The Instigator
herman402
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
ElPinguinoPapista
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should people get vaccinated?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
herman402
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/14/2018 Category: Health
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 309 times Debate No: 115554
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

herman402

Pro

Vaccinations should be mandatory is because:
1. Vaccinations makes people immune, by inserting weak versions of the "virus" into the body and the body's immune system fights back, to train the immune system to fight the virus.

2. Vaccinations use the most dangerous viruses to vaccinate, because if it was all viruses, some viruses may be pointless to vaccinate.

3. Long-Term effects from vaccinations may be benefitting the person who got vaccinated, despite being not 100% working, vaccinations reduce the chance of a person getting a virus that the vaccination is for.

4. Herd immunity is also known as community immunity is good for a community that got vaccinated is because, herd immunity can cause a community to have less outbreaks. But not always the case, that herd immunities exist, such as in England, when vaccination levels dropped, measles cases increased, because there is not enough percent to have herd immunity.

I like to conclude that vaccines are good for everyone by saying that vaccines are medicine that have good long-term effects, thank you for the people who see this.
ElPinguinoPapista

Con

While I agree that vaccines are good, indeed, a technological marvel and revolution, I do not understand why they must be mandatory. While my opponent established their good qualities, he never proved why those qualities warrant a government (I assume) mandating their use universally. There are many good and beneficial things that exist but are not mandatory in many governments, such as proper diet. I simply ask the affirmative to provide his warrant for mandating vaccines, proof he has not provided.
Debate Round No. 1
herman402

Pro

Prove me wrong, the Anti-Vaccinator who wants to debate me.

Vaccinations improved living conditions, by prevening viruses from spreading to vaccinated people.

Vaccinations can hurt, but overtime it'll heal.

Vaccinations are mandatory.

What? Go ahead and prove me wrong with all my pro vaccination reasons.
ElPinguinoPapista

Con

The burden of proof must be established in this debate. My opponent has the burden of proof to show that vaccines ought to be mandatory. He has yet to prove that the benefits of vaccines require that they be government mandated.
Debate Round No. 2
herman402

Pro

Look, theres some vaccinations that are mandatory, such as tubercolosis, tetanis, polio, pertussis and a Type B Haemophilus in the first three months of life of a child, measles, mumps and rubella in the first eighteen months, and before school, hepatitis B are mandatory vaccines.
ElPinguinoPapista

Con

While there are places in the world that mandate the use of vaccines, that does not prove that they ought to be doing that. Since my opponent has refused to support and prove his claim that the resolution is true, a negative vote is warranted.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RMTheSupreme 1 month ago
RMTheSupreme
herman402ElPinguinoPapista
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Here is where Con went wrong with this line of attack on Pro. He successfully would have trolled Pro if Pro's resolution had been that vaccines must be mandatory but the resolution simply is about if people should get vaccinated, which includes the case where it's of their own volition. Sure, Pro says they should be mandatory in Round 1 and provides reasoning for it, it's actually Con who has to prove that the default for something proven to help people is that it should remain voluntary as opposed to mandatory. It's easy to say Pro has to prove it should be mandatory but Con even concedes that " vaccines are good, indeed, a technological marvel and revolution" so then Con has to explain why people who would harm themselves and their children by not getting vaccinated are entitled to do so. The resolution didn't have the word mandatory in it and Pro did prove they should with Con conceding it in Round 1 itself.