The HPV vaccine should be mandatory.
Debate Rounds (4)
HPV - Human papillomavirus, the most common sexually transmitted virus in the United States. Almost every sexually active person will acquire HPV at some point in their lives.
Vaccine - I think this is relatively obvious, but to be specific, the two main vaccines are from Gardasil and Cervarix, and are meant to prevent this disease from infecting new patients. These vaccines would be made available at no cost to individuals.
Mandatory: required or commanded by authority; obligatory. In other words, should someone be unwilling to comply, they would have to pay a fee. The proceeds of those fees will be used to supplement costs of purchasing vaccines.
I am taking the position that requiring everyone in the U.S. to get vaccinations against HPV before the age of 18 is not only good health policy, but is morally correct. I do not mean to provide arguments in this first post, and whoever agrees to accept this must use their first post just to agree, and perhaps (as I have) give a sentence laying out their general position.
Round 1: Acceptance and sentence summary
Round 2: Arguments for/against
Round 3: Refutation of arguments
Round 4: Closing arguments
This is the first debate I have created on this website, and as such, I am new to here. Be that as it may, I do have an extensive background in debate, and therefore I would like whomever accepts the Con side of this argument to be well-versed in debate themselves. Aside from that, I would appreciate debating someone who has more than a cursory knowledge of vaccines and health policy. I'm not asking that you be an expert, but I'm hopeful that we can both start from a position of some knowledge.
I look forward to this debate!
So, as I said, I have two main blocks of argumentation. I will provide those, and, just as a reminder, this round of debate is for argumentation, not rebuttal, so Con should not use this round to debate the merits of my arguments, but rather to make his own points apparent. Of course, as I will do, some of your argumentation can be preemptive or responsive, but it all has to be your argument, not direct response.
1. It's good for health policy
I will start by posting much of the information about the disease in order to ensure that we are all on the same page when it comes to understanding what makes HPV so important.
HPV, as I stated in the first post, is the most common sexually transmitted infection. There are more than 40 types of HPV, and they infect the genitals of both males and females, as well as the mouth and throat. Nearly all sexually active men and women have this virus, and it is easily transmitted. It can only be transmitted through sexual contact of one sort or another, though it can also be passed on to a growing child in a mother's womb. Symptoms include genital warts, recurrent respiratory papillomatosis (warts in the throat) and, most importantly, certain cancers, though I will get to that shortly. These symptoms don't always occur, and viral infection may be cleared by the patient's immune system alone. As such, we should not consider it similar to herpesviruses or HIV, which also have separate symptoms. 
There are a number of cancers linked to this disease. This is a very strong relationship - over 90% appear to require this as a necessary factor for their development.  This is no small issue, either. With 12,340 new cases in 2013 and over 4,000 deaths, cervical cancer is a significant health concern.  This is despite Pap smears being an adequate detection mechanism for this cancer type. Other less common cancers are caused by HPV as well, though some are linked to other factors.
2,100 vulvar cancers,
500 vaginal cancers,
600 penile cancers,
2,800 anal cancers in women,
1,500 anal cancers in men,
1,700 oropharyngeal cancers in women,
6,700 oropharyngeal cancers in men.
What's more, about 21,000 of these cancers are potentially preventable by HPV vaccines.  So preventing these infections has obvious medical benefits, and as patients often do not realize they are infected, these vaccinations are essential to preventing the spread of HPV, and therefore of these cancers as well.
2. It's morally correct
This is mainly going to be my attempt to preempt my opponent's response, though I feel very strongly that this is a morally correct mode of action, for multiple reasons.
First, it's not restricted to one individual. My opponent will likely bring forward the fact that this takes away individual liberties. However, as disease is not individual in any sense of the term, individual liberties should not be paramount in assessing the worth of such a vaccination program. When your choice affects other people, your access to that choice becomes less simplistic. The possibility that this individual will engage in behaviors that endanger other people takes the choice out of their hands.
Second, we already require vaccinations for children entering public schools through state laws. This isn't just a few outliers, either. All 50 states require these vaccinations, and while almost all of them have medical and religious exemptions, this shows that the kind of law I'm professing here is nothing new. 
Third, an argument that morality is lost relies on some level of harm occurring to those individuals. A single injection of a vaccine, I would argue, is not facing a major loss of decision-making. And since the health harms have all been variously debunked - the supposed ties between vaccines and autism , and the view that vaccines have dangerous levels of toxins in them  - the only harm that can be pointed to is one of lack of autonomy. I would argue that they do have a choice between paying a fee and taking the vaccine, so the choice still exists, just not with the one that endangers everyone around them. I would also argue that the harm is not sufficient to counter the health benefits explained above.
Alright, that's it for me. I eagerly await my opponent's own arguments.
4. James G. Hodge, Jr. and Lawrence O. Gostin, "School Vaccination Requirements: Historical, Social, and Legal Perspectives," Kentucky Law Jounal, Spring 2002
1. The majority of people who contract HPV do so after their 20th birthday. At 20 years old you are considered an adult in most locations and are more then capable of weighing the pros and cons of getting a vaccination.
2. HPV once contracted is unlikely to cause any serious harm. Most people who contract HPV never develop any symptoms and 90% of infections go away by themselves within 2 years. With the exception of cervical cancer the cancers caused by HPV ( several genital cancers and oropharyngeal cancer) are rare. It's just not worth it to vaccinate kids against something that is so unlikely to cause any serious harm.
3. The most likely serious disease as a result oh HPV is cervical cancer. The median age of death for someone contracting Cervical cancer is 57. It's likely that your life will extend significantly past that with regular health screenings and proper diet also. The life expectancy in the united states is 77. So with proper health screenings and diet we can shrink that gap significantly. In all likelihood we are talking about a gap of just 5 to 10 years for extremely motivated and vigilant people. 25% of people die before reaching age 50. So of the people getting cervical cancer atleast 25% would have died before the cancer killed them anyway. We are talking about a very small percentage of people here who will not have their lifespan decreased significantly. If their lifespan is decreased significantly it's because they made a conscious decision as adults to avoid vaccination, regular screenings and proper diet. It seems like a big step to take to force people to extend their lifespan when they have decided ( through apathy or concious decision) that they could care less if they die a premature death.
4. The vaccines have a high success rate. Since they are close to 100% effective it makes very little sense to vaccinate individuals who could care less if they get HPV.
Before I launch into some rebuttal, I would first like to point out one thing. None of my opponent's arguments generate any offense for him in this debate. Each of them is a mitigating point, either reducing the health impacts of vaccination, or arguing (however briefly) that people are capable of making these decisions for themselves. While he is free to provide some offense in his next post, this means that even if someone judging this were to find merit in his points, my arguments would still have some impact, while the harms of my position don't appear to be too troubling.
With that, I will get into the rebuttal.
Con argues that contracting HPV mainly happens after the 20th birthday.
1. The paper citation isn't quite as clear. For one, it's only a study of females, not males. Therefore, it's only a study of roughly half of the population. As their rates of acquisition are rapid and their prevalence is high, these are rather important.  Moreover, other studies such as this have shown that, while a spike in incidence among populations in their late 20's and early 30's may be higher than other age groups, the incidence of oncogenic (or cancer causing) HPV is actually pretty much the same across all age groups, at least for men.  The paper concludes that some 45% of women aged 20-24 have the infection, prevalence isn't all that small in ages 14-19, with almost 25% of that population infected. I wouldn't discount such a large portion of the population, especially since they still make up a very sizable portion of the population and are sexually active in many cases. And since it doesn't specifically split up oncogenic and non-oncogenic, we can't assess the dangers involved using this study.
2. It's just not a very convincing argument. Yes, people tend to get HPV more often in their early 20's, but the reason is because some people acquired it earlier and infected others during that time. Vaccination and anti-viral therapy are not one in the same, and someone who is already infected won't see any benefit from vaccination. That means that person can still spread the virus. Getting to them before the ages where they're most likely to be infected is essential, otherwise you lose out completely on the benefits.
3. 18 is also an adult age in this country, and no less so than 20 under the law. A person's capability to weigh the pros and cons for themselves doesn't mean that they have any right to do so for other people. That person's partner doesn't get that choice. If the sexually active person in question decides not to get screened, then there is no way for their partner(s) to know that they're infected. And as such, they're constantly under danger of exposure to the virus. It was not their choice to do so. They didn't have autonomy in deciding whether or not to get infected. Their children certainly don't get that choice either.
Con argues that HPV is unlikely to cause harm
On this, we at least partially agree. HPV isn't going to be dangerous to everyone, or even a majority, of the people who get it. However, looking back at round 2, I've given specific numbers, from the CDC as well, as to the types of cancers caused by HPV and the number of people estimated to be affected. Even if we remove cervical cancers, that's still over 15,000 people who are infected with HPV getting cancer in this nation alone. I don't think you can brush off those numbers. Yes, most infections are cleared by the patients within 2 years, and yet there's a staggering number of people who have them. 50%, to be precise. At any one time, approximately 20 million Americans have such an infection.  Whether that's reinfection or infection of new patients, I don't know, but that is a staggeringly large number of people who are infected, the vast majority without their knowledge or permission. And they all have the cancer risk. Small as it may be, that's not something I would call a minimal threat.
Con says cervical cancer is not a very big deal
While I don't doubt the veracity of your sources (unfortunately, neither of them work for some reason, but since it's SEER and the CDC, I'll trust that it's accurate), I think you're underestimating the importance of this particular disease. Yes, it's highly preventable, if someone goes through the proper screening tests and spots it early. While death is less likely for this cancer type as a result of early treatment, neither the treatment nor the death rate are of negligible importance. The best case scenario for these women is that surgical intervention works, and the cancer is successfully removed with minimal damage. Many, however, have to undergo chemotherapies that are nearly certain to cause terrible, long lasting side effects. Those who are even less lucky will have to undergo radiation therapies, which are guaranteed to cause other harms.  And that's the physical burden. The monetary costs are shockingly high, impossible for most people to cover, especially while they're out of work to get treatment. The annual direct medical costs alone amount to more than $6 billion in this country.
But let's not forget that I've already given the data in the second round about death tolls from this cancer type. 4,000 is not insignificant. It doesn't matter whether they would die of other causes later, it matters whether this is the cause. It doesn't suddenly become reasonable if we cut someone's life short by a few years instead of a few decades.
As for the mentality that it was essentially their fault for not going through the proper precautions, I've got multiple responses. One, all of those precautions require money and time. The money element is especially demanding since these vaccinations are expensive, diet changes normally require eating more produce (which is also more expensive), and the screenings also cost. By leaving it up to them, you leave out the poor. Two, focusing on diet, there are people who simply don't have a choice as to what they eat based on other conditions. They're relegated to not using this option. Three, focusing on both screening and diet, these are not catch-alls. These women are still at risk even with good dieting an screening, and will still have to deal with the very real possibility of cervical cancer. These just reduce the risk and increase the efficacy of treatment. Four, it's up to them whether or not they choose to protect themselves from danger, but not whether they get to decide the fates of others they have sex with. The choice of transmission is not theirs to make.
Con says vaccines are effective enough to warrant some not getting them.
I really don't get this point. The vaccines are close to 100% effective, so we shouldn't use the highly effective vaccines on individuals who could care less? They can still transmit it, can't they? They can still affect the rights of others, can't they? Its high efficacy should be a reason to use it. No one should have access to rights that allow them to transmit a disease with impunity to people who are either too young to get the vaccine for free (i.e. under 18 in this case), too young to get it at all or too immunocompromised to get the vaccine. These people shouldn't be put at risk just for individual liberties to be upheld for someone who doesn't want a shot.
And with that, I await my opponent's rebuttal.
1. It's good for health policy.
You haven't defined what you mean by " good health policy ". I can only presume by you showing evidence HPV is linked to several types of cancer(most cases of which that won't kill you until you are close to 60) , that you are arguing that public policy which increases the average lifespan is good health policy. So why not castrate every male once they reach an age where they are likely to reproduce? You could increase the average male lifespan by 20 years prevent the spread of HPV and put a stop to unwanted pregnancy. this would cause a huge jump in the average life expectancy more so then any vaccination.
You haven't made clear what your definition of good health policy is. I can only assume by what you said that you are referring to life expectancy. If you are then I have shown a better alternative strategy to increase life expectancy not only over all but for over 50% of the population.
If you more narrowly define good health policy as something that prevents HPV then I have shown you a strategy that would require a procedure that would only have to be performed on 50% of the population and also eliminate HPV.
The arguments you have used to say HPV vaccination is moral can also be used to show castration is moral
1. Disease is not individual in any sense of the word, so individual liberties should not be paramount in assessing the worth of this castration program.
2. A castration program ( aka sterilization program ) is nothing new there is precedent for this and it also has a longer track record then any vaccination program. A sterilization program has been used in 33 states and many ancient cultures.
I do contest the other points you made that vaccinations are moral. I will not use them here, but they do apply to castration as well.
2-it's morally correct.
The health concerns of various vaccinations have been debunked. However, the health concerns of an HPV vaccine have not been debunked. Not only have they not been debunked they aren't even completely known. The long term affects of these vaccines are a complete mystery. Gardasil didn't get approval from the FDA until 2006  cervarix wasn't approved by the FDA until 2009 . What your doing is asking the bulk of the population to throw caution to the wind and take a chance on a newly approved vaccine, when we don't know what the long term health risks associated with them will be.
You also argued that a single injection of vaccine isn't facing a major loss of decision making. What we are talking about here is not a single shot but 3 shots within a 6 month period. this is in fact atleast 4 times less autonomy then you first calculated.
You say that a vaccination isn't unprecedented either. This is no normal vaccination though. Most if not all of the current vaccinations are to prevent diseases that are spread through casual contact such as chicken pox. HPV isn't spread through casual contact it is spread from sexual contact.
You also argued that this wouldn't be a major loss of decision making power either because a refusal to vaccinate could still be done it would just be fined. This is just another way of saying " if your poor you get vaccinated if you have financial means then you get the choice".
People belonging to a racial minority would be the most likely to not be able to afford the fine associated with these vaccines . Creating a public policy that forces minorities to be vaccinated against std's but letting whites choose if they want to be vaccinated or not, would be racist and therefore unfair.It would also insinuate that minorities and poor people need to be vaccinated to protect the wealthy from disease. I would argue that racist public health policies are immoral.
Sources from round 2 or that support round 2's arguments
Question 1: Would mandated HPV vaccinations improve health care outcomes for individuals?
Question 2: Are any of the alternatives presented by Con more reasonable or effective for producing improved outcomes?
Question 3: Is it morally correct for these vaccines to be mandated?
So let's start by answering that first question. I think I've definitively provided the data to show that this would dramatically reduce the prevalence of HPV. My opponent agrees that these vaccinations are highly effective, so we have no doubt that more people receiving them would reduce the incidence of HPV. The only doubts he throws into this are a) lives will still be lived into 50's and 60's, b) most of the people who get these infections won't get cancer, and c) that some of the people who get them will take appropriate measures and survive. Even if one were to accept all of that, you're still preferring my argument.
a) Ending someone's life early, even if it's at 50 or 60, is a negative outcome. No one should accept the idea that since their lives were, presumably, going to be cut short by something else anyway, they shouldn't have a chance to live them.
b) There are still over 21,000 people a year who are getting cancer here in the U.S. from HPV. Those are still 21,000 people who would rather not have to go through surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy to treat it, causing them long term harms if they're lucky, and being completely ineffective if they're not. Over 4,000 people a year die from this. That's not a small outcome.
c) I've already stated why many people don't take these measures, and how even if they do, they're still threatened by these same cancers, just at a slightly lower likelihood.
In his latest post, he asks me what good health policy is, in my estimation. I figured this doesn't need defining, though I disagree with the definition he's brought. "Life span is how long we live. Health span is how long we live with the best possible health." In other words, it's not just about length of life. It's about quality as well. So I find it somewhat absurd that Con would argue that improving the lifespan of males through castration is an improvement to health policy when it forces permanent physical harm on patients and completely removes their capacity to reproduce, both of which dramatically affect a person's quality of life, both mentally and physically.
Prevention of HPV ensures that no one has to suffer the painful warts that can sometimes require surgical intervention. It ensures that no one has to suffer the emotional, physical and financial stresses of these cancer diagnoses. Con can minimize these all he wants, but if all he can do is point to alternatives that would dramatically harm the quality of life of every male in this country, then it's not sufficient. But I'll get into that more on the next question.
Onto question 2. I'll list the alternatives he provides:
a) Patients undergoing screens regularly and changing diets
b) Male patients getting castrated
I've already spent time responding to both of these, but I'll quickly summarize, and also address the moral arguments on the latter. In the first case, he is essentially arguing these alternatives without providing a means to fund them. It's interesting that he targets the moral failings of my arguments by stating that I force vaccines on these people, and yet spends much of this arguments stating that the best preventative measures available require significant amounts of money to make possible. The worst I do is relegate the poor to having to receive these vaccinations. Con relegates 50% of the population to getting HPV, and tens of thousands to getting the associated cancers.
To finish up on castration, he argues that the same moral benefits of HPV vaccination apply to castration. He's right that the castration program would reduce the ability to spread this disease as well, though it doesn't meet any moral standards on quality of life. A shot in the arm is not equivalent to castration in terms of harms. As for his "it's nothing new" argument, there is a very long list of harms associated with eugenics that his link actually covers in part. Introducing a slew of other problems while erasing some doesn't make it reasonable. We recognize a specific moral harm that comes from their application, and view past applications of castration as inherently harmful. We do not recognize the same of FDA-approved vaccines.
Lastly, let's get to the third question of morality.
Con provides absolutely no argument as to the harms of either Gardasil or Cervarix. The most he can do is provide two links from the FDA stating when they were approved. He might have read more of the links he posted, because they provide specific monitoring systems as well:
"FDA and CDC closely monitor the safety of all vaccines through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS receives unconfirmed reports of possible side effects following the use of Gardasil and all vaccines licensed in the U.S. VAERS reports are regularly reviewed for safety concerns or trends of adverse events (possible side effects)."
This is a pretty extensive monitoring program, and it's been ongoing for 7 and 4 years, respectively, since these drugs came to market. There are even two other large scale programs the CDC collaborates with for monitoring market drugs.  And that's just after - Con completely ignores the extensive clinical trials each company went through to get these drugs to market, which required almost a decade of studies both cases, and the tens of thousands of people tested with both of them over that time. Their symptoms were carefully monitored over the course of these studies.  Don't buy the idea that I'm assuming health risks on any terms. The worst case is that one of these vaccines ends up having adverse effects, in which case, the government would simply purchase and utilize the other one.
He is right that this is three separate shots, but whether it's three or one, it's not a major loss to autonomy. Nor, and I'd like everyone reading to note this, has he detailed in any way why this harm should matter. He hasn't stated why a loss to individual autonomy is harmful in the slightest. Con has argued this matter-of-factly, but I would state that any harm he could possibly provide pales in comparison to the harms to others that I've detailed in my arguments.
The remainder of his arguments are not central to this debate. It doesn't matter how HPV is contracted. The standard as a vaccination is still there. I already responded to his argumentation about the poor partially, but remember, he's no saint here. In his world, the current one, the poor are the most vulnerable to HPV. I would provide vaccinations free of charge. Without Con providing some measure of how, specifically, that loss of autonomy is harmful, anyone should prefer a world in which they are forced to have better health outcomes to one in which they are forced to endure worse ones.
It's plain to see that my argument is superior in answering each of these questions definitively. Health-wise, I've provided the best option that meets the criteria of both extension and quality of life. Morality-wise, mine is the only argument that's detailed distinct and unique harms incurred by one side and not the other. Con's alternatives either leave the problem unsolved or ignore serious breaches of human rights. Vote Pro.
Pro has to prove 2 things to win this argument. He needs to prove forced inoculation is moral. He also has to prove that it is good health policy. This is what pro has said himself that he has to prove to show vaccines should be mandatory.
Let's first look to see if he has proven it to be moral.
"A person's ability to weigh the pros and cons for themselves doesn't mean they have the right to do so for someone else"
1. This seems absurd that you would argue someone doesn't have the right to weigh the pros and cons for someone else.Yet you have weighed the pros and cons for not only someone else, but everyone else and have decided for them that they should be forced to get vaccinated.
2. Anyone old enough to be engaging in sexual intercourse is also old enough to have access to the knowledge that nearly everyone contracts HPV. So the person engaging in that sort of behavior if they have chosen not to get vaccinated before they do so, accepts the risk. In full knowledge of the risks.
By pro's own admittance weighing the pros and cons of getting vaccinated for another person is immoral. Oddly his whole argument is attempting to justify doing the one thing he has already admitted was immoral.
" The poor are most vulnerable to HPV "
I have showed you how under pro's program the poor would be forced to take the vaccine while the rich and maybe the middle class would have an option not to take the vaccine.
I have also shown you how minorities are more likely to be poor then whites. Even if you ignore the fact that "poor" is a code word for minorities it is still immoral to take freedom away from the poor but allow the wealthy to keep theirs.
When you don't ignore the fact that "poor" is a code word for minorities, pro by saying " The poor are more vulnerable to HPV" is actually saying " minorities ( blacks and Hispanics ) are more likely to have STDs" . Let me remind you also pro has provided no sources to show that minorities are more likely to have STDs then whites as he asserts.
Any public health policy that forces a disproportionate amount of minority individuals to get forcibly inocculated because " the poor" are more likely to have STDs is immoral. We should be trying to end these type of generalizations not go out of our way to create policy that reinforces them.
Is this good public health policy?
My opponent defines good health policy as " How long we live with the best possible health"
I would agree with my opponent that male castration is absurd. To prove something is good health policy you should at the very least be able to prove its a better option then castration. Let's see if my opponent has done so.
" it ( castration ) forces permanent physical harm on patients and completely removes their capacity to reproduce"
This is simply untrue. I would call it permanent physical alteration not harm. If your calling that permanent physical harm then you would have to call circumcision permanent physical harm. This does not remove your capacity to reproduce either. One option is to freeze your sperm before getting castrated. This could also be an oppurtunity to take the best of what the world has to offer freeze their sperm and maybe push evolution forward just a little faster. Also within the next 10 or so years technology will probably be in a position to allow us to reproduce without sperm or any sex required.
" affects a persons quality of life both mentally and physically "
This is where me and my opponent agree. It does affect a person's quality of life physically in a big way. It adds a bunch of healthy quality years to your life.
As far as mentally is concerned.
Castration reduces testosterone levels. High testosterone levels have a direct correlation with your general attitude, how likely you are to commit a crime and your income level. A lower testosterone level is a good thing in these studies. My guess is that if you have a better job a better attitude and aren't in prison then mentally you are probably doing a little bit better.
Pro argues that I provide no way to fund my alternative as well. My alternative could be funded the same way his is. I could do what he does by creating a fine for people who can afford not to participate ( predominately whites) while forcing all people who can't afford not to opt out ( predominately minorities ) to participate. I believe I could fund my program without being racist though. Since increased testosterone is linked to crime then the dramatically reduced amount of prison funding neccesary could go towards castrating individuals. Also the reduced visits to the emergency room as a result of the castrations would mean hospitals would need less subsidies and that money could go towards my procedures.
So take a look at my program for increasing the health span of the general population. If it meets all the moral obligations he lays out for vaccinations and also does a superior job of adding health span to the general population. Then he has failed to meet the criteria he set for himself in showing that vaccines are good health policy.
( referring to Gardasil and Cervarix ) " this is a pretty extensive monitoring program and it's been going ongoing for 7 and 4 years"
This is not nearly long enough to know the long term affects these vaccines has on people's health. For all you know being on these has some very harmful side affects that happen in a small enough segment of the population and far enough down the road that clinical trials would not have picked them up. These side affects could happen at a larger rate then cervical cancer and be worse then cervical cancer and we wouldn't know until it was too late and your program had already affected thousands upon thousands of people.
" FDA and CDC closely monitor the safety of all vaccines through the vaccine adverse event reporting system ( VAERS ) "
It's nice that you read that much of my links to know it listed those reporting systems. If you would have read further you would have noticed that they also stated that Cervarix hasn't been on the market long enough for them to have a large enough sample size for them to provide any useful information on it. Even the CDC is telling you they lack adequate information on something and you still want to push full steam ahead and force it on everyone.
These drug companies have a lot of incentive to get their product written into law and forced on the general population. There is billions of dollars at stake here. The drug Gardasil put out an enormous propaganda campaign to have their vaccine mandated by law. Pro you may have fell for this propaganda campaign , but you know who didn't fall for it ? The CEO of Gardasil didn't. Here is a link showing where the company backed down because even they realized what they were doing was wrong.
Cervical cancer doesn't affect most people until extremely late in life. 3900 people die each year of cervical cancer. To put into perspective how small a number that is then compare it to the 600,000 people who die each year from heart disease in America.
You could save more people by cutting national salt intake nationwide by 10 % . Which has got to be cheaper then requiring everyone to get $360 shot.
Pro would likely argue that if requiring everyone to get the shot saved 1 life it would be worth it. It's not worth it. Scaring a 10 yr old girl (the reccomended age) by shoving a needle into her arm 3 times within a 6 month period to prevent a disease she is unlikely to get is wrong.NOT WORTH IT!Vote con.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Spamkybones 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: I think the con made more convincing arguments but was a very close debate..
Vote Placed by TheLastMan 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I enjoyed the debate. Both of them did well. I had a hard time evaluating this debate. Pro's argument was more convincing than Con. He provided more reasons to support his claim. I would get a shot instead of going through the trouble of castration. A shot in the arm is not equivalent to castration. Pros options are better than the alternatives presented by Con. Specially, I did not like the idea made by Con saying poor means black people, and not white. Both of them presented sources. It's hard to decide, but con made some mistakes presenting his sources in round 2. In addition, Sources presented by Pro were more relevant and better than Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.