The Instigator
ronanomalley
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mathgeekjoe
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Vaccinating your Child

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 2 votes the winner is...
Mathgeekjoe
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 541 times Debate No: 72553
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

ronanomalley

Pro

I personally believe that vaccinating children is a normal and highly beneficial procedure, however in recent years the subject of the safety of vaccines has become controversial. I challenge anybody who disagrees with my view to debate with me on the topic.
Mathgeekjoe

Con

I would like to make it clear that I do not think vaccines are bad. If it wasn't for vaccines we would still have small pox on this earth. In addition, the only way to survive rabies is with the rabies vaccine (unvaccinated rabies is like germx for people, it kills 99.99% of humans infected.)

Despite all the good vaccines do, they still have negatives. There are people who cannot get vaccinated without getting very sick. Some people even die from getting a vaccine. These side effects can often run in the family so it makes sense that those who have a family history of bad reactions to vaccines may not want their child to be vaccinated.

I also believe vaccines should not be used unless there is some goal. For rabies, it is saving the person. For small pox it was eradicating it. For Ebola (vaccine for Ebola is currently being worked on), it would be about stopping the outbreak. I personally find the flu shot to be lacking of a good goal, you can't eradicate the flu, people will still get the flu despite the vaccine, and people would need to get the vaccine yearly.
Debate Round No. 1
ronanomalley

Pro

I believe Con's argument against the flu shot to be somewhat incorrect. There is a common goal with the flu vaccine. The flu is a constantly changing virus and is therefore incredibly difficult to treat. The aim of the flu vaccine is not to completely eradicate or stop the flu from spreading, but instead to minimise the chance of the person becoming infected with the illness. While a flu in one's adult years may just keep you from work for a couple of days, it is more serious in infants and older ages as the immune system finds it more difficult to deal with (increasing fatality rate). The goal of the flu vaccine is simply to minimise this risk, and not to completely eradicate the virus.

As with all pharmaceutical goods, nothing is used on the market unless the drugs positive effects outweigh its negatives. So yes, while I agree with Con's point that vaccines do have the potential to cause some negative side effects, so do many common medications that are widely used around the world. Paracetamol, ibuprofen and cetirizine are all used every day by people all around the world, and all have side effects that are clearly stated on the enclosed leaflets. Vaccines are the same, however it seems because people don't have the box readily available at their disposal, the threat of side effects becomes much more frightening.
Mathgeekjoe

Con

Producing a flu vaccine doesn't have too much of a point. There are many strains of the flu and it mutates quickly. The actual flu vaccine is actually several flu vaccines for the strains that are believe to be the most likely to emerge that season. The flu strains that weren't predicted for the season will not be affected by the flu vaccine and thus can still make people sick and in severe cases kill. There is also the problems that the flu constantly mutates which further makes the vaccine less effective. Effectively I would rather have groups researching ways to treat the flu in general rather than trying to get everyone to get a vaccine every year.

I would have to agree that in most situations, vaccines outweigh the negatives. But for some people, the negatives don't outweigh the positives, especially when they have had complications with other vaccines. An example of one such person Nancy Jaax, worked at a Biosafety Lab. To work in a biosafety level three you needed to be vaccinated for everything in the lab. Nancy Jaax couldn't get vaccinated without negative reactions so she had no chance of working in biosafety level 3. Instead she had to try to get into bio safety level 4 since the diseases there had no vaccines or cures.
Debate Round No. 2
ronanomalley

Pro

ronanomalley forfeited this round.
Mathgeekjoe

Con

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Mathgeekjoe 2 years ago
Mathgeekjoe
It seems like the only disagreement in this debate is the flu shot.
Posted by Mathgeekjoe 2 years ago
Mathgeekjoe
Well, fudge, I really don't know if there is a disagreement here. I support vaccines being used to eradicate virus or prevent death. But I don't support their use as being mandatory since there are some people who have a family history of bad reactions to vaccines. I also find the flu vaccines pointless since they have zero chance of eradicating the flu and they do not completely negate the spread of the flu. Personally I think they need to try a little harder to find better ways to treat the flu rather than getting people to take a shot yearly just for a reduce chance of being sick from the flu.
Posted by ronanomalley 2 years ago
ronanomalley
@MathGeekJoe -

I believe it is the parents choice whether or not to vaccinate their child against flu. The purpose of the flu vaccine is to prevent infection from the virus, yes, but also to minimise the risk of infection, as with all vaccines. The flu is a constantly changing virus - it's very difficult to prevent.
Posted by Mathgeekjoe 2 years ago
Mathgeekjoe
So you don't support the flu shot?
Posted by ronanomalley 2 years ago
ronanomalley
@MathGeekJoe-
Apologies for the delay.

To answer your question -
I believe it depends upon the disease at hand - if we are dealing with an illness such as smallpox or polio which can be successfully eradicated by making it difficult for the micro-organism to infect the body, then yes, I do believe that ensuring all children are vaccinated against the disease is a good idea.

It appears you have already posted your opening argument.
Posted by Mathgeekjoe 2 years ago
Mathgeekjoe
@ronanomalley
Few questions
Do you believe all children should get vaccinated?
Or do you believe that vaccinating is on balance beneficial?

Should I post my opening argument round one or two?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
ronanomalleyMathgeekjoeTied
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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by kingkd 2 years ago
kingkd
ronanomalleyMathgeekjoeTied
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 agreed with Pro but Pro had FF