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

The benefits of vaccination outweigh the harm

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 563 times Debate No: 96934
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




1. Burden of proof is on Pro
2. For sources to count, a link to the source must be provided, and it can't be blocked behind a paywall
3. My opponent must either use the first round as acceptance, or waive the last round to keep the number of argument per side balanced.

Voting Rules
Normal voting rules apply, as found here:
However, if your RFD follows the opt-in voting standards found here: , then You have permission to assign all 7 points to the winning side instead of just argument points.


I wouldn't say the burden of proof only lies with the one who claims there are benefits to vaccination. If you claim that they are harmful, that requires proof as well. It is a positive claim after all. The negative claim would be to not have a position on vaccines one way or the other, and that is what doesn't require proof.

At any rate, I accept the debate, and I will be arguing for why vaccines are more beneficial.

On a side note, I'm also a brony by the way! If you're interested in adding one another as friends, I will do so and you can accept if you like. Luna is best pony in my opinion. I might just challenge you to a debate on who is best pony lol, provided you don't agree that Luna is best.
Debate Round No. 1


Hepatitis B vaccine caused AIDS

"There is no doubt that AIDS erupted in the U.S. shortly after government-sponsored hepatitis B vaccine experiments (1978-1981) using gay men as guinea pigs." [1]

"How did these two viruses of primate origin get into the gay male population to cause AIDS and a contagious form of cancer? AIDS experts blame monkeys and chimps in the African jungle. My research indicates it is much more likely these viruses were introduced during government-sponsored hepatitis B experiments using gays as unsuspecting guinea pigs." [1]

So it can be concluded the Hepatitis B vaccines were responsible for introducing AIDS to humans.

Now let's look at the damage caused by AIDS.

"an estimated 35 million people have died from AIDS-related illnesses since the start of the epidemic, including 1.1 million in 2015." [2]

Therefore the hepatitis B vaccines are responsible for the 35 million AIDS related deaths.


The hepatitis B vaccines alone is responsible for 35 million deaths. It is estimated that only 732,000 deaths were prevented by vaccines in the last 20 years. [3] Therefore the harm caused by vaccination outweigh the benefits.




I would like to thank my opponent for offering a challenging argument. I notice there are some people on here who do not offer worthwhile arguments.

The first thing that stood to me as odd about your argument, was the number of deaths caused by aids seemed too high and the number of lives saved by vaccines seemed too low. When I looked into your sources, I noticed that the one for the number of lives saved by vaccines is talking about the US only, while the one that is talking about the number of lives killed by aids is talking about the world as a whole. You must keep in mind that AIDS is far worse in Africa than in the United States, it was the Hepatitis B vaccine that brought it to the US, that is true, but the way you're arguing makes it sound like the Hepatitis B vaccine is responsible for those 35 million deaths when it's in fact not. It would be responsible for a much smaller amount of deaths.

Since you did bring up the amount of deaths from HIV/AIDS worldwide, and not the deaths reported in the United States I thought it appropriate to share the diagnoses of aids in the US. "Since the epidemic began in the early 1980s, an estimated 1,210,835 people have been diagnosed with AIDS."[1] I would like to point out that scientists "believe that the chimpanzee version of the immunodeficiency virus (called simian immunodeficiency virus or SIV) most likely was transmitted to humans and mutated into HIV when humans hunted these chimpanzees for meat and came into contact with their infected blood." Therefore, the Hepatitis B vaccination experiments can only be blamed for 1.2 million cases of Aids in the US, and not the 35 million my opponent is trying to argue for, as the millions of other cases of aids was likely caused by the contact with Chimp blood in Africa. The Hepatitis vaccine likely only brought aids to America, while aids existed among humans already before that in Africa and elsewhere.

Now, I'd like to point out that the reason vaccines have such a small amount of impact within the United States is because we have such an advanced medical system in comparison to majority of the world. Notice that your third source says "The CDC estimates that vaccinations will prevent more than 21 million hospitalizations..." in other countries millions of those hospitalizations would translate to deaths because their healthcare system is not as good as the United States'. Let's look at how many deaths are prevented by vaccines around the world, rather than just the United States. It is estimated that the measles vaccination alone has saved 17.1 million lives around the world. [3] And all vaccinations save "Approximately 2.5 million lives per year"[4] Or in other words, in 10 years, 25 million people worldwide will have their lives saved by vaccination.

To conclude, the aids breakout from the hepatitis B experiments in the 1980s in the United States has only caused 1.2 million new people to be infected by HIV. However, worldwide, "chronic Hepatitis B affects approximately 240 million people and contributes to an estimated 786,000 deaths worldwide each year."[5] Therefore the development of a Hepatitis B vaccine can potentially save an additional 786,000 people each year, and does save an unknown amount of people each year(I can't seem to find a source on the amount of people actually saved by the hepatitis B vaccination). Therefore, the risk caused by the hepatitis B vaccine did not outweigh the potential benefits of the vaccine itself, and vaccines in the world greatly benefit all of us by preventing more than 2 million people dying each year.

Debate Round No. 2


Hepatitis B vaccine and AIDS

My opponent concedes that the hepatitis B vaccine was likely responsible for 1.2 million deaths in the United States. What we disagree on is whether whether this vaccine is responsible for AIDS in outside the United States, primarily Africa.

My opponent claims "The Hepatitis vaccine likely only brought aids to America, while aids existed among humans already before that in Africa and elsewhere."

The hepatitis B vaccine was in fact administered to people in Africa.
"...experimental HB vaccine pilot tested between 1970 and 1975 in New York City and central Africa." [1]

"Again, it should be noted that the African "volunteers" inhabited a geographic area consistent with the highest rates of HIV-1 seroprevalence. Among the nations where rates are highest, HB studies were conducted in: Senegal, Cote d"Ivoire, Uganda, Kenya, Swaziland, and the northeastern part of South Africa. According to circumstantial evidence, eastern Zaire bordering the West Nile region of northwest Uganda also hosted such trials." [1]

I will give some extra background as to why HIV/AIDS contaminated vaccines were being given to africans and gay men. Back in the 1970"s eugenics was still being practiced. [2] Gays and blacks were demographics that were targeted by eugenics. It made sense that people back then would have wanted to infect these groups of people with a deadly virus, and the hepatitis B vaccine was convenient way to do this.

Even if AIDS existed before the 1970"s like my opponent argues, it didn"t become widespread until after the the hepatitis B vaccine was being given, and even then, it was most prevalent in the areas where the hepatitis B vaccine was being given, which includes several African countries and the United States. So it can be assumed that the large majority of AIDS death were a result of the hepatitis B vaccines.

Lives saved by vaccines

I would like to point out that the sources my opponent uses to show that vaccines save lives are all either from the CDC or a source that sites the CDC. The CDC sells vaccines. The vaccines the CDC sells can be found here: [3]. A company that sells vaccines has a conflict of interest in reporting the amount of lives saved by vaccines. The CDC benefits from inflated reports on the number of lives saved from vaccines because the more lives they claim to have been saved by vaccines, more more likely people will be to buy their vaccines.

My opponent claims 17.1 million lives were saved by the polio vaccine worldwide according to the CDC. Although I couldn"t find global statistics, in the United States, England, and Wales, the mortality rate of measles was declining before the vaccine was being given. Many diseases naturally decline as nutrition improves, take scarlet fever as an example, it was eradicated despite not have a vaccine for it. Although the decrease occurrence of diseases that are being vaccinated against could be because of improved nutrition or other environmental changes, the CDC won"t tell you that because that might decrease their vaccine sales. Also, there has never been a double blind placebo controlled trial demonstrating the safety or effectiveness of vaccines. But we do know that vaccines are less than 100% effective, the CDC even admits that the flu vaccine is 50%-60% effective. [5] (although even that statistic is likely inflated) So we don"t really know how many lives have been saved by vaccines, only the likely inflated number the CDC gives us.

Vaccines vs no Vaccines

I have shown that 35 million deaths were caused by AIDS. Even fewer instances of AIDS did exist before the 1970"s like my opponent argues, a majority of AIDS would have been a result from the hepatitis B vaccine. On the other hand, my opponent"s 2.5 million lives saved per year statistic is likely inflated for the reasons I already stated.




No, I concede that the Hepatitis B vaccine could be responsible for 1.2 million cases of aids. That's different from deaths, which would be a little less than that.

Next, I would like to point out, that if everything being claimed by my opponent is true, and that majority of Aids cases are a result of these HIV-infected Hepatitis B vaccinations, this doesn't prove the vaccine itself is detrimental to society. I'm surprised I didn't catch this until now, but maybe because my opponent didn't make it clear that it was intentional that the vaccinations were infected with HIV in order to reduce gay and black populations. What this proves, if anything, is that eugenics is detrimental to society.

At this point, I believe none of what my opponent has claimed is actually a negative from vaccination. If the hepatitis B vaccinations were never infected with HIV intentionally, then there would have been no negative effect from it. The vaccination itself is not harmful, but rather the HIV infection inside of it was.

I was under the impression before that the vaccinations got infected with HIV accidentally, which would be able to be used as argument against vaccination since if it naturally happens that vaccinations get infected, then there would be a problem. However, since the infections were intentional, as my opponent seems to have pointed out, there is absolutely no harmful thing that my opponent has shown about a vaccination, and what they pointed out was a harm with a belief in eugenics.

My opponent says that the CDC would have a conflict of interest and therefore cannot be trusted, but the source I used for the number of lives vaccines save a year is not the CDC, nor is the CDC referenced by the source.
Debate Round No. 3


Opponent"s Source

My opponent used this source to show 2.5 million lives per year were saved by vaccines. It references source(s) that reference the CDC, so it does indirectly reference the CDC. This is the primary source that shows 2.5 million lives would be : .

My opponent"s 2.5 million lives saved source mentions 3 used sources on the bottom.

Source #1:
Which redirects to a different page, most likely because the pdf is no longer there.

But if you look at this source from the WHO my opponent cited:
"However, the new data published in this week"s edition of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC), "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report" and WHO"s "Weekly Epidemiological Record", shows that overall progress towards increasing global immunization coverage has recently stagnated"

Does get its info from the CDC, so it is very reasonable that the who source with the missing url gets its 2.5 million lives saved from the CDC source I showed, since the other page on the same www.who site also references the CDC and the the CDC shows the same statistic. Also, as a reminder, my opponent has the burden of proof.

Source #2:
Says "Page not found"

Source #3: "Ozawa S, et al., 2011. During The "Decade Of Vaccines," The Lives Of 6.4 Million Children Valued At $231 Billion Could Be Saved. Health Affairs, 30(6):1010-20."
Is not publicly accessible.

Semantics counter argument

My opponent says "The vaccination itself is not harmful, but rather the HIV infection inside of it was."

If the hepatitis B vaccine contains HIV, then the HIV is part of the vaccine. Very few people who argue that vaccines are dangerous argue that the weakened virus being injected into you is what it is dangerous. It"s the other crap that is in vaccines that is argued to be dangerous like aluminum, mercury, and in my argument, the HIV virus. The HIV that is added to the HIV vaccine is very much a part of the vaccine.

And even if you consider the HIV in the vaccines aren"t considered a part of the vaccine by technicality, even though they are, it still doesn"t change the fact that due to the existence of the hepatitis vaccine, a lot more people were able to have been covertly killed in the name of eugenics than they would have been if the vaccine didn"t exist. The resolution is "The benefits of vaccines outway the harm" and not "The direct benefits of vaccines outway the direct harm". So if the existence of vaccines indirectly resulted in more people being killed by eugenics than would have otherwise, than that is a harm indirectly caused by the existence of the vaccine.

Now to give an idea of how many fewer people would have died from eugenics if they couldn"t have been added to vaccines, the number of jews killed in the Holocaust was 6 million [1] compared to the about 35 million killed from AIDS caused by the hepatitis B vaccine. So it is not just eugenics that are responsible for the AIDS deaths from the hepatitis B vaccines, since eugenics without vaccines don"t kill as many people, especially not as covertly.



The problem with questioning the CDC as a source because they sell vaccines, is who else would know how many lives vaccines save? In order to know how many lives Vaccinations save, we need to know how many vaccinations are given, and only those who sell vaccines would know how many are sold. So, it's impossible to not use the CDC or another vaccination supplier as a source.

If you would like another source for the number of lives vaccinations save each year, it appears this one also states 2-3 million lives are saved per year by vaccines[1]. From looking into this source, as well as the source the source linked for number of lives saved, the CDC appears to not be involved whatsoever.

My opponent argues that the HIV is part of the vaccine, but if it was added with malicious intent, like my opponent argued before, then it is not really part of the vaccine. Vaccines are specifically "antigenic substance[s] prepared from the causative agent of a disease or a synthetic substitute, used to provide immunity against one or several diseases:"[2] The HIV inside the original Hepatitis B shots had nothing to do with providing immunity against Hepatitis B, and it was not added in order to make the vaccine more potent or helpful. It was an unnecessary additive to the vaccine, which is not used in the vaccine any longer. It was through malicious intent that it was added and cannot be considered as a negative side effect of the vaccine itself.

To do what my opponent is doing here, blaming the entire vaccine based on one ingredient in a vaccine is similar to blaming an entire cookie for an allergy to cinnamon. No, it would make sense to blame the cinnamon itself, and not the entire cookie for your allergic reactions.

Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Grandzam 9 months ago
Rainbow friend me so we can talk
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
>Reported vote: StarHunter// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: CON never refuted the malicious intent factor. It was fatal to CON's argument. Vaccination is not synonyms with eugenics at all. They are entirely different things.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both debaters. Merely stating what Con failed to refute doesn't explain why that argument was strong, nor does it explain why Con's argument was insufficient for him to win.
Posted by Capitalistslave 12 months ago
The final round's first source link didn't work for some reason, as it got rid of the hyperlink for part of the link. I've run into this problem before, and instead I'll put information here needed to find the source:

Title of source: "IMMUNIZATION FACTS AND FIGURES April 2013" and it is on
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
I forgot to add something into round 2.

I realize you are arguing that the cause of aids to come to humankind is from the Hepatitis B vaccine experiments, however, "The earliest known case of infection with HIV-1 in a human was detected in a blood sample collected in 1959 from a man in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo."(see source 2 from my round 2 post) So Aids did in fact exist prior to the immunization experiments in the late 1970s.
No votes have been placed for this debate.