The Instigator
destructor
Pro (for)
Winning
32 Points
The Contender
pcmbrown
Con (against)
Losing
28 Points

Vaccination against pathogens is beneficial to the community

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 9 votes the winner is...
destructor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,633 times Debate No: 8338
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (9)

 

destructor

Pro

I argue that vaccination against pathogens and implementation of vaccination programs that vaccinate the members of a community are beneficial to that community. (vaccination is MORE beneficial, THAN NOT beneficial)
pcmbrown

Con

I argue that vaccination against pathogens and implementation of vaccination programs that vaccinate the members of a community are beneficial to that community. (vaccination is MORE beneficial, THAN NOT beneficial)"
As my opponent has not specified the society, he argues that this principle applies to all societies, that all societies benefit from the existence of vaccination programs. This is simply not the case.
1. In some areas of Africa, the local Muslim clerics discourage vaccination, believing that it alters hormone levels, and causes sterility. Consequently, the majority of persons within that particular society are not vaccinated. Of course, there are exceptions to this. A few members of society will accept vaccination. As a result of those few vaccinated individuals, the pathogen in question evolves rapidly. Soon, the unvaccinated members are afflicted with an advanced pathogen. As the newer form cannot be treated, given its recent evolution, many members will die. Hence, in this case, vaccination programs have a negative impact.
2. Most poor nations receive vaccines from other nations. As we know, pathogens change constantly, and therefore constantly require new vaccinations. If vaccines are no longer made available to a nation, they are left to deal with a highly evolved form of the pathogen, which they cannot deal with. This results in mass death tolls.
Debate Round No. 1
destructor

Pro

Thats alright, I didnt specify society so it can have a broad definition.

before I begin, my opponent and some of the commenters seem to have mixed up the concept of 'vaccines' and 'antibiotics'.

antibiotics - (ie. ampicillin, tetracyclin, penicillin)
used for treatment
they kill the target by 'inhibiting' vital functions/mechanisms of organisms;
you CAN have antibiotic-resistance organisms (ie ampicillin resistant strep, or antibiotic resistant Tb)

vaccines - (ie. chicken pox vaccine, Polio vaccine, Flu vaccine)
used for prevention, NOT treatment
they DONT kill the target organism (vaccines allow the immune system to better recognize the particular pathogen)
(have you ever hear of [chicken pox vaccine resistant chicken pox]??? or perhaps [polio vaccine resistant polio]???)
the reason the flu vaccines are changed every year is another topic. It is because the virus is rapidly changing due to its own nature (I'll expand on this if you want), thats why we predict what the strain for the next year will be and we change and creat new vaccines. the thing is even if there was no flu vaccine made, the strain will still be changing seasonaly due to the life cycle and nature of the flu/influenza virus.

my opponent argues that he is against the statement "vaccination benefits society" because if we give a society vaccines for a while they will be ok, but then if we stop giving it to them there will be much harm done to that society. (they will get infected and etc..)
well, thats not really a good argument. thats like being against the argument "water/food benefits society" because if we give a society water/food for a while they will be ok, but when you stop giving them water/food, they will die of hunger. I never stated in my original argument that we will stop giving them vaccines. so since the issue you bring up can be solved by vaccination, Id say it makes your point invalid.

your other issues about vaccination creating 'super bugs' due to evolution is again a misconception where you have mixed up vaccines and antibiotics (look at top of this post). So if you vaccinate 10 people in a class of 100, there wouldnt be superbug made since the vaccinated people dont get the bug in the first place and in the hypothetical case that they some how get a variant bug, the bug will be outnumbered and out competed by the non-super bugs (its called [competitive selection that forces out the minority variant] or something similar, i cant remember of the top of my head. feel free to google search it, or if you couldnt find it I'll cite it for the next round)
pcmbrown

Con

pcmbrown forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
destructor

Pro

Id like to start by saying this was a good debate and I thank my opponent for it.
In conclusion Id like to mention that (vaccination is MORE beneficial, THAN NOT beneficial). This means there may as well be benefits to not vaccinate (ie. avoiding scarring of the skin, and rare links to autism and health complications), however those benefits are outweighed by the benefits of vaccination (increased and sustained health of the overall population). Also keep in the back of your mind that the concept of 'super bugs' is related to the evolution of anti-biotic resistance in nearly all cases and minor relations to vaccines.
[lets say theoretically a vaccine resistance existed] [remember this would be a very minor number of cases] ie. there is no vaccine against the AIDS drug.
What this means is
-1)you either dont vaccinate and get AIDS
-2)you vaccinate and your immune system is good for a day, then the virus changes and you get AIDS. (you see vaccination didnt make things wost)

please vote PRO
(vaccination is MORE beneficial, THAN NOT beneficial)
thanks
pcmbrown

Con

Terribly sorry for the forfeit.

My opponents refutations hinge on the statement that vaccine resistance does not exist, and cannot produce "superbugs". This refutation is unwarranted.

"Vaccination can be a useful tool for control of avian influenza outbreaks in poultry, but its use is reconsidered in most of the countries worldwide because of its negative effects on the disease control. One of the most important negative effects is the potential for emergence of vaccine-resistant viruses. Actually, in the vaccination program in China and Mexico, several vaccine-resistant strains were confirmed. Vaccine-resistant strains usually cause a loss of the protection effectiveness of vaccination. Therefore, a vaccination program that engenders the emergence of the resistant strain might promote the spread of the resistant strain and undermine the control of the infectious disease, even if the vaccination protects against the transmission of a vaccine-sensitive strain."

It is obvious that my point regarding superbugs stands.

To clarify my second point, I was merely stating that vaccination can create superbugs, and therefore, any cessation of vaccination programs leaves the country worse off than before. This was unrefuted.

It is evident that vaccination programs can harm the health of a community through the creation of vaccine-resistant strains. My opponent has not successfully refuted my case, and has presented no arguments of his own.

Thanks fro the debate, thanks for reading, and vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
huh?
Posted by destructor 7 years ago
destructor
I am extremely puzzled by Con's argument.

If you are against vaccination because you think it may create vaccine-resistant bugs, then
What is bad about having an organism be vaccine resistant, since you dont plan to vaccinate it anyways???
Posted by BishMasterJr 7 years ago
BishMasterJr
Neg could argue that over time, vaccines create viruses that are immune to all our medical efforts, and that using them on a large scale with cause this process of immunization to occur faster that medical advancements, thus putting us to a point of no return where viruses are immune to our current medical tech, and we have no future tech possibilities for new vaccines.
Posted by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
YEAH. how would one argue con? crazy guaranteed victory resolutions
Posted by destructor 7 years ago
destructor
Ned Flanders thought the government is using Flu vaccines to control the mind...
Posted by Me100 7 years ago
Me100
This is really hard to go neg..
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
I don't see how anyone could argue CON. Maybe someone like Mongeese can come up with something.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Agnostic 7 years ago
Agnostic
destructorpcmbrownTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
destructorpcmbrownTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by happypanda 7 years ago
happypanda
destructorpcmbrownTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
destructorpcmbrownTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Larsness 7 years ago
Larsness
destructorpcmbrownTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by slobodow 7 years ago
slobodow
destructorpcmbrownTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by harlequin 7 years ago
harlequin
destructorpcmbrownTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
destructorpcmbrownTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
destructorpcmbrownTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07