The Instigator
Streethawk57
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

Should Vaccines be Made Mandatory?

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 4 votes the winner is...
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,076 times Debate No: 44125
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

Streethawk57

Con

There will always be debate about whether vaccination is good for people or not. Ultimately, it should be the person"s choice if he/she wants to get vaccinated. It"s their body, after all. Shouldn't they decide what gets put into it rather than the government? Although the vaccine has eradicated several diseases throughout history, it remains a controversial medical advancement, as some believe vaccinations benefit our health while others believe vaccinations harm our health.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for the opportunity to debate this great topic.

In opening my opponent wants to debate if vaccines are good or not for people, and he has taken the position that they are bad as it should be a persons choice if they want to get vaccinated. I think it is easily shown that this is false as immunity relies not only on a single person but can also depend on herd immunity.(1)

What is interesting however is that my opponent has stated in his opening argument that vaccines can be beneficial for society when he says "Although the vaccine has eradicated several diseases throughout history". He then goes on to state that vaccinations are controversial, I think the millions that have been saved from using the Polio and vaccine would disagree with him.(2,3)

Maybe my opponent would like to elaborate on why he believes vaccines are negative for your health when the research shows that this is not the case.(4) Maybe, my opponent needs to realise that side effects from vaccines are either less than or similar to all other medicines, so the question is would my opponent like to get rid of all medicine as well.

I hand the debate back to my opponent

(1) http://www.vaccines.gov...
(2) http://www.cdc.gov...
(3) http://www.vaccines.gov...
(4) http://www.nhs.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
Streethawk57

Con

I must admit to my opponent that you had an excellent response to my question, but it did have a couple of fallacies which I will point out in my response.

You stated that herd immunity relies on everyone getting vaccinated. Pertussis is a major contradiction to this statement., as many people get vaccinated against it and still get the disease. "A majority of cases occur in fully vaccinated populations." "In a 2003 outbreak of pertussis, 4 out of every 5 people who had contracted the disease had been vaccinated against it." (Neil Z. Miller 38)

Vaccinations inducing other forms of disease are called provocation diseases. Viruses already in the body may become stimulated by vaccines and trigger an illness within the body. Chickenpox is an example of a provocation disease. It is extremely rare nowadays, but many still vaccinate against it. Once the chickenpox virus is injected into the bloodstream, it stays within the body for an indefinite amount of time. The virus can reawaken years later and wreak major havoc within the body.

I also feel like mandatory vaccines are a one-size fits all kind of thing. It's rather unnecessary. People should be free to choose what they want, and some may not want to get vaccinated, for their own reasons. Also, vaccines aren't very dependable and don't always work. They may sometimes be faulty and useless. It would also be pretty expensive to taxpayers and the government to have vaccines distributed to every single person, which can be cost millions. These all make mandatory vaccines unreasonable.

As a libertarian I don't believe the state should be running education. A common argument is that to enter public schools a student must have certain vaccinations. I would say that in a libertarian society with private schools that each institution could have their own rules and that would be fine, but I don't think the state should make a one size fits all approach and coerce people into vaccinations.

It's your turn to defend yourself.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for the rebuttal.

Firstly my opponent has addressed many issues citing facts with no sources, so it is very difficult to respond to these as I have no idea where they come from and if they are not made up by anti-vaccers like Neil Z. Miller.(1) However, I will try my best with the information I have.

Pertussis is not a contradiction to this statement of herd immunity as Pertussis goes through a 3 to 5 year cycle and has not been eliminated. Also even if a vaccinated person does get the bacterial infection they have far less severe symptoms if they have been vaccinated. Additionally, the fact that Perstussis may seem to be increasing is due to improved diagnosis and the fact that the vaccine of choice is not used as it is too strong for babies.(2) Again, I am not accepting the statistics given by my opponent that "4 out of every 5 people who had contracted the disease had been vaccinated against it" I want a reference to accredited medical journal as it is known that Neil Z. Miller is a quack.(1)

My opponent has pointed out that the chickenpox is "rare nowadays" which means the vaccines have helped decrease the incidence of outbreaks.(3) At this point I would like my opponent to elaborate on what a provocation disease is with some citations from accredited medical journals, as I do not believe this claim and can't address it as a Google search turns up nothing.

Finally my opponent has said that "vaccines aren't very dependable and don't always work", yet the two examples of vaccines that do not work have been shown to work. So what is my opponent basing this blanket statement on when the examples given show this is not the case.

I have run out of characters to address further arguments, so back over to my opponent.

(1) http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...
(2) http://www.cdc.gov...
(3) http://www.cdc.gov...

Debate Round No. 2
Streethawk57

Con

Streethawk57 forfeited this round.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited the last round.

As such my questions remain unanswered and the proof for my opponents claims remain lacking. I would urge the voters to weigh the debate and vote with the facts and rationality.

I hand the debate over to the voters.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by swethabis 3 years ago
swethabis
Yes,I Personally believe that vaccines have to be made mandatory
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
I agree, which is why I'm asking the question. If you feel that MMR is too slanted, select a vaccine that's more agreeable, or a group. I'm interested in having this debate, but it depends on the terms.
Posted by michaelperry13 3 years ago
michaelperry13
@whiteflame
That's a very important question. If it's just some vaccines (MMR) it's a whole different debate.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Can I specify which vaccines? Or am I required to defend mandatory vaccination with all vaccines?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Streethawk57iamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro started off weak in his first round, basically arguing for Pro's position. He didn't use sources, and Pro rightly called him out on it. In response, Con forfeits his last turn, and never defends himself. lol... conduct because of forfeit
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Streethawk57iamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture. As I'm bias by my former job (army medic), I'll leave it as just that.
Vote Placed by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
Streethawk57iamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro backed his claims with evidence and addressed all of Con's points. Pro wins the debate and source point. Pro wins the conduct point since Con forfeited. Good luck to you both in future debates.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Streethawk57iamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros sources were reliable. Con offered none. Pro offered several good arguments that went unchallenged while cons were easily refuted. Con gets conduct for forfeit.