The Instigator
debateboy
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
XStrikeX
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points

Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 6 votes the winner is...
XStrikeX
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/13/2010 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,998 times Debate No: 13142
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (6)

 

debateboy

Con

"That night she became agitated and feisty, then she fell asleep and never woke up."

This quote is from a man whose daughter suffered devastating side-effects from the mandatory Hepatitis B vaccination on his 5-week-old little girl.

Hello. I am on the CON side for the debate that Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory.

Definitions:
mandatory-an action that you must perform without question
vaccination-an injection into your body consisting of weak or dead bacteria which is or is similar to a disease.

Because I am CON, I will allow my opponent to go first.
XStrikeX

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent, debateboy, for creating this debate. I would just like to note, for absolutely no relevant reason, that he is my classmate and that I was very excited to take this, due to the previous fact.

I am on the Proposition, arguing that, "Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory."
Many thanks for allowing me to go first. I will begin with a refutation of the first, small quote my opponent has stated, which, to my disappointment, does not have a source.

Refutation

"This quote is from a man whose daughter suffered devastating side-effects from the mandatory Hepatitis B vaccination on his 5-week-old little girl."

This Hepatitis B vaccine is still good, no matter how many deaths (very small amount) occur. Would you rather like to possess this horrible disease. If so, the very small bacteria of this disease will cause liver inflammation, vomiting, jaundice, and, sometimes, death. Chronic Hepatitis B will result in liver cirrhosis and liver cancer, which means the chances of death are greatly increased [1]. A third of the world's population, more than two billion people, is infected with this disease. The most infection occurs within areas in Asia, mostly China, and Africa. There are also 350 million carriers of chronic Hepatitis B [2]. Chinese vaccinations are not mandatory. They are voluntary or optional. If more of the Chinese were treated with a Hepatitis B vaccine, then most would not have this disease. Africa is a very poor country. Many families can't afford vaccinations for their children and thus, get sick.

Arguments

1. Vaccinations help children. Vaccinations help children. There can't be any doubt about it. Without vaccinations in America, many children would be sick and subject to violent diseases. Diseases will simply make children suffer more compared to a small dose of that disease. Diphtheria is an small respiratory sickness where a membrane forms that covers the throat and then makes it very hard to breathe. Whooping cough is named after the whooping sound that is made by its victims during one of their coughing periods. Mumps is another disease that can cause swollen glands on the face, but can be prevented with a vaccine. Tetanus is a horrible disease due to the fact that if obtained, you can die. You have a 50% chance of survival if you contract this sickness. There is also Rubella, Polio, Chickenpox, Measles, and Meningitis. All of these diseases are life-threatening and can only be stopped with a vaccination. There will be dangers when parents don't get their child vaccinated. In Boulder, Colorado, half of the 292 students attending Shining Mountain Waldorf School did not receive all vaccinations, with some not receiving any. The result of this has been a case of spreading whooping cough. In Colorado, all a parent needs to do have a child exempt from vaccinations is to sign a sheet of paper.

2. Vaccinations should be mandatory because diseases can spread. Children can get diseases that they could have prevented with a vaccination, and spread it to others who think they are safe without a vaccine. Children touch many things, such as park structures, and then others will get sick. There are some diseases that seem very small at first, but then develop to be potentially dangerous. The only ones that can be free of this disease are the vaccinated children. Just look at countries in Africa. They have numerous children with diseases, not because bacteria separately went and touched them all, but because they spread it among each other by playing, working, and using the same supplies. An African child dies every minute due to Measles [3]. This could be stopped with vaccinations.

I eagerly await for the response.

Sources:
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
2. http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com...
3. Cuttino, Phyliss A. "Where a Child Dies Each Minute." UN Chronicle. June/August 2002:26.
Debate Round No. 1
debateboy

Con

Thank you, Strike, for responding
I would like to set a road map:
First, I would like to refute my opponents points
Second, I would like to bring up my own points
I do realize that the road map is quite useless, however it is a nice addition to organization, and I hope you grade accordingly.

[1]My opponent has consistently stated that "without vaccinations diseases will spread."
However, only the parents who do choose to not vaccinate their children will find that their child has the sickness. According to my opponent himself, the children who are vaccinated should be okay. Therefore, the parents' decisions will not impact other children, if vaccinations are as useful as my opponent suggested.

[2]Thank you for giving us a lecture on the usefulness of the Hepatitis B vaccine. However, judged by your [#] symbols that is not normal for you, I believe that you have copied and pasted this from a website. If not, you still produced many statistics that require a source; Readers, please grade accordingly

[3]To defend myself, the fact that vaccines frequently cause unintentional deaths is a well known fact that has been proven by many scientists. However, to support this, over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have en filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims between 2001 and 2009. Also, The US Court Federal Claims Office of Special Masters, between 1988 and 2009, has awarded compensation to 1,322 families whose children suffered brain damage from vaccines. To top it off, about 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, defining serious as "associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, lifetaking illness, or death.

I would like to bring some of my points into this debate.

[1]Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children.31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan.

[2]Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to free exercise of their religion.

[3]Vaccines are often unnecessary in may cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically BEFORE IMMUNIZATION BECAME AVAILABLE. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification,effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition.

[4]Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening.

[5]Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), and other disorders.

[6]Vaccines can cause brain inflammation (encephalopathy) which can le to death or permanent brain damage and disorders such as autism, ADD/ADHD, and other developmental problems. In addition, the vaccine additive thimrosal (found in most pre-1999 vaccines) has been associated specifically with the development of autism and is still found in certain meningococcal, tetanus, and flue vaccines such as the H1N1 vaccine.

[7]Vaccines clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients contained within vaccines) which may lead to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma.

[8]All vaccines cause immune system suppression, and can permanently damage the natural immune system. Unvaccinated children build and strengthen their immune systems through fighting off infection and developing natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox. Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections.

I would like to top this off by giving some facts and statements to support my points.

[1]All 50 states require vaccinations for children entering public schools even though no mandatory Federal vaccination laws exist. All 50 states issue medical exemptions, 48 states (excluding Mississippi and West Virginia) permit religious exemptions, and 20 states allow an exemption for philosophical reasons.

[2]over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have been filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims between 2001 and 2009.
[3]The US Court Federal Claims Office of Special Masters, between 1988 and 2009, has awarded compensation to 1,322 families whose children suffered brain damage from vaccines.
[4]About 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, defining serious as "associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, lifetaking illness, or death.

Thank you for responding to the debate, and I look forward to your response!
XStrikeX

Pro

I'd like to start right away.

Refutations

"However, only the parents who do choose to not vaccinate their children will find that their child has the sickness. According to my opponent himself, the children who are vaccinated should be okay. Therefore, the parents' decisions will not impact other children, if vaccinations are as useful as my opponent suggested."

Exactly. That's the problem. Their child will have the sickness. They think they're safer off without the vaccination, however, that is untrue. They will obtain diseases, spread it onto other children who think they're safe without the vaccination, and then spread it to the kids who were going to get a vaccination. One child can get infected, due to a careless or careless parents, and then spread the danger to all his classmates or friends. The argument is not that the vaccinated kids will be sick, it's that one child can spread it to many others. The only ones who, in a sense, "benefit," are the vaccinated ones.

"Thank you for giving us a lecture on the usefulness of the Hepatitis B vaccine. However, judged by your [#] symbols that is not normal for you, I believe that you have copied and pasted this from a website. If not, you still produced many statistics that require a source; Readers, please grade accordingly"

Who are you to judge me as such? If you did research, you would have found that in many of my recentd debates, I decided to use the brackets and the number. I found it a very useful tool to ensure that you are not lying, and I am not. So please refute my argument that vaccinations actually benefit people, as seen in previous argument.

"Vaccines are often unnecessary in may cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically BEFORE IMMUNIZATION BECAME AVAILABLE. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification,effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition."

Plagarized from here [4]. Vaccines are very necessary, even if percentages of death is small. Vaccine deaths are even smaller. The sicknesses I previously listed out are all very harmful and potentially death-threatening diseases. They cause an extreme amount of suffering. Imagine if you were a child, suffering from a very horrible disease, and you know you could've been saved if you just took one needle in the arm. That's it. Whooping cough (pertussis) was the cause of 5,000 to 10,000 deaths in the United States a year [1]. Tell me that's not small. As my source states, pertussis was a deadly killer BEFORE VACCINES WERE CREATED [1]. The annual amount of deaths are now only 30 [1]. Measles is a much less serious circumstance, however, there are 20 million cases each year when children get them [2]. That could be stopped with one vaccination! Also, this rash is contagious and can be spread among kids. Why would these diseases just suddenly decrease in numbers before vaccines became available? Why would there suddenly be improved hygiene, purification, and other methods? Where is the source for this?

"Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening."

Plagarized. The "risk" is most certainly worth taking, as the percentages of problems are very, very, very, very small. Most diseases cause huge amounts of suffering among children, and all that could be ended with a vaccine.

"Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), and other disorders."

Plagarized as well from previous site. However, no vaccines means a child can obtain these numerous diseases:
Anthrax
Chickenpox
Diphtheria
Hepatitis A and B
Hib
HPV
Japanese Encephalitis
Lyme Disease
Measles
Meningococcal
Mumps
Pertussis
Pneumococcal
Polio
Rabies
And many, many more [3]!

"Vaccines clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients contained within vaccines) which may lead to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma."

Plagarized from the same site, as well. I have to once again weigh down on this one refutation. The good of the vaccination far outweighs the bad of the vaccination. There is a very small chance you will obtain such diseases.

"All 50 states require vaccinations for children entering public schools even though no mandatory Federal vaccination laws exist."

Plagarized. What's the argument here?

"Over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have been filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims between 2001 and 2009."

Plagarized. However, vaccines do not cause autism. Researchers at the John Hopkins University School of Public Help and Centers for Disease Control reject the idea that vaccine and autism are linked. The US Court of Federal Claims has said that, "theory of vaccine-related causation [of autism] is scientifically unsupportable."

My opponent has listed several facts to "support" his case. They are all plagarized, but nonetheless, they are very strong supporting evidence... until you read the fifth argument from the site he copied from. "According to a 2003 report by researchers at the Pediatric Academic Society, childhood vaccinations in the US prevent about 10.5 million cases of infectious illness and 33,000 deaths per year. [4]" Clearly, this benefit outweights so many of the numbers my opponent has listed.

Arguments

1. Because of a few ignorant parents, their children are at risk, putting even more children at risk of being infected with a horrible disease.

2. Most childhood vaccines have a 90-99% success rate in stopping disease [5]. When children who have been vaccinated do get sick, they usually have milder symptoms with less serious complications than an un-vaccinated child that gets the same disease. For example, an un-vaccinated child with mumps can become permanently deaf and spread the disease to more students, but the vaccinated child won't.

3. Children especially need to get vaccinated. Children have weaker immune systems than adults and thus, are more susceptible to various diseases than adults.

The Proposition should currently be winning this debate due to the reason that I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments, and he has never completely refuted all of mine and some were left untouched. All of my opponent's arguments are plagarized and they are not his own work.

Sources:
1. http://kidshealth.org...
2. http://kidshealth.org...
3. http://www.cdc.gov...
4. http://vaccines.procon.org...
5. http://www.healthychildren.org...
Debate Round No. 2
debateboy

Con

I may have taken some of my points from a source, however, this means that everything that I say is backed up, whereas your source for the hepatitis B vaccine has yet to be stated, although I requested it previously. "If not, you still produced many statistics that require a source;..."

"Measles is a much less serious circumstance, however, there are 20 million cases each year when children get them. That could be stopped with one vaccination!"

Excuse me, Strike, but how would one vaccination cover 20 million children? Just pointing that out there.
Also, by exclaiming that I "plagiarized," you directly contradicted your statement "Where is the source for this?" At the end of the same exact paragraph. Also, isn't it obvious why there would be improved hygiene, purification, and other methods? The government set out to improve our daily lives. Thank you for needlessly asking that question.

"Whooping cough (pertussis) was the cause of 5,000 to 10,000 deaths in the United States a year." First of all, let my draw your attention to "was." That signifies that this is in the past. Second, draw your attention to "a year." This does not specify which year, and I can naturally assume that it was in the begginnings of its emergence, back when people did not develop a resistance to it. Also, 5,000 deaths is actually not a lot. Influenza kills just as many people. 5,000 people, out of the massive amount of citizens in USA, is not a lot.

"The "risk" is most certainly worth taking, as the percentages of problems are very, very, very, very small. Most diseases cause huge amounts of suffering among children, and all that could be ended with a vaccine."
The number of problems are pretty big, as I told you already.
[1]over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have been filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims between 2001 and 2009.
[3]The US Court Federal Claims Office of Special Masters, between 1988 and 2009, has awarded compensation to 1,322 families whose children suffered brain damage from vaccines.
[4]About 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, defining serious as "associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, lifetaking illness, or death.
That point is pretty much useless, based on the statistics above, WHICH YOU DID NOT REFUTE.

"They think they're safer off without the vaccination, however, that is untrue. They will obtain diseases, spread it onto other children who think they're safe without the vaccination, and then spread it to the kids who were going to get a vaccination"
Thank you for pointing out that they think that they are safer without the vaccinations. Where, in my arguments, do I state that they think they are safer? They merely don't take the vaccinations, believing that it stands in the way of God, Allah, or whatever they believe, NOT THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE SAFER.
STATING THAT THEY ARE SAFER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DEBATE, that argument is easily refuted by the statistics above, and, in the moral sense, by your basic human rights.

Um..as far as I know, stating statistics with the exact wording is not called plagarizing. Thus, I can ignore all your refutation here:

"Plagarized. What's the argument here?

"Over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have been filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims between 2001 and 2009.

Plagarized. However, vaccines do not cause autism. Researchers at the John Hopkins University School of Public Help and Centers for Disease Control reject the idea that vaccine and autism are linked. The US Court of Federal Claims has said that, "theory of vaccine-related causation [of autism] is scientifically unsupportable."
"

However, scientifically unsupportable is not a big issue. There are many things that we do not know in science, and you cannot ignore the fact that 5,500 cases of autism have occurred.

""All 50 states require vaccinations for children entering public schools even though no mandatory Federal vaccination laws exist."

Plagarized. What's the argument here?"

If you had kept on reading, they still forced them nonetheless. This is abolishing human rights.

You stiill haven't refuted my point about human rights. I consider this untouched.

Refutations:

1. Because of a few ignorant parents, their children are at risk, putting even more children at risk of being infected with a horrible disease.

First of all, i would like to point out that if other children are vaccinated, they should be safe...?
Also, if their children are at risk, that is their problem. They decided, using their rights, not to vaccinate their children and therefore should be allowed to make that decision for a minor.

2. Most childhood vaccines have a 90-99% success rate in stopping disease [5]. When children who have been vaccinated do get sick, they usually have milder symptoms with less serious complications than an un-vaccinated child that gets the same disease. For example, an un-vaccinated child with mumps can become permanently deaf and spread the disease to more students, but the vaccinated child won't.

Plagurized... right back at you, hypocrite.
Also, using my point, developing a natural immune system is important for other reasons and diseases. Vaccinations include anti-body depressants which allow you to get sick easier. We must allow our own bodies to fight back.

3. Children especially need to get vaccinated. Children have weaker immune systems than adults and thus, are more susceptible to various diseases than adults.

Tell this to the parents. It is their choice, and this debate is about mandatory or not, not whether or not it is good or bad for you.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT MANDATORY OR NOT, NOT WHETHER OR NOT IT IS GOOD FOR YOU. THEREFORE, MOST OF MY OPPONENTS POINTS CAN BE REFUTED BY THIS. ALL OF THEM ARE IRRELEVANT. IT IS THEIR RIGHTS TO CHOOSE FOR THEIR CHILD, AND THEY CAN MAKE THE DECISIONS BASED ON WHETHER THEY THINK IT IS GOOD OR BAD. THESE MAJOR POINTS HAVE BEEN UNTOUCHED BY MY OPPONENT.

Also, in your ridiculous conclusion, I would like to point out that you started first, giving me less time and space to refute your arguments, whereas you had two speeches. And you can only truly claim that after I have finished posting that debate.

Also, you gave a fallacy stating that you have refuted all of my points. However, the fact that it is the parents' rights to choose is untouched.

According to the above notice, most of your major points are fallacies, giving examples of the benefits of vaccination. However, the fact remains that their parents have the choice to vaccinate or not to vaccinate, and they can make that choice based on those statistics. However, in this debate they are irrelevant and are present as a red-herring fallacy.

New POints:

1. Many people are severely allergic to some chemicals in the vaccine. Doctors may not know this, and the result of the vaccine may be disastrous.

Again, it is very evident that CON should win.
XStrikeX

Pro

Refutations

"I may have taken some of my points from a source, however, this means that everything that I say is backed up, whereas your source for the hepatitis B vaccine has yet to be stated, although I requested it previously.

That is due to the fact that you plagarized and copied word-for-word every argument and fact from the website I previously listed, which you did not even bother to source because I bet you didn't want ANYONE to know you were even plagarizing! I listed sources. You gave none. I doubt you even looked at my sources for the Hepatitis B argument because the facts are there, in that document.

"Excuse me, Strike, but how would one vaccination cover 20 million children? Just pointing that out there."

I know that in some countries, parents may not be able to afford vaccines for their children. Nonetheless, if everyone had vaccines, they wouldn't contract the disease.

"Also, isn't it obvious why there would be improved hygiene, purification, and other methods? The government set out to improve our daily lives. Thank you for needlessly asking that question."

Why would that just suddenly happen in that time period? Why couldn't it happen before? Improved hygiene and such is a valid argument for reduction of germs and bacteria. But I mean, there are still going to be diseases that can be caught, even when they disappear for awhile. The best way to stay protected is to get a vaccine and everyone needs these vaccines.

"That signifies that this is in the past. Second, draw your attention to "a year." This does not specify which year, and I can naturally assume that it was in the begginnings of its emergence, back when people did not develop a resistance to it. Also, 5,000 deaths is actually not a lot."

Yes, very good job, it was in the past. A year means every year, not just one year. But to be specific, the Pertussis vaccine was developed in the 1930s, and saved those 5,000 to 10,000 lives lost. My opponent decides that 5,000 (the smaller number) is not a big amount of deaths. Pertussis came about in 1906, and hurt people until the vaccine came around. An average of 7,500 people are dying a year. This lasts for approximately 24 years. This is plain ridiculous. It comes out to 180,000 people dying! Tell me that's not big!

"The number of problems are pretty big, as I told you already."

Sure, as you plagarized already. Anyway, the benefit is much bigger, as I told you already...
According to a 2003 report by researchers at the Pediatric Academic Society, childhood vaccinations in the US prevent about 10.5 million cases of infectious illness and 33,000 deaths per year. Look in the previous round for the source.

"Thank you for pointing out that they think that they are safer without the vaccinations. Where, in my arguments, do I state that they think they are safer? They merely don't take the vaccinations, believing that it stands in the way of God, Allah, or whatever they believe..."

There's absolutely no need to yell. I know you have poor conduct and you're certainly not helping it out here. Anyway, when I pointed out that vaccines are safer, I felt like adding some additional info. Anyway, that's exactly the problem. Children should not be allowed to skip vaccinations because of their religious beliefs. They're putting every single child at risk, including themselves! If this argument "is easily refuted" then why can't you properly refute it? You didn't list any statistics or sources, and you don't show the "moral sense."

"Um..as far as I know, stating statistics with the exact wording is not called plagarizing. Thus, I can ignore all your refutation here:"

You yourself is not a source. You don't bother to list sources. To plagiarize (I spelled it wrong before) means "to take without referencing from someone else's writing or speech." That is exactly what you did.

"However, scientifically unsupportable is not a big issue. There are many things that we do not know in science, and you cannot ignore the fact that 5,500 cases of autism have occurred."

Scientifically unsupportable is a big issue. Universities studied it and found that there is absolutely no link to autism and vaccines. Things that we don't know about are things outside of this universe and in the deepest corners of the Earth. Not right in front of our noses. 5,500 cases doesn't mean it truly happened. Some could be false claims and lies, and the others could be true, however, that doesn't mean vaccines are the cause for autism. There is a theory that Ultrasound causes autism, as well.

Basically, my opponent argues "human rights." People who believe they have "rights" and decide to skip out on vaccines put their entire environment at danger. They can pass the disease onto other people who will suffer as well. They can die themselves, just because of their "right" to not protect themselves and in turn, harm themselves. People should not have the right to put themselves and others at risk.

"However, scientifically unsupportable is not a big issue. There are many things that we do not know in science, and you cannot ignore the fact that 5,500 cases of autism have occurred."

"First of all, i would like to point out that if other children are vaccinated, they should be safe...?
Also, if their children are at risk, that is their problem. They decided, using their rights, not to vaccinate their children and therefore should be allowed to make that decision for a minor."

If you read my entire argument, you would find that vaccines are beneficial, but children aren't 100% safe. They will just have better defense against it and won't be effected as much.

"Plagurized... right back at you, hypocrite.
Also, using my point, developing a natural immune system is important for other reasons and diseases. Vaccinations include anti-body depressants which allow you to get sick easier. We must allow our own bodies to fight back."

It was not plagiarized. I cited my source. Anyways, this refutation is ridiculous. What happens when people try to get a "natural immune system"? They get the disease and THEY DIE. There is no way to develop a natural immune system on your own, or even with help, with the knowledge we currently possess. Vaccinations are beneficial and they prevent diseases from seriously harming your body.

"IMPORTANT NOTICE: THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT MANDATORY OR NOT, NOT WHETHER OR NOT IT IS GOOD FOR YOU."

This makes absolutely no difference in the debate. Vaccines should be mandatory because they are helpful! It's as simple as that!

"Also, in your ridiculous conclusion, I would like to point out that you started first, giving me less time and space to refute your arguments, whereas you had two speeches. And you can only truly claim that after I have finished posting that debate."

I would like to point out that you told me to start first. I complied.

"Also, you gave a fallacy stating that you have refuted all of my points. However, the fact that it is the parents' rights to choose is untouched."

The point was never clear. However, I have now refuted all of your points.

"Many people are severely allergic to some chemicals in the vaccine. Doctors may not know this, and the result of the vaccine may be disastrous."

According to this site [2], a small percentage of people are at a small risk due to vaccinations. Precautions must be taken if you ever have an allergic reaction, as well. Don't be careless.

Arguments:

1. Vaccinations are beneficial and should be mandatory for this reason.
2. People can spread contracted diseases to others and putting everyone at risk.
3. There is much more benefit than harm.

I await the response.

Sources:
1. http://www.vaccineinformation.org...
2. http://www.suite101.com...
Debate Round No. 3
debateboy

Con

Refutations:

"I listed sources. You gave none"

a. My opponent has stated that I have not given any sources
- The US Court Federal Claims Office of Special Masters
- National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims
- a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan.
b. I would not call the above no sources
c. My opponent has falsely accused me, and should therefore have conduct points graded off.
d. I did not copy word-for-word from a website
- I had read it, and then typed all their arguments by hand.
- another false accusation: "I bet you didn't want ANYONE to know you were even plagarizing!"
- My opponent is constantly assuming things and falsely accusing me, this should be graded off.

"'Excuse me, Strike, but how would one vaccination cover 20 million children? Just pointing that out there.'

I know that in some countries, parents may not be able to afford vaccines for their children. Nonetheless, if everyone had vaccines, they wouldn't contract the disease."

I asked: "...how would one vaccination cover 20 million children?"
- my opponent replied "i know that in some countries, parents may not be able to afford vaccines for their children
- completely irrelevant to the question.

"Why would that just suddenly happen in that time period?"

- maybe it was a coincidence...?
- contradiction: "why would that suddenly happen in that time period?...even when they dissapear for a while"
- you denied the existence of the improvement in hygiene, etc, yet acknowledged it a couple of sentences later.

"saved those 5,000 to 10,000 lives lost"

You cannot save lives that are already lost.

"Pertussis came about in 1906, and hurt people until the vaccine came around. An average of 7,500 people are dying a year. This lasts for approximately 24 years. This is plain ridiculous. It comes out to 180,000 people dying! Tell me that's not big!"

Frankly, if that number is big, then vaccines don't work. If you consider the number that vaccines fail to save "big," you are saying that vaccines do not save this "big" amount of people.

"According to a 2003 report by researchers at the Pediatric Academic Society, childhood vaccinations in the US prevent about 10.5 million cases of infectious illness and 33,000 deaths per year."

This amount of deaths is because we are too reliant on vaccinations! A recent study in 2006 conducted by Dr. James Marswell, quotes:

"...[vaccinations]can cause many deaths, not because it isn't used for some people, but because it is used by the majority. I recently conducted a study and gave two people the influenza vaccine. I gave another [pair]of people no vaccine. Two weeks later, I infected them with chicken pox bacteria...The latter proved to fight against bacterial germination better..."

"There's absolutely no need to yell"

There is no way to italicize nor bolden, so I must (sadly) sustain to capital letters.

According to the Constitution, (to refute your later statements,) people have the right to:
a. express or perform their religion
b. parents are allowed to treat their minors as they please, not to the extent of child abuse

How is one person not being vaccinated a risk to others? If they are vaccinated, they should not be in danger!

you don't show the "moral sense."
Thank you for your wonderful conduct.

To plagiarize (I spelled it wrong before) means "to take without referencing from someone else's writing or speech."

However, listing statistics is not plagiarizing. You even plagiarized yourself from the same source!
Also, I listed tons of sources, just not in the same way that you did. Do I have to bother to do it? Also, your entire speech is without sources!

"Things that we don't know about are things outside of this universe and in the deepest corners of the Earth. "
Can you scientifically explain how we got our consciousness? How minerals, unliving elements, can create a living being? Life is right in front of our eyes! There are many things that we do not yet know.

"People should not have the right to put themselves and others at risk."
As I stated a myriad of times, if the others are vaccinated, they should be safe!

"'First of all, i would like to point out that if other children are vaccinated, they should be safe...?
Also, if their children are at risk, that is their problem. They decided, using their rights, not to vaccinate their children and therefore should be allowed to make that decision for a minor.'

If you read my entire argument, you would find that vaccines are beneficial, but children aren't 100% safe. They will just have better defense against it and won't be effected as much."

They will not have better defense against it and will be affected as much, if not greater, according to the study I quoted above.

"It was not plagiarized. I cited my source. Anyways, this refutation is ridiculous. What happens when people try to get a "natural immune system"? They get the disease and THEY DIE. There is no way to develop a natural immune system on your own, or even with help, with the knowledge we currently possess. Vaccinations are beneficial and they prevent diseases from seriously harming your body."

Hm...then how come our own history teacher last year stated "I don't believe in Western Medicines. I believe in Chinese Herbs, to build up our own natural defenses?" Putting personal experiences aside, I have a source to back this up:
"to work boosting your immune system at the same time." -http://probiotics.mercola.com...
"Immune boosters..." -http://www.askdrsears.com...
All these sources talk about making your immune system stronger. Can you deny that there are ways do it?
Plus, consider the source above that I stated, the experiment in 2006

"Vaccines should be mandatory because they are helpful"
If they are helpful, they are a good way to help prevent sicknesses! That doesn't mean that it should be mandatory.
If you read above, you would've seen me say that some people are allergic to chemicals that can cause bad effects on a person. Therefore, those people should be allowed to not vaccinate!
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ALLERGIC SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A CHOICE TO NOT VACCINATE, WHICH THEREFORE WINS THIS DEBATE!

I did indeed tell you to start first, but you cannot take that to your advantage and say that I didn't touch some of your arguments.

Taking it from there, please forfeit the last round, making us both go three times, stabilizing this debate.
IF YOU DO NOT READ THIS, STRIKE, THE READERS WILL NONETHELESS NOT GRADE YOU FOR YOUR FINAL SPEECH.

Your meager two sources are not linked up with any of your refutations or statements
I must add, your three last points are not allowed to be brought up in the final round. REaders, I have refuted his points and he has brought up illegal points on the refutation round.

[1]Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children.31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan.

[2]Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to free exercise of their religion.

[3]Vaccines are often unnecessary in may cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically BEFORE IMMUNIZATION BECAME AVAILABLE. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification,effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition.

For these reasons, I have clearly won this debate.
XStrikeX

Pro

Refutations

You just now listed 3 sources with no links for the audience and me to make sure.
I listed links so that you can check my sources.

"My opponent has falsely accused me, and should therefore have conduct points graded off."

This is completely ridiculous. You're the one who is screaming by writing in caps, I did most certainly not "falsely accuse" you, and you only listed these sources now. You insulted me by calling me a hypocrite.

"another false accusation: "I bet you didn't want ANYONE to know you were even plagarizing!"

Well, I mean, why didn't you bother citing your source? Citing your source is a good thing! But those were not your words and it was complete plagarism.

"completely irrelevant to the question."

Is this honestly your response? If everyone was vaccinated, then no one would be dramatically effected by any of these dangerous diseases. You gave no refutation and this point stands.

"contradiction: "why would that suddenly happen in that time period?...even when they dissapear for a while"
you denied the existence of the improvement in hygiene, etc, yet acknowledged it a couple of sentences later."

What are you talking about? There was no contradiction and no refutation here. You even said "coincidence?" You have no evidence to back up this point.

"You cannot save lives that are already lost."

Vaccines didn't exist back then. If they vaccines back then, then those lives would have been saved and people could have lived much longer.

"Frankly, if that number is big, then vaccines don't work. If you consider the number that vaccines fail to save "big," you are saying that vaccines do not save this "big" amount of people."

That number is extremely big for a disease. Vaccines do work. That's why all those deaths have been stopping.

"This amount of deaths is because we are too reliant on vaccinations!"

No... Vaccines prevent many illnesses and prevent deaths as well... How does it make any sense that vaccines would cause that much damage?

"...[vaccinations]can cause many deaths, not because it isn't used for some people, but because it is used by the majority..."
- Dr. James Marswell

Are you kidding me? Everyone, type this name in Google. The guy doesn't even exist and the argument isn't even thoroughly explained!

"How is one person not being vaccinated a risk to others? If they are vaccinated, they should not be in danger!"

Once again, one person contracting a disease can spread it to more and more people through germs. Vaccinated people can still catch it, but they will have smaller symptoms.

"However, listing statistics is not plagiarizing. You even plagiarized yourself from the same source!
Also, I listed tons of sources, just not in the same way that you did. Do I have to bother to do it? Also, your entire speech is without sources!"

You listed 3. In the final round. If you even have been looking at my argument, I have given numerous sources. Copying arguments word for word without citing them is plagiarism.

"Can you scientifically explain how we got our consciousness? How minerals, unliving elements, can create a living being? Life is right in front of our eyes! There are many things that we do not yet know."

This is more complicated things and is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

"They will not have better defense against it and will be affected as much, if not greater, according to the study I quoted above."

Fake study. Never sourced. No website. They will be affected a little less, according to the site you plagiarized from.

"If they are helpful, they are a good way to help prevent sicknesses! That doesn't mean that it should be mandatory."

People will not take vaccines if they are optional. But vaccines are good for everyone. You need to take them so that your body will be benefited and there will be good.

"For these reasons, I have clearly won this debate."

Obviously, I disagree. You had poorer conduct by constantly using caps, meaning you are shouting, you plagiarized from sites, and you insulted me. Spelling and grammar was okay. I saw a few errors, but I guess that's okay. Arguments are poor and will soon be refuted. Sources is what I dominated in, seeing as I listed more and you only mentioned yours in the last round.

Refutations of CON Main Arguments

1. My opponent has stated that people have religious rights and should be allowed to not be vaccinated. This is a very ignorant move. They are putting their entire society at risk of contracting a virus or disease and putting everyone's lives at stake if there is a life-threatening disease. I have never heard that it is a sin to take a vaccine and my opponent has never explained this.

2. Vaccines can be harmful. No, this is wrong, vaccines saves many lives and prevents many diseases. The vaccine causes more benefit compared to the harm done and helps many people in the world right now. It has prevented disease breakouts and we know lives are safe.

These are the main arguments that I got from the Opposition.

Proposition's Arguments

1. The vaccine is good for everyone. It has saved lives, stopped diseases, and helped everyone. Not taking it means you are missing out on something very good. Many people have died before vaccines were invented and when they were, all those deaths dropped a huge amount.

2. People who are un-vaccinated can obtain harmful diseases and spread it to their families and friends who will suffer because of ignorance. You are putting everyone at risk and you should not be doing so.

For these reasons, please vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Felicity 7 years ago
Felicity
"IF YOU DO NOT READ THIS, STRIKE, THE READERS WILL NONETHELESS NOT GRADE YOU FOR YOUR FINAL SPEECH."

Really? News to me. I was under the impression that the readers can grade in any way they see befitting.
Posted by annhasle 7 years ago
annhasle
Dude, really? Plagiarism? That's definitely weak... This is a debate site. Take it more seriously than that.
Posted by debateboy 7 years ago
debateboy
wtf man... i made this debate 4 speeches per so that we both could have 3 speeches.3v4 is downright unfair. If you take pleasure in winning this way, I have no objections. I don't consider this really losing, so go ahead and try pushing it in my face =P
Posted by XStrikeX 7 years ago
XStrikeX
No, you told me to speak. So I did.
Posted by debateboy 7 years ago
debateboy
please don't respond to the last round, so both of us can hae 3 speeches
Posted by XStrikeX 7 years ago
XStrikeX
I may have take a lot of time to post arguments because I have two other 5 round debates going on...
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by XStrikeX 7 years ago
XStrikeX
debateboyXStrikeXTied
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 bss10506 7 years ago
bss10506
debateboyXStrikeXTied
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:61 
Vote Placed by annhasle 7 years ago
annhasle
debateboyXStrikeXTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by debateboy 7 years ago
debateboy
debateboyXStrikeXTied
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 superdebater 7 years ago
superdebater
debateboyXStrikeXTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by arethusa668 7 years ago
arethusa668
debateboyXStrikeXTied
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