The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Should Vaccines be used?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Ammwise_Gabgee has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,028 times Debate No: 98062
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Many people believe that vaccines cause autism but let me tell you, it just doesn't make sense. Many believe that vaccinations cause autism due to young ones developing autism only months after receiving a vaccination but what they do not know is why these children actually get autism. When a child is still young they have weakened immune systems and must receive many shots to catch up to the illnesses of our world. When children receive their shots they are also at the age in which signs of autism start to surface. In conclusion, I would like to say that these vaccines don't hurt you, they help you fight off illness before it reaches you.


Seeing that no definitions were given, I'll give mine.

1) Should: Used to indicate obligation or duty.
2) Vaccines: a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease.
3) Used: To have employed for a certain purpose.

Now that definitions have been given, I'll give my opening argument. I'll rebut in R2. My format for this debate, for the purpose of the readers, will be:

R1: Opening statement
R2: Rebuttal
R3: Response to rebuttal, closing arguments

That in mind, let's begin with my opening.

1) Vaccines hold the risk of dangerous, sometimes life-threatening, side effects.

- According to CDC, a governmental institution, "all vaccines carry a risk of a life-threatening allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) (1)."
If the Government is to give people an obligation to take vaccines, that means we are basicaly sentencing to death approxomately 300 people per year, at least, from anaphylaxis. This does not include any other possible side effects. I'll list a couple more here.

- "The rotavirus vaccination can cause intussusception, a type of bowel blockage that may require hospitalization, in about one per 20,000 babies in the United States (1)."

- "The CDC reports that pneumonia can be caused by the chickenpox vaccine, and a "small possibility" exists that the flu vaccine could be associated with Guillain-Barré Syndrome, a disorder in which the person’s immune system attacks parts of the peripheral nervous system (1)."

- "Vaccines may be linked to learning disabilities, asthma, autism, diabetes, chronic inflammation, and other disabilities (2)."

There are plenty more, but this will do for now.

2) Vaccines contain toxic ingredients.

- Thimerosal, a mercury compound, is reported to be an ingredient in the flu vaccine, one which was authorized to be dispensed. This ingredient is known to cause autism (3).

- Many vaccines contain formaldahyde, a carcinogen, and exposure can cause side effects such as cardiac impairment, central nervous system depression, "changes in higher cognitive functions," coma, convulsions, and death (4).

- Some polio, TD, and DTaP vaccines contain 2-phenoxyethanol, which is a skin and eye irritant that can cause headache, shock, convulsions, kidney damage, cardiac and kidney failure, and death (4).

Just three ingredients that are known to be dangerous to human health that are found in vaccines.

3) The right to refuse treatment

We are provided the ability to make our own choices by our government. For it to give us the obligation, the duty to be vaccinated would violate that right. We are allowed the right to refuse medical treatment (5), but if the government is to mandate vaccination, this would violate that freedom entirely. No risk is posed by a healthy human without booster shots, or the polio vaccine, and thus, he or she ought to be able to decide whether or not he or she wants to take a vaccine.

In conclusion, vaccines have dangerous side effects, dangerous and toxic ingredients, and forcing people to take them is forcing them to accept treatement they may not agree with, as they are not willing to take the risk of disease, perhaps death. Thus, it should be up to the individual to decide whether or not he or she is willing to take the potential risks involved in a vaccination, rather than it be imposed upon them.

For this reason, vote Con.

(1) CDC, "Possible Side-Effects from Vaccines,", Feb. 4, 2014
(2) National Vaccine Information Center, "Autism," (accessed June 11, 2014)
(3) Robert W. Sears, "New Study Shows Possible Link between Environmental Mercury and Autism – What about Vaccine Mercury?," (accessed June 11, 2014)
(4) VaxTruth, "Vaccine Ingredients – A Comprehensive Guide,", Aug. 15, 2011
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my contender for a very good point, 1 in 20,000 children have a chance of a bowel blockage, 1 in 20,000 is not very common. Yes, many cases can be found of supposed vaccine-induced illnesses or syndromes but I believe that this is untrue. Although my opponent states that there are many side-effects to using vaccinations he failed to include the previous statement on his own source which states that, and I quote, "Any vaccine can cause side effects. For the most part, these are minor (for example, a sore arm or low-grade fever) and go away within a few days."(1) You see that a SITED source says that many vaccinations that do have side-effects are often non-severe and will not cause much actual damage. I would also like to bring to attention that my opponent mentioned a chemical called Thimerosal. Thimerosal in all vaccinations contain only 1 milligram of mercury. do you believe that 1 milligram of mercury will make much of an effect on you?(2) In conclusion, I would like to encourage you to research this on your own to make an informed decision.

Works Cited:
(1) CDC, "Possible Side-Effects from Vaccines,", Feb. 4, 2014


I'll rebutt in this round, per my format.

1) Vaccines don't cause autism (Round 1, Pro).

Pro's entire first round is without sources whatsoever. Instead, it is an appeal for readers to examine whether or not vaccines are the cause of autism. Although this is merely a small portion of my argument against vaccines, I will provide evidence to show correlation between autism and vaccination.

a) There is proportionaly larger amount of autism prevalence when compared to before vaccines were mandated.

In 1966, a study was done to find the prevalence of autism in children 8-10, the time when autism is fully fledged and diagnosed. According to the study, 4.5 out of 10,000 children were diagnosed with autism, meaning about 1 out of 2,222 children had autistic symptoms (1). Comparing this to today, 1 out of 45 children are diagnosed with autism (2). This massive jump must have a reason behind it, correct, Pro? From 1 out of 2,222 to 1 out of 45 is an exponential growth, one that I ask Pro to explain, as he does have the BoP in this debate.

b) Theory: Mandation of vaccinatiation may have caused this exponential jump in autism prevelance over the course of 50 years.

In 2008, states across America implimented a plan, mandating the use of vaccines on all pupils (students) enrolled in primary or secondary schools. An example of this plan is found here (3). In that same year, CDC found that "About 1 in 6 children in the United States had a developmental disability in 2006-2008, ranging from mild disabilities such as speech and language impairments to serious developmental disabilities, such as intellectual disabilities, cerebral palsy, and autism (3)." Pro cannot simply brush this off as a coincidence, instead, I ask him to give me a reason for this spike of disabilaties on the same year when so many states mandated vaccinations.

2) "Yes, many cases can be found of supposed vaccine-induced illnesses or syndromes but I believe that this is untrue." (Round 2, Pro)

I don't care whether or not you believe it. If the evidence supports it, it must be found to be accurate.

3) Con cited my source, stating that I "failed to include the previous statement" in my source.

First off, I didn't fail to do anything. I have no burden of proof in this debate, only Pro does. Second of all, this is not a disputed fact. Most people don't get serious side effects from vaccines. I, myself, only got lightheaded and fainted when I got my vaccines, so I decided not to continue vaccination. I realized that my body had an adverse reaction, so I stopped. This shows my point exaclty. It ought to be up to the individual whether or not he or she wants to take the risks (which Pro stipulates to exist) implied in vaccination. Forcing him or her to by mandate both violates the individual's right to refuse treatment and subjects them to a certain amount of risk that they may not be willing to take.

3) Pro responded to only one of my listed toxic ingridents found in vaccines: Thimerosal.

To begin, Pro has not responded to the other two toxic ingredients I mentioned. Secondly, Pro's source states, " Over the past several years, because of an increasing awareness of the theoretical potential for neurotoxicity of even low levels of organomercurials and because of the increased number of thimerosal containing vaccines that had been added to the infant immunization schedule, concerns about the use of thimerosal in vaccines and other products have been raised (4)." In fact, this article Pro attempted to use shows how dangerous Thimerosal that is found in vaccines becomes once introduced to the human body.

I would also like to mention that Pro has dropped my liberty argument, meaning it still stands, in contradiction to Pro's case.

I await Pro's response.

Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by David_Debates 1 year ago
Thank you, pickettm, for your comments. If you are able to complete 3 debates, I hope you vote on this one.
Posted by pickettm 1 year ago
Both of you bring up some really good points. And seeing as how Ammwise_Gabgee in a good friend of mine. But David might win.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.