The Instigator
MadisonReneN
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Grovenshar
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Should Parents Have The Right To Immunize Their Own Children?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Grovenshar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 390 times Debate No: 88904
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

MadisonReneN

Con

I'm looking for someone to argue for the topic. There will be 4 rounds. Round one will be for acceptance, round two will be the presentation of each argument, Round three will be for counterclaim and rebuttal, and round four will be for voting. I'm looking for a serious contender who will provide a serious argument.
Grovenshar

Pro

Acceptance.
Debate Round No. 1
MadisonReneN

Con

To begin my argument, I will introduce what I am arguing against. The first vaccine ever created was the vaccine for smallpox, it was introduced in 1797 or we can call this time period the 19th century. Through the years, many more vaccines were introduced, some of those including cholera, rabies, the measles, the flu, etc. Now, as all know, vaccines are made to prevent diseases from spreading, and that's exactly what all of these vaccines have proven to do. Vaccines have been proven countless times that it greatly reduces the amount infectious diseases. These studies come from well known and trustworthy organizations such as the World Health Organization, as well as the CDC. Before vaccines were introduced, diseases were running rampant amongst people. First starting in Europe, then flourishing into the Americas'. Now that we have vaccines, we see barely any cases of the diseases that have vaccines. Now a days, in order for a child to get into a school, daycare, or other different services, they must have vaccine records. This is where my argument begins, with the problems of immunization and parents. Some parents choose not get their children immunized, yet they are still allowed in schools and other services. They may have gotten a religion exemption, this is an event by which the parent is given consent by the state to let their children enter school without any vaccination. Another possibility is fake file work, but aside from that, how is that fair to all the other children. That child without the proper vaccinations is endangering the welfare of every child in that school. That's only the smaller picture, that child is not only endangering the safety and health of other children, but also every human that the child comes into. Even if the child comes into contact with another person who already has their vaccinations because vaccines, as we all know, don't completely make you immune to that disease. The parents that aren't getting their children vaccinated are endangering the welfare of every body in that child's radius. Which is why I make the argument that parents should not be able to say that their child doesn't get a vaccine, vaccines should be mandatory for ALL children.
Grovenshar

Pro

Here is the issue with your debate. You say that any child without a vaccination is endangering the welfare of every person they are around, even if the person has a vaccine. This demonstrates a lack of understanding as to how vaccines actually work. When a vaccine is administered, the immune system reacts to the disease now in the bloodstream. It sends a whole lot of slightly different white blood cells at the bacteria. When it finds an effective type of white blood cell, it stores that template and makes a lot of them to go out there and deal with the issue. This white blood cell template is stored in the DNA of a number of cells. Over time, these cells die and are replaced. When this happens, the template goes away. If you get the disease during the time when you have that template, you will still get sick, but it will be over very quickly (and regenerate the template).

So when a child without a vaccination gets sick and gives this disease to everybody else, you have to wonder what the source of that disease is. The source is likely the other vaccinated students. They are already sick. The unvaccinated child is not effecting, inconveniencing, or endangering any student.

(To make it clear, I'm not denying that there are rare cases where a vaccinated student gets sick of an unvaccinated student, but it's not worth denying people liberties to avoid these rare cases. It's not an epidemic.)
Debate Round No. 2
MadisonReneN

Con

As you said "So when a child without a vaccination gets sick and gives this disease to everybody else, you have to wonder what the source of that disease is." Yes, that"s a very good question to ask yourself, but you can"t worry about where the child got the sickness from, you must worry about the fact that the child has the disease. This is so because that child is going to be the one coming into contact with other people and endangering their health.
Also, like you said in your argument, a person with the vaccination will already have the template in their blood stream and it is possible for them to contract it, but it won"t be so serious. Yes, while that is true, there is fairly high chance for an epidemic to occur. While that new child with the vaccinations has the measles (for example) he is now endangering everyone else that he comes into contact with. If you were to bring that child to a hospital, where lots and lots of babies are not immunized for that disease, he would be then, endangering the welfare of all those children. Keep in mind that the child without the vaccinations has the same possibilities of what was just mentioned above.
My point is, that unvaccinated children can still infect those with vaccines, then possibly triggering an epidemic. The measles could end up spreading to the children who have not yet had their immunizations yet and end up with a devastating outcome. Case and point, parents should NOT have the choice to immunize their children, it should in fact be mandatory.

(I was using the measles as an example. Sorry is this was all over the place, I must admit, I was confusing myself at some points. Good argument though.)

- also to be clear round three will be for rebuttals and round 4 will be for thank yous. I did mess up on explaining my directions, as this was my first time making a debate. My apologies.
Grovenshar

Pro

I'm going to break this debate into two categories, source and affected.

Source:
When you say that we can't worry about where a child got the disease, just who they are endangering, this argument falls because the sick student has been endangered. Therefore, we must be very concerned about the source. The source will likely be one of the student's friends or classmates. Most students do get these vaccinations. They don't show the symptoms of a disease to the extent of those who don't have vaccinations. Therefore, they are endangering everybody around them as much as the students without vaccinations. Vaccinations don't decrease likelihood of being diseased. We both know that. Vaccinations only decrease the severity of symptoms.

Affected:
When you bring up the case of babies in a hospital as being endangered, I can tell you that babies are in no danger that they would not normally face in a hospital. Hospitals have sick people in and out all day with different diseases. Despite this, babies are very unlikely to be diseased in a hospital. What does one more sick person matter? As for the epidemic, I have pointed out that epidemics are just as likely to occur with vaccines as they are to occur without vaccines. Therefore, the severity of those reactions is all that matters for today's debate.

Measles:
I'm just gonna quickly bring this up. The measles case was an issue where a disease, supposedly uncommon, had stopped receiving a vaccination inappropriately. This is not a case of parents being an issue.

Final Thought:
As I have noted, the effects of vaccinations do not change virility of a disease, only its severity. In other words, this doesn't change how many people are effected, just how they are affected. If people want to take that into their own hands, that is their right. To infringe on that reduces the liberty that we have. Therefore, we should strive to maintain our liberty by keeping vaccination rights from being infringed.

P.S:
No problem with the explanation of rules. It's nice having new people join the debate community.
Debate Round No. 3
MadisonReneN

Con

Well as I said, this round would be for thank yous. So, I will begin by first saying that you presented and executed an amazing argument. Your points were very welly thought out and you also made one hell of a rebuttal. There's no doubt in my mind that you won this argument. Thank you for helping me do my first argument, it was as an absolute pleasure to debate with you.
Grovenshar

Pro

I want to thank you as well. For your first debate, this was a wonderful showing. It was a wonderful debate. I'm glad I could take part in it. Have fun with your next debates.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Hoppi// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: This was a great debate to read. Arguments to Pro because Con conceded in the final round.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Votes on conceded debates are not moderated unless the voter votes for the side that conceded.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: stschiffman// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were much more scientifically based, which is what I felt this debate should have been about from the beginning.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The debater that this voter voted for conceded the debate. (2) The voter is required to assess specific arguments made by each side in the debate, and not merely assess arguments based solely on whether they're scientific or not. How the voter felt the debate should have gone should have no bearing on the outcome.
************************************************************************
Posted by Hoppi 11 months ago
Hoppi
@MadisonReneN, I don't think you should have conceded! It was a close debate. You should have held out for a win. Just my opinion.
Posted by MadisonReneN 11 months ago
MadisonReneN
Rephrase: The parents should not have a say so in whether or not a child gets a vaccination. Vaccinations should be mandatory.
Posted by MadisonReneN 11 months ago
MadisonReneN
@jpw Sorry, my argument was unclear. I'm saying that parents shouldn't have the right to decide whether or not their child gets a vaccination because it's endangering the welfare of other children.
Posted by Jpw 11 months ago
Jpw
I'll debate you on this topic, but just to be clear you are saying that you think that parents shouldn't be aloud to give their children vaccinations?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hoppi 11 months ago
Hoppi
MadisonReneNGrovensharTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a great debate to read. Arguments to Pro because Con conceded in the final round.