeEphemera
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Domr
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Vaccination is Beneficial

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
InnovativeEphemera
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,301 times Debate No: 58812
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (42)
Votes (2)

 

InnovativeEphemera

Pro

Previously participated in this debate, however after much effort opponent forfeited in the second round. I will port my opening here. 10k characters, 4 rounds. I expect evidence to back up your BoP in demonstrating that, on balance, vaccinations are not safe and beneficial, just as I will provide evidence where I bear the BoP for demonstrating my arguments.

I take no issue with giving you the opportunity to see my arguments prior to the debate.

My contention is that Vaccination is a critical public health measure and is both beneficial and safe.

I will open with three key arguments:

1. Vaccination is demonstrably effective. I will illustrate this point by discussing the eradication of smallpox, the near-eradication of polio, and various other trends in disease reduction upon implementation of public immunisation programs.
2. Vaccination is safe. In order to avoid being accused of constructing a straw-man of the anti-vax position, I will begin by explaining why vaccinations can be considered safe for the vast majority of the population.
3. Failure to vaccinate elucidates measurable counter-benefits to both individuals and the wider community

_______________________

Vaccination is demonstrably effective.
Study(1) after publication(2) has demonstrated that vaccines are effective in their basic function; stimulating an individual's immune system to develop adaptive immunity to a given pathogen. In simple terms, this means that vaccines reduce the incidence of disease. And, of course, historical data demonstrates this(3)(4). As can be seen in the graphs(3,4), the implementation of vaccination corresponds to a rapid decrease in death and incidence of various diseases, and is supported by evidence of statistical significance (i.e. not simply a case of correlation not equalling causation). Meta-analyses of some types of influenza vaccines have shown reduced effectiveness during some seasons, however, this is almost ubiquitously a result of the rapidly mutating nature of the influenza virus, and not the efficacy of the vaccines themselves. Individuals may still become ill after being vaccinated, as individual vaccination effectiveness is, of course, only approaching 100% (about 98% for measles, for example)(1). However, the absolute majority of individuals achieve functional immunity once immunised against the most diseases, and it is this vast majority that, when coupled with high community vaccination rates, confers the additional benefits of herd immunity and the eventual eradication of disease.

The eradication of poliomyelitis in the Western world and smallpox globally is one of the greatest public health achievements to date. This came about through a disciplined vaccination schedule and years of research and dedication; the almost-total destruction of these diseases is testament to the efficacy of vaccination(5).

Vaccination is demonstrably effective in reducing the incidence and death rates associated with disease.


Vaccination is safe.
As a rule-of-thumb, no biological agent can ever be considered 100% safe, and all types of medicine have side-effects. However, the propensity of the evidence towards their safety is absolutely clear and except in a very limited number of exceptional cases, are almost always safe. I will demonstrate this assertion here, first discussing the ingredients in vaccines and then using the example of the autism controversy surrounding the MMR vaccine.


Ingredients
Some children (and adults) have medical conditions which cause them to be immunocompromised, or may have a specific allergy to an ingredient in a vaccine. These individuals should not be vaccinated; however, these individuals provide even more reason for others in the community to become vaccinated; immunocompromised children rely on the heard immunity of their immediate and extended community to prevent them from becoming ill.
Controversial ingredients include:

- Thimerosal
, what most anti-vaxxers claim as the origin of autism, is an organic mercury-based compound that consists of just under 50% ethyl mercury(6). Thimerosal is not in the MMR vaccine(9). It has been omitted from almost all vaccines since 1999(6), there is no evidence of it causing any adverse health effects with the exception of minor swelling and redness at the site of injection(6), and it has never been implicated in causing autism. It was used as a preservative, but the amount was so thoroughly insignificant that one's of mercury bioaccumulation from the entire childhood vaccination schedule is nine-times less than a single tuna sandwich(7). And anyway, if it did cause autism, you'd expect autism to drop after it was taken out of vaccines. Which it didn't.

- Formaldehyde, also used as a preservative and to prevent runaway pathogen replication. 70-80 times more can be found in the human body by natural production than in a jab(8).

- Aluminium Hydroxide is in such small quantities in vaccines that you can literally get 1000 times more of it from a single ant-acid tablet and is the most common metal in nature(7)[around 9:00]. Breastfeeding puts a child at greater risk(8).

MMR and Autism
The MMR vaccine does not cause autism. In fact, none do(7)(10)(11)(12)(13).
Time and time again, studies and meta-analyses have found no correlation between vaccination and autism. In 1998 Andrew Wakefield conducted an illegal test (it wasn't even an experiment) on 8 children (which is a pitifully small sample), doctoring the evidence of those measurements, and presenting them to be published in the Lancet(12). The paper was later retracted and Wakefield lost his licence to practice medicine. Before looking for more evidence, frightened readers and the 24-hour news cycle regurgitated the hokum and established the current fear of vaccines. What the public didn't know was that Wakefield had been hired to find evidence of the correlation for a lawsuit against the pharmaceutical company responsible for the production of the vaccine; and Wakefield was developing his own vaccine which he wanted to force into the market as a competitor(12). Follow the money.


Failure to vaccinate elucidates measurable counter-benefits.

Decreasing vaccination rates have been implicated in the recent resurgence of measles(14). In fact, failure to vaccinate has caused hundreds of thousands of preventable cases; this interactive map is absolutely critical in examining the extent of diminished benefit due to failure to vaccinate(15). This topic will be explored more thoroughly in the following rounds.

Best of luck to my opponent.

Vaccination is, given the propensity of the evidence, both safe and effective.

___________________________
(1) New England Journal of Medicine, Markowitz, L. (et. al), Immunisation of Six-Month-Old Infants[...]
accessible at: [http://www.nejm.org......]
(2) Journal of Infectious Diseases, Weindberg, G & Szilagyi, P, Vaccine Epidemiology: Efficacy, Effectiveness, and the Translational Research Roadmap, accessible at: [http://jid.oxfordjournals.org......]
(3) [https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com......]
(4)[http://www.cdc.gov......]
(5)Polio timeline: [http://www.historyofvaccines.org......]
(6)[http://www.ncirs.edu.au......]
(7)[https://www.youtube.com......] {go to time 10:30}
(8)[http://www.chop.edu......]
(9)[http://www.cdc.gov......]
(10)[http://www.cdc.gov......]
(11)[http://www.immunize.org......]
(12)[http://theincidentaleconomist.com......]
(13) [http://www.health.gov.au......]
(14)[http://www.huffingtonpost.com......]
(15)[http://www.cfr.org......]

Domr

Con

I accept. Pro has made a large number of arguments, all of which do not apply. He has incorrectly sources this material. By adding ..] to the end of all of his sources they only take you to the homepage of the website listed. There are no articles, no videos, and no graphs available for view of his arguments.

Since every argument relies on these sources, they are all deemed inadequate and should be stricken from Round 1. (If Pro wishes these to remain, they are considered plagarism and would be considered an automatic loss.)

The only viable point in Round 1 by Pro is his contention: "My contention is that Vaccination is a critical public health measure and is both beneficial and safe." This is his argument and burden of proof.

This contention deems vaccinations are beneficial and safe. However, vaccines are not safe as they can cause the disease they are trying to prevent. [1]

[1] http://www.rifeenergymedicine.com...
Debate Round No. 1
InnovativeEphemera

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting the debate.

Naturally, my opponent has gotten himself into very deep water. As he has made no point of refuting any of points, so they stand, and I will post the links that were truncated here. I will then go on to add further points and rebuttals to your argument. You will then have to do two rounds worth of rebuttals in your next round, otherwise all my points from round 1 stand.

I acknowledge that my links became truncated. No, I do not concede my points, and they are not plagiarised, so they are not stricken, and I don't automatically lose. Very nice attempt, though! Here are the links proper:

(1) New England Journal of Medicine, Markowitz, L. (et. al), Immunisation of Six-Month-Old Infants[...]
accessible at: http://www.nejm.org...
(2) Journal of Infectious Diseases, Weindberg, G & Szilagyi, P, Vaccine Epidemiology: Efficacy, Effectiveness, and the Translational Research Roadmap, accessible at: [http://jid.oxfordjournals.org...]
(3) [https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com...]
(4) [http://www.cdc.gov...]
(5)Polio timeline: [http://www.historyofvaccines.org...]
(6) [http://www.ncirs.edu.au...]
(7) [https://www.youtube.com...] {go to time 10:30}
(8) [http://www.chop.edu...]
(9) [http://www.cdc.gov...]
(10) [http://www.cdc.gov...]
(11) [http://www.immunize.org...]
(12) [http://theincidentaleconomist.com...]
(13) [http://www.health.gov.au...]
(14) [http://www.huffingtonpost.com...]
(15) [http://www.cfr.org...]

You must have known I would just post them here, so why would you not rebut in your last round? Or did you think I didn't have any actual sources and was hoping you wouldn't check? Anyway, on to rebuttals.



My opponent claims that vaccines cause the diseases they prevent. He clearly does not have a year 9 level understanding of biology. And neither does the physicist (read: not doctor/biologist/chemist) he cited, and all of his points are entirely fabricated. Not only that, he almost exlcusively cites anti-vax propaganda material, instead of peer-reviewed science. Let's take a quick look at how a vaccine works.

There are four common types of vaccine(1) although more do exists.

1. Live, attenuated type(2). These vaccines contain live, but modified, versions of the virus against which you are immunising, for example chickenpox and rotavirus. The modifcation either renders the virus harmless or less virulent. Unless specifically cultured incorrectly or contaminated (as with anything else), or if you are immunocompromised, these types of vaccines are harmless.

2. Killed/inacctivated type(3). This is where the pathogen is cultured, then killed. The antigens on the surface of the pathogen stimulate the immune system in the same way as if the pathogen were alive. Obviously, these can not harm you, because the pathogen is dead. Examples include Polio, whooping cough, plague and flu.

3. Toxoid type(4). This is where a pathogen's toxin is taken and neutralised (usually with heat but also chemically). However, because the structure remains in tact, it is still useful in providing immunity against the toxin. Examples include diptheria and tetanus.

4. Subunit/conjugate type(5) This is where only selective antigens/fragemnts of the pathogen are used, instead of the whole thing. Examples include Hep B and menigococcal.

None of these can "give you" the disease it was attempting to vaccinate you against. None. This is because vaccines are not simply a live shot tetanus going into your muscles or blood stream.

There is no medial mechanism by which a vaccine can give the disease, unless you are immunocompromised. Although some time ago when the first batch of polio vaccines came out, there was a containment breech and some of the polio vaccines did in fact contain live, unattenuated virus, this was a problem in the manufacturing process and not a function of the vaccine itself.

Vaccines are demonstrably safe and effective. Refusing to vaccinate children amounts not only to negligence and child abuse, but puts other people's children and safety at risk. It is selfish, unusual and more importantly, completely unsubstantiated. If vaccines really did cause sickness, don't you think there would be people scrambling left right and centre to get the Nobel Prize for blowing the top off this thing? Don't you realise that the only way for academics to make money is prove something that is currently held as true to be false? Imagine how much money you could make if you proved that vaccines were dangerous and ineffective. The reason that this hasn't happened is because it's just not true. Why would I vaccinate myself if I thought that these things were dangerous but I was just tricking you because apparently I work for a 'big pharma'? Don't you think that people who "know the truth" and work for the big pharmas would refuse t oget vaccinated themselves if this was true? Would they vaccinate their children? This entire argument is absurd.

This is what the anti-vaxxination movement has done to the human species: http://www.cfr.org...

This is appauling, reprehensible and inexcusable, and Andrew Wakefield and the other "truthers" who founded the movement ought to be held accountable for the murder of hundreds of thousands of vulnerable children and adults.

_____
(1) [http://www.historyofvaccines.org...]
(2) [http://en.wikipedia.org...]
(3) [http://en.wikipedia.org...]
(4) [http://en.wikipedia.org...]
(5) [http://www.niaid.nih.gov...]
Domr

Con

I previously stated: "Since every argument relies on these sources, they are all deemed inadequate and should be stricken from Round 1. (If Pro wishes these to remain, they are considered plagarism and would be considered an automatic loss.)"

This point when unrefuted meaning Pro has agreed to these terms. Pro went on to state "As he has made no point of refuting any of points, so they stand"


Pro has agreed to the terms, by lack of refuting them, and has thus given himself a loss by allowing his intially plagarised material to be part of this debate.





Side Notes:
Premise: "Vaccination is a critical public health measure and is both beneficial and safe."

Safe: free from hurt, injury, danger, or risk:
http://dictionary.reference.com...



Pro(R2): "My opponent claims that vaccines cause the diseases they prevent."

When i reality my claim was: "however, vaccines are not safe as they can cause the disease they are trying to prevent."

My source in round 1 states how vaccines have the ability to cause disease.





Debate Round No. 2
InnovativeEphemera

Pro

My opponent has recognised his failure and is flailing wildly to steady his fall. Let's give him a push.



First, you don't get to decide what constitutes plagiarism and automatic losses. You are not the debate arbiter. I supplied my sources in accordence with intellectual honesty. An error occured in the hyperlinkage, which I then corrected. This does not constitute plagiarism.

Second, I did refute your arbitrary statement, and explicitly stated that I do not agree to those terms. I suggest you scroll back up and have another read.

Thirdly, nice try in your concession attempt but I think that our readers are far more intelligent than you give them credit for. Don't insult our audience by pretending that they'll listen to your innane attack.

Fourth, I accuse you of resorting to ad hominem and semantics because you can't win the debate by establishing that vaccination is harmful.

Fifth, you did provide a source, which I soundly refuted and provided counter-evidence for. I suggest you give your lonely source some assistance.



It is clear that my opponent has no way of demonstrating that vaccinations aren't, on balance, beneficial to the vast majority of people to whom they are issued. Unfortunely, this debate has degenerated into a very poor attempt at a semantic mutiny, which fails not only on that basis, but also on the basis that my opponent cannot argue his case. Manipulation of semantics does not constitute an automatic win, no matter how much you wish it would. Look, two can play at that game! I assert that if in the next round you don't retract your source written by the physicist, you concede automatic defeat for citing a source that has no credibility. Further, I assert that if my opponent's moniker is 'Domr', then he concedes automatic defeat. See? It doesn't work like that.

Best of luck!
Domr

Con

Pro's arguments have seen to have taken a turn for the worse.

"First, you don't get to decide what constitutes plagiarism and automatic losses"
Plagiarism is clearly defined. Plagiarism can, and is, constituted by incorrectly citing sources. Which you have cleary done in Round 1.

My "automatic loss" comment was clearly based on your plagiarism, which you chose to keep as part of your argument. Correctly citing sources after already incorrectly citing them is still plagiarism. It is a cover-up attempt.
If you did not proofreed and check your sources before posting, that is your negligence and still constitutes on the clearly defined defintion of plagiarism.



http://library.pdx.edu...


"Second, I did refute your arbitrary statement, and explicitly stated that I do not agree to those terms. I suggest you scroll back up and have another read."

What you actually said was:
"I acknowledge that my links became truncated. No, I do not concede my points, and they are not plagiarised, so they are not stricken, and I don't automatically lose."

You say you did not commit plagiarism after admitting to incorrectly citing your sources. (Mistake or not, this is plagiarism)

"Thirdly, nice try in your concession attempt but I think that our readers are far more intelligent than you give them credit for. Don't insult our audience by pretending that they'll listen to your innane attack."

I feel this goes against basic conduct policy on this website when you belittle my argument and assert I am insulting the audience with my argument. This website is made to hear two opposing sides of arguments. You are calling my side of the argument an insult. This is simply not nice.


"Fourth, I accuse you of resorting to ad hominem and semantics because you can't win the debate by establishing that vaccination is harmful."

Stating you have committed plagiarism, under its defintion, is not ad hominem. And the debate isn't on vaccinations being harmful, it is about them being safe.

"Fifth, you did provide a source, which I soundly refuted and provided counter-evidence for. I suggest you give your lonely source some assistance."

You have later called me to remove this source. I comply and will gladly strike that source from my records and my statement about it. Thus, to no commit plagiarism myself.

I have complied with one of your terms in your round. The other, in regards to my Monikor...

Monikor: : a name or nickname
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

My name is Dominic. My nickname is Dom (as stated on my DDO profile).

Domr is merely a screenname used to identify myself on this website.

These rules do not affect the legitimacy and intergrity of the debate. My term was stated in Round 1 to allow you not to plagiarize yourself.

But as I have complied, please remember my statement about disease from vaccination was stricken from the record.

Now onto my final argument before my closing statement next round.

In R3 I had given the defintion of of safe.
"Safe: free from hurt, injury, danger, or risk:" (This is quoted from Round 3, and sourced appropriately.)

Pro gave no refute to this point, so per his rules of the debate, unrefuted points stand, this definition applies.

The contention listed by Pro is as follows: "Vaccination is a critical public health measure and is both beneficial and safe."

Per the CDC website, vaccinations can have adverse affects on ones health. This is another way to say a vaccination can cause harm.

"blood in the urine or stool, pneumonia, inflammation of the stomach or intestines"
http://www.cdc.gov...

These are examples of some of the harmful side effects of a vaccination.
Harm: "physical or mental damage or injury"
http://www.merriam-webster.com...



I have never contended vaccinations are not beneficial, or a critical public health measure. But they are not safe(per defintion) as they have the ability to cause harm to the individual receiving the vaccination.


This has never been a semantics debate. This is a debate about vaccination. You have committed plagiarism in this debate. I gave you the oppurunity to retract your statements because they were incorrectly cited, which is plagiarism.

I have refutted your contention/premise.





Debate Round No. 3
InnovativeEphemera

Pro

Unfortunately, we've seen a horrondous display of poor conduct and sportsmanship in this debate from the opposition. He has not presented a single substantiated argument. Con wishes to win the debate because he says that I have not yet presented any real argumentation as my previous set was incorrectly cited (although much of it actually still links correctly).

I did not inccorectly cite my sources. Everything that I did to cite them, I did in the normal expected fashion, and I can't tell you why they didn't link correctly, but as you can observe, I have done the exact same thing with the brackets in the previous round and they linked correctly. Technical faults or whatever this may be is hardly my responsibility and basing our entire debate on this issue is fraudulent and wasteful of you.

My opponent then struck his only argument against vaccination from the record. So ostensibly his entire argumentation period will exist in his final round, where I can't make any useful rebuttals. This kind of trickery is a clear example of misconduct. Not a single point on the subject of vaccination has been raised by my opposition since he struck his only point.

He then misattributed statements to me. Could you kindly supply evidence of where I said "unrefuted points stand"?

My opponent then clearly conceded defeat: "I have never contended vaccinations are not beneficial, or a critical public health measure." So either you're saying that I've won, or you just haven't provided these arguments yet, since this is the topic of the debate.

Actually, that's not what I said in my introduction as the point of this debate. What I actually said was, "I expect evidence to back up your BoP in demonstrating that, on balance, vaccinations are not safe and beneficial".

Con condedes the debate, because although (as I have clearly addressed) side effects do exist, on balance, it is safer to be vaccinated than not vaccinated. On balance, vaccines are safe. He has also conceded that they are effective. I mean, what more is there to this debate?

Regardless, let's try a new approach. Here are my NEW arguments!

I will open with three key arguments:

1. Vaccination is demonstrably effective. I will illustrate this point by discussing the eradication of smallpox, the near-eradication of polio, and various other trends in disease reduction upon implementation of public immunisation programs.
2. Vaccination is safe. In order to avoid being accused of constructing a straw-man of the anti-vax position, I will begin by explaining why vaccinations can be considered safe for the vast majority of the population.
3. Failure to vaccinate elucidates measurable counter-benefits to both individuals and the wider community

_______________________

Vaccination is demonstrably effective.
Study(1) after publication(2) has demonstrated that vaccines are effective in their basic function; stimulating an individual's immune system to develop adaptive immunity to a given pathogen. In simple terms, this means that vaccines reduce the incidence of disease. And, of course, historical data demonstrates this(3)(4). As can be seen in the graphs(3,4), the implementation of vaccination corresponds to a rapid decrease in death and incidence of various diseases, and is supported by evidence of statistical significance (i.e. not simply a case of correlation not equalling causation). Meta-analyses of some types of influenza vaccines have shown reduced effectiveness during some seasons, however, this is almost ubiquitously a result of the rapidly mutating nature of the influenza virus, and notthe efficacy of the vaccines themselves. Individuals may still become ill after being vaccinated, as individual vaccination effectiveness is, of course, only approaching 100% (about 98% for measles, for example)(1). However, the absolute majority of individuals achieve functional immunity once immunised against the most diseases, and it is this vast majority that, when coupled with high community vaccination rates, confers the additional benefits of herd immunity and the eventual eradication of disease.

The eradication of poliomyelitis in the Western world and smallpox globally is one of the greatest public health achievements to date. This came about through a disciplined vaccination schedule and years of research and dedication; the almost-total destruction of these diseases is testament to the efficacy of vaccination(5).

Vaccination is demonstrably effective in reducing the incidence and death rates associated with disease.


Vaccination is safe.
As a rule-of-thumb, no biological agent can ever be considered 100% safe, and all types of medicine have side-effects. However, the propensity of the evidence towards their safety is absolutely clear and except in a very limited number of exceptional cases, are almost always safe. I will demonstrate this assertion here, first discussing the ingredients in vaccines and then using the example of the autism controversy surrounding the MMR vaccine.


Ingredients
Some children (and adults) have medical conditions which cause them to be immunocompromised, or may have a specific allergy to an ingredient in a vaccine. These individuals should not be vaccinated; however, these individuals provide even more reason for others in the community to become vaccinated; immunocompromised children relyon the heard immunity of their immediate and extended community to prevent them from becoming ill.
Controversial ingredients include:

- Thimerosal
, what most anti-vaxxers claim as the origin of autism, is an organic mercury-based compound that consists of just under 50% ethyl mercury(6). Thimerosal is not in the MMR vaccine(9). It has been omitted from almost all vaccines since 1999(6), there is no evidence of it causing any adverse health effects with the exception of minor swelling and redness at the site of injection(6), and it has never been implicated in causing autism. It was used as a preservative, but the amount was so thoroughly insignificant that one's of mercury bioaccumulation from theentire childhood vaccination schedule is nine-times less than a single tuna sandwich(7). And anyway, if it did cause autism, you'd expect autism to drop after it was taken out of vaccines. Which it didn't.

- Formaldehyde, also used as a preservative and to prevent runaway pathogen replication. 70-80 times more can be found in the human body by natural production than in a jab(8).

- Aluminium Hydroxide is in such small quantities in vaccines that you can literally get 1000 times more of it from a single ant-acid tablet and is the most common metal in nature(7)[around 9:00]. Breastfeeding puts a child at greater risk(8).

MMR and Autism
The MMR vaccine does not cause autism. In fact, none do(7)(10)(11)(12)(13).
Time and time again, studies and meta-analyses have found no correlation between vaccination and autism. In 1998 Andrew Wakefield conducted an illegal test (it wasn't even an experiment) on 8 children (which is a pitifully small sample), doctoring the evidence of those measurements, and presenting them to be published in the Lancet(12). The paper was later retracted and Wakefield lost his licence to practice medicine. Before looking for more evidence, frightened readers and the 24-hour news cycle regurgitated the hokum and established the current fear of vaccines. What the public didn't know was that Wakefield had been hired to find evidence of the correlation for a lawsuit against the pharmaceutical company responsible for the production of the vaccine; and Wakefield was developing his own vaccine which he wanted to force into the market as a competitor(12). Follow the money.


Failure to vaccinate elucidates measurable counter-benefits.

Decreasing vaccination rates have been implicated in the recent resurgence of measles(14). In fact, failure to vaccinate has caused hundreds of thousands of preventable cases; this interactive map is absolutely critical in examining the extent of diminished benefit due to failure to vaccinate(15). This topic will be explored more thoroughly in the following rounds.

Best of luck to my opponent.

Vaccination is, given the propensity of the evidence, both safe and effective.

___________________________
(1) New England Journal of Medicine, Markowitz, L. (et. al), Immunisation of Six-Month-Old Infants[...]
accessible at: [http://www.nejm.org...]
(2) Journal of Infectious Diseases, Weindberg, G & Szilagyi, P, Vaccine Epidemiology: Efficacy, Effectiveness, and the Translational Research Roadmap, accessible at: [http://jid.oxfordjournals.org...]
(3) [https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com...]
(4) [http://www.cdc.gov...]
(5)Polio timeline: [http://www.historyofvaccines.org...]
(6)[http://www.ncirs.edu.au...]
(7)[https://www.youtube.com...] {go to time 10:30}
(8)[http://www.chop.edu...]
(9)[http://www.cdc.gov...]
(10)[http://www.cdc.gov...]
(11)[http://www.immunize.org...]
(12)[http://theincidentaleconomist.com...]
(13) [http://www.health.gov.au...]
(14)[http://www.huffingtonpost.com...]
(15)[http://www.cfr.org...]

_______________________


Best of luck to you in the polls, I hope you treat future debating opponents with a little more respect.

Domr

Con

Pro is misinformed about my debate, He has selectively quoted me to state I have no made any argument towards his debate.

I agree with the first half of his premise that vaccinations are a critical public health measure and that they are beneficial. My quote in Round 4 clearly goes on to say that I do not believe vaccinations are safe. This is part of the premise listed by Pro.

This was a clear argument against your premise of vaccinations. You, for some reason, believe I have not made any arguments because i struck my earlier sourced point from the record. The safety of vaccination is and has been my argument since Round 2, as stated in my "Side Notes" section.

You have chosen not to refute this point. There was a rebuttal to be made, and you chose to ignore it.



"He then misattributed statements to me. Could you kindly supply evidence of where I said "unrefuted points stand"?"
I did not quote this point in Round 4. I merely italizcized it to signify a paraphrase.

Here is the direct quote.

In round 2, Pro stated: "Naturally, my opponent has gotten himself into very deep water. As he has made no point of refuting any of points, so they stand"
You have stated points that are not refuted by the opposition stand.
This rule must apply to both debators.

Therefore, points that are not refuted are agreed upon in this debate.

Therefore my definition of safe, listed in Round 2, was accepted.
"Safe: free from hurt, injury, danger, or risk"
As you did not refute this.


I retract the automatic loss, as Pro has indirectly agreed to strike his Round 1 argument from the debate.

Since Pro has resubmitted his "Round 1" arguments, (which he should have done in Round 2) he is clearly agreeing they are to be stricken from the Round 1. Therefore, Round 1 arguments for Pro cannot be considered in this debate as they are posted in Round 4. This is after the agreed upon definition of safe, as it went without rebuttal.

Pro's premise: "Vaccination is a critical public health measure and is both beneficial and safe."
Therefore the premise fails the safe criteria.

In the Round 4 arguments, Pro stated: "no biological agent can ever be considered 100% safe, and all types of medicine have side-effects"

Per the definition of safe, harm in inflicted upon someone who is vaccinated by side effects. Pro has argued against his an important part of his own premise.




In conclusion, this debate started off with plagiarized material. They were incorrectly cited. Regardless of the reason, you made an argument using sources in which you could not find the material. This is clear cut plagiarism. If a debator does not deserve a loss for plagiarism, then no debate can technically be settled as each person can make up their own point. I was protecting the integrity of the debate by asking you to strike Round 1 arguments from the record, otherwise you are discrediting this debate with plagiarism (even if indirect).

I gave the clear option for you to retract Round 1. This did not prevent you from posting them in Round 2, you just chose to wait until Round 4. This is not semantics. You plagiarized your initial argument, and I allowed the debate to continue, as long as that Round 1 could not be used as part of this debate. It is not my fault you waited to post your arguments in Round 4.

You made the rule that points that go without rebuttal stand, or are agreed upon. You also made a clear premise that relied upon vaccinations being safe. You have argued that they are not 100% safe; or not always safe. I have argued in Rounds 2,3,4, and now 5 that vaccinations are not safe. I have cited the definition of safe, and listed a CDC source to state side effects caused by vaccinations.

This constitutes as a clear argument against your premise, which you did not refute. Instead, you argued that point with me, by saying they are not 100% safe.

You have gotten lost in the comments you feel i directed at you for semantics, when really I was protecting the integrity of your debates by not allowing you to incorrectly cite your sources, thus committing plagiarism. You are welcome.

Thank you for the debate.
Clear Vote for Con


Debate Round No. 4
42 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Samreay 3 years ago
Samreay
Heck, even following your link about a definition of plagiarism has "Plagiarism is when you present someone else's work or ideas as your own." Even your OWN LINK doesn't support your usage of the word unless you cherry pick that one sentence from the page. I'm not certain if you are trying to be dishonest, but it does look shaky.
Posted by Samreay 3 years ago
Samreay
If I call my opponent a murderer because I can find a definition for murder that includes killing bacteria, it is still bad conduct because I am willingly applying the negative connotations of the word that exist because its common usage has a very different definition.

And its not like that was the only reason you lost conduct, I've already gone over a few of the other reasons.

As to removing my vote, of course not. You argued horrifically, presented no substantial arguments, attempted to foist your own definitions in a bid to not actually debate the topic stated by Pro in his opening round and failed to rebut any of pros arguments. Everything in my RFD stands, and if you actually want to learn from it and debate better next time, I would take my comments to heart.
Posted by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
You are ignoring the sourced and agreed upon definition for plagiarism. Your examples, your definitions, your views DON'T APPLY.

You are arguing facts outside of the debate. Please remove your vote as it is a disgrace when you are making points based on your views and your sources, ignoring what is in the debate.
Posted by Samreay 3 years ago
Samreay
Please read my example of the murder definition again.

There was no plagiarism. Pro never attempted to present someone else's work as his own. Your job as a debater is not to tell me how to use words, but to try and convince me.

Repeating his argument does not imply he thinks he plagiarised (he didn't). It more likely implies he was simply responding to your unreasonable haggling about the issue.

Your definition of safety has nothing to do with the debate. The point Pro was making about safety was whether or not vaccines were safe for the "vast majority" of the population.

If you were unwilling to debate that thesis, you should not have accepted the debate. Accepting the debate and then trying to change the thesis is also bad conduct.
Posted by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
This is an earlier comment from you: "Actually, a voter does not have to accept definitions so long as they are sourced. "

Pro did not source any definition for "safe" I did source mine. Therefore, by logic, and since my sourced definition went without rebuttal, per your logic this is the one you have to accept.

(Unless you choose to agree with an inferred definition by Pro, or if you want to agree with a SOURCED AND AGREED UPON definition)
Posted by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
You do have to accept my definition of plagiarism as it was sourced in the argument. That's your job as a voter. Since you are choosing to ignore the that, I can only assume you are ignoring more facts in the argument.

You have two options:

Either there is plagiarism in this debate.
Or Pro has struck Round 1 from the record.

If you are considering Pro has struck his Round 1 'argument' (not his contention, as I have stated) then it does not apply to this debate. Since Pro reposted his arguments in later, he clearly is agreeing to plagiarism and is striking Round 1 from the debate.

Therefore, my definition of safe comes first. As Round 1 is not applied in this debate.

Therefore, your RFD is clearly bias, does not lie on the what is truly in the debate. You have already said you do not accept the definition listed in the debate for plagiarism, and you are not accepting the given definition of safe, which was agreed upon. Vast majority or not, it is unsafe.
Posted by Samreay 3 years ago
Samreay
As I have said before, my view on plagiarism does in fact apply, as you failed to convince me to accept your definition.

If you think Pro didn't adequately clarify or define what he meant by safety, I have to assume you simply didn't read his first round comment.

I am not certain how you are not understanding this point, this is basic language communication. Pro is supporting the notion that vaccines are beneficial and safe. Pro then clarifies this in Round 1 with more detail, by stating that by safe, he means safe for the vast majority, as no medical procedure is ever 100% safe. THAT is what Pro is supporting, and thus what you were supposed to argue against.

Once again, Pro's POSITION is that vaccines are "safe for the vast majority". That is the point to support or refute.

Here is a very basic example. Say I have a debate title "Cookies are delicious". In round 1, I say "By delicious, I mean that more than 90% of the population likes to eat them". Thus, the topic of the debate is whether or not 90% of the population likes to eat cookies. If you came into that debate and said "I don't like to eat cookies, therefore they are not delicious to everyone" whilst thinking that had anything at all to do with the debate thesis, you would be sadly mistaken. It completely fails to address whether or not "90% of the population likes to eat cookies" is true or false.
Posted by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
I did not state Pro deserved to lose for plagiarism. I asked him to remove the round he plagiarized. Per the definition I gave, he plagiarized. Your view on what plagiarism is does not apply, as it has been defined and cited in the debate.

Again, his contention: "My contention is that Vaccination is a critical public health measure and is both beneficial and safe." This was his opening.

He in no way clarified what safe meant, so I then am allowed to define it. I sourced my definition, Pro agreed to that definition.

Vaccines cause harm, therefore vaccines are not safe.

I cannot understand your reasoning when you ignore this point, which is clearly stated in the debate.

"I will begin by explaining why vaccinations can be considered safe for the vast majority of the population."
This statement goes against his case for the exact point you are arguing. "Vast majority". That means for some people, Pro claims vaccines to be unsafe.

His contention was they are safe. That's it. I don't need quantify side effects, only prove they are there. Side effects disprove his CONTENTION.
Posted by Samreay 3 years ago
Samreay
You seem confused over what safety means. From the opening round 1 comment, by which all debates source their definitions: "I will begin by explaining why vaccinations can be considered safe for the vast majority of the population." You appear to be disregarding the "vast majority" part of the definition that Pro indented to support in his claim. Thus you need to do more than say there are side effects, you need to show that they occur to a significant portion of the population such that Pro's contention is incorrect. I do not care if you try and bring in alternate definitions. Pro's job is support his initial claim, NOT to support a modified version of that claim you try and foist onto him.

Plagiarism is not civil, I agree, but I disagree Pro plagiarised. This site has a technical problem as its shortening of URL's when parsed by the server can actually change the hyperlink itself when re-reviewing an argument before posting it. I am not going to make Pro lose conduct over an accidental error whose fault does not lie with him. The fact that Pro had to repeat his arguments again because of your unreasonable pestering about plagiarism and sourcing is a point against you, not Pro. Everyone reading the debate could understand pros argument and follow his sources after round 2, so that SHOULD have been an end to it.

And you are right, I do have a bias. I am biased to siding with those that actually present good arguments, instead of trying to alternate working definitions and trying to convince readers your opponent should lose because you claimed his arguments were plagiarized. I would suggest in future debates you actually make an effort to present proper sourced arguments that aim to refute Pro's central tenet.
Posted by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
I did not see your last comment..very quick reply to it...

You can not infer what "safe" or "safety" means, You have to go by the given, sourced, and agreed upon definition. Without harm.

You are right that Pro argued vaccines can have side effects. He has refuted part of his own premise, which should be an unconvincing argument.

I do not need to quantify the amount of side effects. I just need to state and source that they do indeed have them. Which I did through the CDC.

So I your argument for Pro's case on safety is misguided, as you are not looking at what is in the debate per Pro's premise and the agreed definition of safe.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
InnovativeEphemeraDomrTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: unfortunately pro set the bar so low that nobody had any chance of winning this, as con could not manage to
Vote Placed by Samreay 3 years ago
Samreay
InnovativeEphemeraDomrTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: One of the easiest wins I have ever seen outside of a forfeit. Pro made a solid case for the benefits of vaccination with a massive number of high quality references. Apart from con's nonsensical comments about plagiarism (seriously? I almost dismissed con as a troll then, and thus the conduct vote), the ONLY argument Con presented was that vaccines can have side effects. Unfortunately, as an argument it is about as effective as saying cancer treatment is not beneficial because it can have side effects. Con needed to show that the negative outcomes caused by vaccination outweighed the positive benefits (and pro laid out a few with meticulous detail), but didn't come close. Good debate by Pro, thank you for the information and links, it was educational. Horrendous debate by con.