The Instigator
Mariodude34500
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ColeTrain
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points

Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines.

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 2 votes the winner is...
ColeTrain
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 598 times Debate No: 79738
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Mariodude34500

Con

I think that if kids are required to get vaccines that there shouldn't be religious exemptions. The parents risk getting their kids seriously sick for there personal beliefs. Please only accept this debate if you want to debate this topic (No anti-vaccine people)
ColeTrain

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for opening this challenge and allowing me to accept. As he as not specified a structure for the debate, I'll do my best to do so in a fair and common manner.

Round 1: Con's Case
Round 2: Pro's Case, Con's Rebuttals
Round 3: Pro's Rebuttals, Con's Defense & Rebuttals
Round 4: Pro's Defense & Rebuttals Con's Closing Statements
Round 5: Pro's Closing Statements, Con (ends debate)

With that in mind, I'd like to move to some housekeeping, particularly in regards to the resolution.

The resolution is quite wordy and slightly incoherent. I'll try to reword the definition in a manner that both preserves the context and intent of the instigator but that also is more coherent and effective. Hopefully my opponent will agree to the stipulations, as the implications of the two resolutions are quite frankly the same.

Resolved: Religious exemption of necessary vaccinations should be permitted.

As Con, my opponent, the instigator is negating this notion, arguing that there shouldn't be exemptions for vaccinations based on religious beliefs. As Pro, I will be arguing the converse; that religious exemption should be accepted and permitted. The burden of proof, or BoP, will rest primarily upon Pro to affirm the resolution and exemplify why a change to the status quo (e.g. disallowing religious exemptions) is better than allowing it. My primary duty will be to negate these arguments. However, for the sake of balancing the BoP, I will also provide a case of my own, open to scrutiny by my opponent, to give a more equal balance to the BoP in the debate.

Definitions:

Vaccinate: "medical : to give (a person or an animal) a vaccine to prevent infection by a disease" [1]

Religious exemption: "The religious exemption is granted based on the U.S. Constitution First Amendment right to freely hold and exercise religious beliefs." [2]

Necessary: "absolutely needed"

With those items out of the way, I will present my case.

Observations:

I would like to note that my opponent has used the word necessary to define the vaccinations of which he/she believes should be utilized regardless of religion. It is imperative to realize that my opponent has not stipulated how this word should be interpreted. As it is highly subjective, it is quite difficult to perceive exactly what my opponent intended. However, for the purpose of this debate (and that my opponent mentioned parents), we will simplify this word to mean the following: any vaccination *required* to attend a public school. This focuses the resolution towards children and more definitively interprets necessary.


Contention I: Religious exemption is already permitted.

In various states, and actually a majority, religious exemption for vaccinations are already permitted. [4]

46 States Allow Religious Vaccine Exemptions for Childhood Vaccines
[5]

A change from the status quo would subsequently require a policy change. As the current policies are already in place, it is evident that the majority of states accept the religious reasoning behind denying vaccinations. It has been accepted in the past, and should thus be accepted and permitted now.

Moreover, there are instances which support the idea of religious exemption. For example, a women in New York won the right to not vaccinate her son, based on religious convictions. [8] This is another example of how religious exemption is already accepted and permitted.

Contention II: Some vaccinations contain components which can violate religious beliefs.

It is fact that the vaccinations themselves, and their components could violate religious beliefs. For example, some religions (such as Jews and Muslims) do not condone the consumption of pig. [6] It is also fact that some vaccinations that could be deemed *necessary* contain forms of pig. [7]


Forcing individuals to vaccinate their children with vaccines that are derived from organisms which violate religious convictions of the parents and/or the children themselves is a direct and specific example of an infringement on religious freedom.

Contention III: Religious exemption is protected under the US Constitution.

The First Amendment of the Constitution shows the government cannot prohibit the exercise of a religion. [9] This means that the government cannot make a law interfering or prohibiting the exercise of a religion. [10] In regards to vaccinations, the free exercise clause allows exemption from vaccinations. Former editor-in-chief of USA Today explains, "the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment mandates state accommodation for members of religious groups who object to the vaccinations on religious grounds. The free-exercise argument follows the logic that requiring children to perform an action (in this case to receive a vaccination) that is abhorrent to their religious beliefs and/or practices places a significant and undue burden on their free-exercise rights." [11]


Because the constitution allows a free exercise of religion, and exemption is neutral and not favoring a religious establishment, permitting religious exemptions is the most pragmatic option.

Contention IV: Vaccinations aren't totally safe.

Religious reasons for denying vaccinations is quite widespread. One of those reasons is also safety. Beyond moral convictions, these stretch to safety, and how they could harm the body. The Institute of Medicine admits, "Vaccines are not free from side effects, or “adverse effects." [12] Moreover, the link of MMR autism suggested in 1998 isn't the only thing parents should be worried about. Many vaccinations aren't totally safe. [13] For religious reasons, parents do not want to put their children in danger. As there is a possibility, this is another reason to permit religious exemption.


Contention V: Flawed arguments envelop anti-exemption.

Many people opposed to the idea of religious exemption claim that most religions don't hold the view that vaccinations are unacceptable. However, religious exemption goes further than the base "religion" itself. Pro-life activist Eric Schleidler explains, "You can have a more scrupulous moral position than the official teaching of the church." [14] This is very true. As vaccine laws sometimes require an explanation [2], this religious moral position even moreso dictates we accept and permit religious exemption.

Another argument is that it's always too easy to get religious exemptions. However, more and more states are tightening the law in this regard, making it more difficult and more explanatory to receive religious exemption. [14] Instead of abolishing it altogether, tightening the existing policies is more effective at a) protecting liberty and religious freedom, and b) protecting utilitarian health.


Furthermore, there exists arguments that religious exemption is a major health hazard. While vaccinations have considerably helped curb diseases our society once suffered, the exemptions we have don't pose as large a threat as propaganda proclaims. With most individuals vaccinated, would that not prevent those individuals from contracting and being affected by the disease in the first place? If exempt people accept the risk (which they do) then why not let them? Further, there have not been near the hazards or outbreaks of which propaganda loves to exclaim.

Conclusion:

I have provided a host of arguments backing my position, showing the logical and moral reasons as to why religious exemption from vaccinations should be both accepted and permitted, thus fulfilling the resolution and effectively affirming it.


Sources:
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.nvic.org...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://www.ncsl.org...
[5] http://www.pewresearch.org...
[6] http://www.themodernreligion.com...
[7] http://www.pewresearch.org...
[8] http://nypost.com...
[9] https://www.law.cornell.edu...
[10] https://www.law.cornell.edu...
[11] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org...
[12] http://www.hrsa.gov...
[13] http://www.theguardian.com...
[14] http://www.chicagotribune.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Mariodude34500

Con

Thanks you to my opponent for accepting my debate. I would like to address two things before I really get into the argument.

1. Yes I was using necessary to mean "required by public schools"
2. I don't think I have 100% BOP because I'm arguing against the current accepted policies. However I would agree I have more BOP then pro does. Most likely 60-40

I will now debunk all of you're contentions.

-Contention 1

There isn't really much to debunk here you basically just pointed out that most places allow religious exemptions. Just because most places allow it doesn't make it correct.

-Contention 2

Yes it's true that there are ingredients that can violate the parents religious convictions. However when you are talking about getting first graders vaccinated, it's irrelevant. Because first grader don't have a religion. They have whatever there parents tell them they have. A first grader hasn't but any thought into it. He's whatever his parents tell him to be.

However my bigger issue with it, is that I don't think the religion of the parents of one kid should be allowed to endanger the health of all the other kids in that school. You address this later in your argument saying something along the lines of " If my kid doesn't get vaccinated it doesn't matter if your kid is. The issue with this is that vaccines are not 100% effective. They work very well and everyone should get them, but sometimes they fail. So if one kid doesn't get vaccinated because his parents don't want him to and he gets say chicken pox, well he is a danger to other kids even if they have there vaccination because if the vaccination they got didn't work, well now that kid has gotten someone else sick because his parents don't personally like that vaccination.

However even that isn't my biggest issue with religious exemption. My biggest issue is that parents are legally allowed to put there kid's health in danger because they personally don't like what's in the vaccine. If the parents don't want to get there kids the measles vaccine because they're religion doesn't like it and the kid gets measles then the parents religion put the child in danger. ColeTrain would you honest say that parents should be allow to risk getting there five and six year old children getting sick and even possibly dying all because the parents don't like it. It's the same reason i don't think faith healing should be allowed. Because the parents religion can't be used as a justification to put a child in danger.

-Contention 3

You say religious exemption is protected under the first amendment. Well I disagree. Here is why. The first amendment protection is only when religion doesn't conflict with other peoples freedom or harm others. As I showed above not vaccinating your kid puts that kid and others around him in danger. So your religion is harming others and so is not protected under the first amendment.

- Contention 4
Yes it's true vaccines can cause side effects. For most people it doesn't but it can. I am in favor of medical exemptions. If getting a vaccine poses a significant risk to a kids health and safety then yes they can be exempted. However that is rare and for everyone else they should get vaccinated. Also you bring up the vaccine and autism link. This has been disproved many times and in fact the author of that study lost his medical license and got thrown in jail because the study was so bad. So that's invalid.

-Contention 5
I have addressed everything in this argument. But I will address one thing. You say that if people accept the risks then let them take them. However this doesn't work because we are talking about kids. So the parents are not the one who are taking the risk. They are forcing there kids sometimes as young as six to accept life threatening risks. If a adult doesn't want to get vaccinated I don't care. However parent forcing little kids to take life threatening risks is unacceptable and should not be allowed.

So I think I have debunked all of your points I would like you respond to my points I made.
ColeTrain

Pro

Due to the character limit of 10,000 characters, simply refuting my opponent's case (as it is quite short) would take up very little space. As such, I will go ahead and defend my points. Please note that this doesn't give any advantage to me, but actually allows my opponent to refute my arguments in the next round. Thus, this allows more debate without imposing any unfair advantage to either opponent. -- I will begin with my opponent's case, and then move on to my own.

Observations:
1. "Required by public schools" will remain.

2. I also agree you don't have full BoP. I explained this. 60-40 sounds fair, if that's how my opponent wishes to distribute it.
However, it would be typical for the full weight to rest on my opponent, as he is promoting a shift from the status quo.

Argument I: "I think that if kids are required to get vaccines that there shouldn't be religious exemptions."
1. My gives not logical reasoning behind his argument for this point.

2. Religious exemptions should be permitted, as I have and will demonstrate.

Argument II: "The parents risk getting their kids seriously sick for there personal beliefs."
1. It is a parent's job to do what they see best for their children.

2. Their job description is as follows: "Fill bellies, maintain home, cradle, protect, teach, guide, listen, empathize, communicate, accept, trust, check up on, love, discipline, role model, doctor, clean and wash, (and then clean and wash some more) tolerate . . . and enjoy." [1]
3. They are the parent and subsequently have the authority to do what they feel is best for their children. If they feel that vaccinations are uneccesary for religious reasons, it is their choice.
4. The correct use of "there" would be "their" in the context of the sentence my opponent used. [2]

With my opponent's case refuted, I will move to my own, and his arguments against it.

Contention I: Religious exemption is already permitted.
"There isn't really much to debunk here you basically just pointed out that most places allow religious exemptions. Just because most places allow it doesn't make it correct."
1. Given that it is of a majority accepted lends evidence towards the idea that it *should* be accepted.

2. My opponent proves nothing with his argument and uses no evidence. Thus, we remain with the only side that provided an argument. (Pro)
3. I have and will demonstrate in other contentions as to how exemption should be permitted, and there should not be a change to the status quo.

Contention II: Some vaccinations contain components which can violate religious beliefs.
"Yes it's true that there are ingredients that can violate the parents religious convictions. However when you are talking about getting first graders vaccinated, it's irrelevant. Because first grader don't have a religion. They have whatever there parents tell them they have. A first grader hasn't but any thought into it. He's whatever his parents tell him to be."
1. My opponent concedes that these vaccinations violate religious freedom, whether of the parent or the child.

2. My opponent earlier agreed that the resolution should refer to what is "required by public school." By default, this would include every grades from kindergarten to senior year.
3. Individuals are capable of choosing their religion in a majority of those grades.
4. Moreover, children are often products of their environment. Logic demonstrates that, on general, if the parent is religious, the child will be religious as well.
5. Parental guidance is necessary to help children grow and mature. Teens, and even children aren't fully matured until they are older. [3][4] Thus, parents can and should guide their children based on their beliefs (including religion).

"However my bigger issue with it, is that I don't think the religion of the parents of one kid should be allowed to endanger the health of all the other kids in that school. You address this later in your argument saying something along the lines of " If my kid doesn't get vaccinated it doesn't matter if your kid is. The issue with this is that vaccines are not 100% effective. They work very well and everyone should get them, but sometimes they fail. So if one kid doesn't get vaccinated because his parents don't want him to and he gets say chicken pox, well he is a danger to other kids even if they have there vaccination because if the vaccination they got didn't work, well now that kid has gotten someone else sick because his parents don't personally like that vaccination."
1. My oppnent has yet to mention a single instance in which religious exemption has resulted in getting other children fatally sick.
2. My opponent also concedes that vaccines are not 100% effective, and that they sometimes fail.
3. My opponent has only established a correlation between sickenss and non-vaccination, but has not linked the cause to religious exemption.
4. Because of the lack of examples supporting his/her reasoning, you would vote for the status quo (including religious exemption).

"However even that isn't my biggest issue with religious exemption. My biggest issue is that parents are legally allowed to put there kid's health in danger because they personally don't like what's in the vaccine. If the parents don't want to get there kids the measles vaccine because they're religion doesn't like it and the kid gets measles then the parents religion put the child in danger. ColeTrain would you honest say that parents should be allow to risk getting there five and six year old children getting sick and even possibly dying all because the parents don't like it. It's the same reason i don't think faith healing should be allowed. Because the parents religion can't be used as a justification to put a child in danger."
1. My opponent has not established the link between correlation and causation.
2. Correlation =/= Causation
3. Thus, my opponent cannot continue to say that religious exemption has *any* effect on others getting sick.
4. Most religious individuals who decline vaccinations either believe in divine healing or still go to the doctor to treat diseases.
5. Putting children at risk does not fit into this model if the children are actually still treated at the doctor or believe in divine healing already.
6. His claim that I support putting 5-6 year olds in danger is totally bogus. I support divine healing, but these people also sometimes go to doctors. Moreover, it is not only 5-6 year olds that are affected. Net benefit is utilitarian, and thus, so is my position.

Contention III: Religious exemption is protected under the US Constitution.
"You say religious exemption is protected under the first amendment. Well I disagree. Here is why. The first amendment protection is only when religion doesn't conflict with other peoples freedom or harm others. As I showed above not vaccinating your kid puts that kid and others around him in danger. So your religion is harming others and so is not protected under the first amendment."

1. My opponent cites no interpretation except his own.
2. I provided my interpretation, backed by Cornell University.
3. The first amendment protects the free exercise or religion. Prohibiting that in any manner is an infringement on individual rights.

Contention IV: Vaccinations aren't totally safe.
"Yes it's true vaccines can cause side effects. For most people it doesn't but it can. I am in favor of medical exemptions. If getting a vaccine poses a significant risk to a kids health and safety then yes they can be exempted. However that is rare and for everyone else they should get vaccinated. Also you bring up the vaccine and autism link. This has been disproved many times and in fact the author of that study lost his medical license and got thrown in jail because the study was so bad. So that's invalid."

1. My opponent concedes; vaccinations do cause side effects and aren't totally safe.
2. Medical exemption is irrelevant. This debate is about religious exemption. Presenting a counterplan in the Pro position, in the 2nd round, is not allowed.
3. I was only referencing the RETRACTED study to show that there have been studies conducted about the topic.

Contention V: Flawed arguments envelop anti-exemption.
"I have addressed everything in this argument. But I will address one thing. You say that if people accept the risks then let them take them. However this doesn't work because we are talking about kids. So the parents are not the one who are taking the risk. They are forcing there kids sometimes as young as six to accept life threatening risks. If a adult doesn't want to get vaccinated I don't care. However parent forcing little kids to take life threatening risks is unacceptable and should not be allowed."
1. As I've said before, it is the parents moral and social responsibility to care for and guide their children as they see fit.

2. If religious exemption is what the parents see best fit for their child, then that is what should happen.
3. As I have demonstrated multiple times, in multiple ways, religious exemption should be permitted.

Conclusion:
I have explicitly demonstrated both moral and pragmatic grounds to preserve religous exemption in regards to vaccinations for students attending public schools. Thus, I have fulfilled my burden of proof and upheld my side of the resolution.


Sources:
[1] http://www.easternflorida.edu...
[2] http://wsuonline.weber.edu...
[3] http://hrweb.mit.edu...
[4] http://www.livescience.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Mariodude34500

Con

Before I refute your arguments I want to clarify one thing. You said late in this argument that something I said violated the debate structure you mentioned in the first round and is against the rules. There is no formal debate structure in this debate. I am under no obligation to follow what you proposed. You can structure you arguments in specific rounds how you see fit. However I am under no obligation to do so. If you want a structure that both parties must agree to start your own debate. That out of the way lets get down to business.

-Argument 1
I find it interesting you took a quote from my first round when I wasn't trying to make a argument just state my position and then say I didn't back this up as if that's a point. No you took something that wasn't supposed to be argument that I wrote before I knew if anyone would take this debate and acted like it proves your point. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you just overlooked that detail. In future please address an actual argument.

-Argument 2
So the summary of your argument was it's the parents job to do whats best for their children and they should do it how they see fit. I agree parents should do what's best for their child. But some people have crazy ideas as to how to raise children. Some people think beating their kid with a belt for a hour is proper. My point is that just because parents think it's good for the kids doesn't make them right. Maybe something you can do to help your kid is get them the shot to stop them from getting deadly viruses. You know what can happen if you don't, just for a example the measles outbreak that happened not very long ago. You want to guess why that happened. Because parent decided they didn't want to give their kids vaccines because they didn't like it. Guess what happened. A giant outbreak of a disease that barely existed in america before. This happens if large amount of parent decide to not vaccinate their kids because a book told them it's bad.

On to your arguments

-Contention 1
You double down on your position that because most places except religious exemption it must be correct. Well lets put it this way. There was a time that most states in america thought slavery was a good idea. Does that mean it was? They thought segregation was good. Does that mean it was? ( I'm not saying religious exemption is as bad as slavery I'm using it to make the point) So no just because most states except it doesn't tell you anything on if it's good or not.

-Contention 2
I find it very interesting that you state that kids in most of those grades can make their own decisions on this matter. Let's take the age group 13-17. The reason I find it interesting you think this is because if you go back in your debate history ColeTrain you will find a debate asking if kids 13-17 should be allowed to make their own medical decisions. You argued they shouldn't and won that debate. So you must have made some good arguments for why they aren't mature enough to make that decision. But now you seem to think they can. So what happened. Can they not make that decision normally but when it's convenient for you they can.

My actual argument on it is I don't care what the age is. If you attend a public school you have to get the same shots everyone else does.

-Contention 2 (part 2)
Lets go through this one by one.
First you say I haven't sited a case of someone getting sick because of not getting a vaccine. I haven't done so because I shouldn't need to. It's very simple. If you don't get the vaccine that protects you from the deadly virus, you are much more like to get the deadly virus. If you get the deadly virus you can die from it. If a lot of kids don't get protection from deadly virus some will die from said deadly virus. It's not hard to understand. If you can't work out this simple process I question how you can figure out how to dress yourself in the morning.

You also mention that I said that vaccines aren't 100% effective. You use this as if it makes a point for you. Nobody ever said they are 100% effective. Just because they don't always work doesn't mean you should get them. Cancer treatment is 100% effective but you should still get it if you have cancer.

Contention 2 (part 3)
You basically again just say that kids not getting vaccines just because their parents are offend can't lead to a kid getting sick ( See argument above I'm not typing it out again). Also you believe in faith healing. I'm not going to point out why this is wrong since that isn't part of the argument. But here is a article anyway
http://www.alternet.org...

Contention 3

You say that there is no evidence that the 1st amendment limits religious practices that harm others. Ok lets take that to it logical extent. So ColeTrain if I come over to your house and kidnap you take you in front of a crowd of hundreds of people and cut your heart out and eat it. And as you die I say, it's ok I did this because it's my religion. Would you think ok this is totally justified then. Would you think that. Because that is the logical extent of what you just said. Yes I know later you say it shouldn't effect other peoples rights but you contradict that by saying I was wrong about that so I point it out. So no I don't think it should be the right of parent to but their kids at risk because their sky book told them to.

So now that I have refuted all of your arguments I'd like you to try again.
ColeTrain

Pro

My opponent is not required to follow the debate structure, but without the structure I provided, there is no structure.

Argument 1:
1. I didn't realize this wasn't an argument.

2. It was phrased as an argument.
3. Other than that sentence, my opponent has provided no original arguments, only refutations to my arguments.
4. This means that my opponent did not provide a case.

Argument 2:
1. On balance, parents do what they feel best for their children.
2. Because adults sometimes do crazy things, does that mean they shouldn't have children? No.
3. The children, of majority in grades 9-12, can usually be established in a religion the same as their parents. This gives the the majority the right to religious exemption.
4. My opponent has not cited any source backing his claim of a supposed "giant outbreak," nor has he proven the correlation - causation model I introduced in the last round.

Contention 1:
1. It doesn't necessarily prove it's right, but that it's accepted in society.

2. It can give hints that it's right.
3. My opponent's example doesn't align with the topic at hand.
4. Segregation and slavery refer to bondage or discrimination of people of different races. Religious exemption is a way to defer and prevent discrimination against religions.

Contention 2:
1. I said that most kids could choose a religion.

2. This debate has no ties to a debate I completed earlier.
3. My views from that debate, however, do align.
4. This debate refers to parents giving religious exemption to their children for vaccinations. By default, this is the parents making the decision. This is the same as parents making the medical decision for their children.
5. I can make my own arguments regardless of the time. Using other debates against me is a form of misconduct as well as irrelevant to the debate at hand.
6. Not everyone gets the same shots at school. Religious exemption exists.

Contention 2 (part 2):
1. You say it's simple, but you have yet to explain how.

2. If the majority of kids at school are vaccinated, that, by definition, protects them from the viruses.
3. By this logic, the only individuals to contract the diseases would be the ones NOT vaccinated, which is for religious exemption.
4. You mentioned a great outbreak earlier, but failed to provide evidence to back your claim. It is thus irrelevant.
5. Personal attacks (ad hominem) are not good arguments. Questioning my ability to dress myself because of my implied stupidity is a fantastic example of ad hominem and misconduct.
6. What I am arguing with this point is that vaccinations aren't perfect anyways, so religious exemption does little to change the effect of the viruses. The virus can be contracted either way, but with religious exemption, religious freedom is protected and preserved.
7. Cancer treatment is NOT 100% effective, contrary to what my opponent stated. [1] (I think it was simply a mistake)

Contention 2 (part 3):
1. I never said it can't lead to a child getting sick.

2. Faith healing has worked, I've experienced it myself. (However, this is not relevant to the debate)

Contention 3:
1. My opponents example is extreme and misinterprets my argument.

2. As my opponents example obviously is detrimental to my family and I, religious exemption is different. It is not an action, but refraining from an action.
3. Moreover, my opponent has yet to prove that religious exemption causes an outbreak of sickness, or even to establish a strong correlation between the two.
4. Furthermore, religious exemption (contrary to my opponent's example) doesn't harm other people's individual human rights.

5. I did "try again"

Dropped Arguments:
My opponent has dropped the following arguments:

1. That vaccinations aren't safe
2. That anti-vaccination arguments are enveloped by flaws.

He/she has also not proved that there is any relationship between religious exemption and the widespread outbreak of sickness in the modern day. He/she has only presented a possibility. Possibilities aren't fact, and can't be proven. Until my opponent can prove that there exists logical and factual grounds to change the status quo, he/she has not fulfilled the BoP that rests on their side.

Furthermore, I presented the model of correlation and causation. My opponent has yet to establish a logical correlation, which also means there has been no causation proven either. If religious exemption isn't correlated to sickness, there is no grounds to remove it. If there is no causation of religious exemption to that correlation, there is still no grounds to remove it. Until my opponent establishes BOTH of these links, we must remain with the status quo.

Sources:
[1] http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Mariodude34500

Con

Mariodude34500 forfeited this round.
ColeTrain

Pro

My opponent has violated good conduct by forfeiting, extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
Mariodude34500

Con

Mariodude34500 forfeited this round.
ColeTrain

Pro

My opponent has forfeited again. All of my points from R3 stand unrefuted.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Mariodude34500 1 year ago
Mariodude34500
Glad you're still around Blazzered.
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
Its been a while since I have seen Mariodude34500 debate. I thought he had left the site.
Well it's good to see you in another debate. Good luck, I will be keeping an eye on this debate.
Posted by Mariodude34500 1 year ago
Mariodude34500
I'll wait till my next argument. I'm going to play skyrim for a few hours then I'll respond
Posted by ColeTrain 1 year ago
ColeTrain
What do you mean? I noticed one instance where I said "My gives" instead of "My opponent gives." To what specifically are you referring?
Posted by Mariodude34500 1 year ago
Mariodude34500
Wow that argument was hard to read. That was painful. Except a response within five or so hours.
Posted by ColeTrain 1 year ago
ColeTrain
Glad to see the quick response! :) I'll respond tomorrow, if that's acceptable. I need some rest :)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
Mariodude34500ColeTrainTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Tough 1 year ago
Tough
Mariodude34500ColeTrainTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Since the first round wasn't used for debating, it could be said that mariodude forfeited 50% (2/4) of his debating rounds and this is sufficient for a poor conduct vote.