The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
15 Points

Should doctors be aloud to give you 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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/18/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 808 times Debate No: 61899
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)




No I don't think that kids should be poked every time they go to the doctors


I accept.

Resolved: Should doctors be allowed to be allowed to give you vaccines?

I'd like to note, of course, that my adversary misspelled "allowed" when crafting this resolution. "Aloud" is not a verb, and clearly we can draw "allowed" from this resolution and his opening remarks contextually.

With that said, let's define "allowed": "to permit (something) : to regard or treat (something) as acceptable" [1].

Note that to allow is to permit, NOT to mandate. Simply because a doctor is allowed to administer a vaccine to a patient does not allow him or her to mandate it nor to require it. That is up to the patient. By prohibiting doctors from giving you or recommending vaccines, not only are you denying people the right to self-defense, but you are restricting freedom of choice. People should be able to do as they wish provided that they don't hurt others, so therefore patients should be allowed to accept or request from a doctor a vaccine. Not to mention, vaccines provide a substantive benefit to our lives in preempting harmful, vicious diseases.

Con's opening remarks, however, are highly deceptive.

First, allowing doctors to give vaccines does not require that patients, kids included, undergo it.
Second, it isn't even a regular procedure, but even if it were, you're allowed to deny it.
Third, especially in the case of kids, parents are making these decisions, and prohibiting doctors from giving vaccines is undermining parental authority, not to mention casting a blind eye to advancements in medicine.

I'll pass back to Con at this moment, as he hasn't offered much substantive argumentation in Round 1, so I don't feel the need to go into more detail at this point.

[1] -
Debate Round No. 1


No parents shouldn't be allowed to vaccinate their children because they lead to autism


Con states, baselessly, that parents shouldn't be allowed to vaccinate their children because "they lead to autism." He provides zero evidence for this assertion. Note that he has the burden of proof. Moreover, he has dropped every single point I raised in the past round. Extend all of those points.
Debate Round No. 2


Medical exemptions
These are allowed when a child has a medical condition or allergy that may make receiving the vaccine dangerous. All 50 states allow medical exemptions. For school entry purposes, these exemptions require a physician's note supporting the medical necessity of the exemption.
Religious exemptions
These are allowed when immunizations are not in agreement with the parents' religious beliefs. Forty-eight of the 50 states allow these exemptions.
Philosophical exemptions
These are allowed when non-religious, but strongly held beliefs, prevent a parent from allowing their child to be immunized. Twenty states allow these exemptions.
In certain situations an exemption can be challenged by the state. These situations include those that would put the child at a higher risk of disease than is reasonable (medical neglect) or those that would put society at risk (e.g., epidemic situations). Also, in some states, if an unvaccinated child is found to transmit a vaccine-preventable disease to someone else, the parents may be liable in a civil suit.
Because vaccines are considered medically necessary (except in the medical cases mentioned above), they are considered to be "best-care" practices. Therefore, if parents choose not to immunize their children, doctors will often have them sign a statement that they have discussed the risks and benefits of the vaccines and they understand that they are taking a risk in refusing vaccines for their children.
Risking disease
Many people incorrectly assume that a choice not to get a vaccine is a risk-free choice. But it isn't. The choice not to get a vaccine is a choice to risk the disease that the vaccine prevents. Studies have shown that unimmunized children are more likely to get vaccine-preventable diseases if there is an outbreak than those who have been immunized. Unimmunized children will be barred from school during an outbreak to protect them from the disease.
Here are some things to consider before making a decision not to immunize a child:
Vaccines are considered the best way to protect your child against diseases that could cause liver damage, liver cancer, suffocation, meningitis, pneumonia, paralysis, lockjaw, seizures, brain damage, deafness, blindness, mental retardation, learning disabilities, birth defects, encephalitis or death.
Vaccines are studied extensively for their safety before being recommended for children and continue to be monitored after recommendation (see How Are Vaccines Made?). Because vaccines are given to healthy children, they are held to the highest standards of safety.
Vaccines are considered by some to be a civic duty because they create "herd immunity." This means that when most of the people in a community are immunized, there is less opportunity for a disease to enter the community and make people sick. Because there are members of our society that are too young, too weak, or otherwise unable to receive vaccines for medical reasons, they rely on "herd immunity" to keep them well.
Harm to others
There are four ways that others in the community may be harmed by a parent's decision not to immunize their child:
If the unimmunized child gets a preventable disease, he or she may pass that disease to other unimmunized people in the community.
Even when people are immunized, there is always a small percentage of them for whom the vaccine did not work or their immunity has waned; so these people will also be at increased risk if an unimmunized child gets a preventable disease.
If a person cannot receive vaccines for medical reasons, they rely on those around them for protection from the diseases.
Families that have received vaccines and contract a vaccine-preventable disease from an unimmunized person will need to pay the medical costs incurred by the disease. Treatment for the diseases cost much more than the vaccines, so the unimmunized child's family or society will bear these costs.
Those who choose not to immunize their child may be considered to be "free riders" by those who have immunized their children. For example, a mother whose son recently experienced a severe bout with pertussis was angry that other children in the classroom were not immunized. In discussing vaccine safety as the reason that many parents give for not wanting to immunize, she wondered why their children should be protected by herd immunity when her child and all of the other immunized children bore the small risk of side effects. In addition, she wondered why she wasn't made aware that so many of the children in the school weren't immunized due to personal beliefs. She concluded by saying, "Had I known . . .I would never have enrolled him in that school."
Requirements versus recommendations
Are requirements and recommendations the same thing?
No. Recommendations made by the CDC are based on health and safety considerations. Requirements, on the other hand, are laws made by each state government determining which vaccines a child must have before entering school. To use an example, consider smoking. Experts tell us that smoking is bad for our health, but it is still our choice whether we smoke or not; that is like a recommendation. In contrast, no-smoking laws prohibit people from smoking in certain places and vary from state to state; this is similar to a requirement.
It is important to remember that even if a vaccine is not required, it may be the best health choice. Talk to your doctor about vaccines that are available and whether they are important for you or a loved one to receive.
Vaccine recommendations and package inserts
I understand that the information included with a vaccine sometimes differs from more commonly available information. Can you explain why?
While a package insert provides information about the vaccine, it is important to realize that it is being provided by the company and, therefore, has legal requirements that must be followed in its preparation. During the development of a vaccine, safety studies are completed by comparing a group of people who received the vaccine to a group of people who did not, called the placebo group. If a side effect occurs more times in the vaccine group, it may be a result of the vaccine. However, the company, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), must report any side effects that occurred in the vaccine group, even if the number of occurrences was similar to those in the placebo group. All of these side effects are then listed in the package insert.
Groups that make recommendations about vaccines to healthcare professionals, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), don't use the same criteria as the FDA to determine whether a side effect is caused by vaccines. When these groups make recommendations, they review the data in the context of whether a particular side effect occurs significantly more often in the vaccine group than the placebo group. If it does, these side effects are listed in educational materials to physicians. For this reason, the number of side effects listed in the package insert is much greater than that listed by the CDC and AAP.


At this point, the debate is over.

Everything CON posted in the last round was plagiarized from this link:

One need only to copy and paste one of these argument into Google, and you come up with this source, which lays out everything. Con has not even taken the time to remove the headings, or the links allowing a visiter of this site to go "back to the top" of the page.

Con has not provided a single argument of his own or responded to my arguments. He cannot possibly win this debate.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Mike01506 2 years ago
Plagiarism, the contender should be disqualified for it.
The points she provided of her own were wrong anyway as well as most of the plagiarised points being irrelevant, vaccinations don't lead to autism. As a general statement, that's not correct.
What you really mean is the >1% or whatever it is then go to develop autism after having the vaccination.
Posted by MonetaryOffset 2 years ago
Posted by imabench 2 years ago
hd1997, you have brought shame to everyone who proudly hoists a character of Frozen as their profile picture!
Posted by Bchatman 3 years ago
I would debate with you but I believe that doctors don't have a damn right vaccinating kids.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con plagiarized. S&G - Pro. Con's formatting and presentation was atrocious. Every round had poor grammatical usage which is evidenced as early as R1 with the missing comma after "no" and failure to end the sentence with a period. Arguments - Pro. Con failed to rebut 90% of Pro's arguments, and then plagiarized the rest. Sources - Pro. He was the only one to use sources accordingly. Clear 7 point win for Pro.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: plagiarism
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't plagiarize, sinc ehe referenced it. But he invalidates all the arguments by copy pasting verbatim and not using quotation marks, which gibve it the appearence of original argumentation, and hence is lazy and dishonest.
Vote Placed by cybertron1998 2 years ago
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: Con plagiarized completely in his 3rd argument