The Instigator
scorepit
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

mandatory vaccination

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 1 vote the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2018 Category: Health
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 553 times Debate No: 106515
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

scorepit

Con

Mandatory vaccinations are wrong. You can't force people to have a needle stuck in them and to be given vaccinations. Those sort of things you can't enforce on people. The idea that this is more beneficial to overall public health is a bit exaggerated. I don't take flu shots and i've hardly ever gotten the flu. And it's never been too serious.
lannan13

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate and wish them good luck.

Contention 1: Utilitarianism and the Ethic of Care

This contentions will be devided into two seperate sections and I shall choose to over over Utilitarianism first.

Utilitarianism

For this case of Utilitarianism I will be focusing on John Stuart Mill's case of Utility here. We have to look at the Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number of Sentient Beings. This means that we have to look at the needs of the whole vs. a few individuals. Another key thing we have to look at from Mill is Net Pleasure. If the vaccinations create a greater net pleasure than pain then it must be implamented for the betterment of soceity. [1] Before my opponent comes in and argues that shots hurt, Mill goes and argues that short term pain and pleasure are irrelevant and long term pleasure and pain is what should be looked at in general.

Throughout history the human race has been ravaged by illnesses. After the beginning of the Age of Reason science advancement has launched into the field of medical science and illnesses have begun to be cured. Under the status quo they have found that these children vaccinations have cured 90-99% of these diseases. [2] This is something that is already pushing towards the betterment of soceity and is something that will factor in to the over all status of the soceity as a whole. The United Nations have found that these vaccinations save 2.5 million children a year and over 285 children are saved every hour. [3] Another key thing is that the CDC estimates that 322 million cases of childhood illnesses were prevented throughout the United States as 732,000 children were saved, which once again helps our soceity by increasing future developement. [12]

The next key area of analysis is that of Herd immunity. This is the method of greater amounts of immunization reduces the possibilites of a disease. With the infection rate be driven down this, once again, moves the disease to a possible erradication. [4] This has been shown time and time again that when this threshold for this level of Herd immunity is not met then the likelihood of a break out increases. The greatest example of this occured in 2011, when 49 states failed to meet the Herd immunity level and the greatest outbreak of Whooping Cough had broken out since 1955. [5] This outright shows that there is a gargantuan demand to meet this level of Herd Immunity or we will begin massive breakouts of diseases again. The same occured in 2009, when the people who had failed to have their children vacinated had to have their children quarentined due to the lack of vaccinations had caused the 48 children to contract the measles. [6] Thus right off the bat we can see that there's a dire need for the manditory vaccinations in order to protect the soceity from disease and death.

We can see that this argument has a massive impact in todays debat to the point of if this plan isn't implamented by the US Federal Government then we will see a detteroation of the very fabric of soceity that we have fought so hard to defend and build up in order to create a stable soceity. With the detteroation of the soceity then there will be a massive break down to the microlevel, which I'll get into next, and it will break the very foundations of soceity.

Ethic of Care

The Ethic of Care, or also known as the feminism argument, revolves around the protection of special relationships. The Utilitarian argument reguards the improtance of the protection of the soceity and this argument will get down to the individual level. The Ethic of Care values special relationships like that of family, but as well as the relationships between generations as the Eco-feminism argument pushes for the preservation of future genreations. [7] In order to win this argument I must show that the manditory protects and preserves future generations.

Doctors today even recommend pregnant women to get vaccinations again in order to protect their children from pre-mature deaths. This is a key issue that is needed to protec the unborn as they are an immidate generation that is being saved from death. In the 1960's before the vaccination for ruebella, also known as Germany Measles, there was 20,000 child premature deaths which was and increase from the previous 11,000. [8] Mothers who get these vaccinations not only save their children, but have a higher chance of preventing birth defects. This again is a key argument here as we can see that the saving of future generations have helped saved people and a long chain of further generations. If this plan isn't implamented then we will see the breakdown of the family unit and a cause of harm at a microlevel which will harm soceity as a whole at the macrolevel. This will have a ripple affect with a great deal of ramifications and if this plan isn't passed.

Contention 2: Economic Impact

Now that I have already shown that doing this is ethically justifiable, I will now move to why this is economically sound and is benefitical for the United States Federal Government to implament this plan.

The CDC has shown that in the past 20 years the US has saved $1.38 Trillion in costs that would have occured each year. This means that the savings would have been well over $20 Trillion! [9] Though this maybe true another key factor that we would have to look at is how effective is the industry itself. They have found that for every $1 we have put into the DTaP vaccination we $27 and as for the MMR vaccination, though it may be smaller, for every dollar that we put into the vaccination we save $13 in total costs. This is already showing that we can save economic strength and increase the American powerhouse economy if this plan is implamented. In the case in California that I had described earlier it had major costs. Over $120,000 out of the economy due to the lack of working from the parents and other issues that arrose out of the issue. [6]

When it comes to simple illensses like the flu the CDC states that it does it's toll on the parental units is that of it costing anywhere from $222 to $1,456 which is extremely harmful in today's economy for the average family and this even isn't accounting for the additional $300 to $4,000 in medical expsenses which just continue to destroy the family unit by digging them deeper and deeper into debt. [10] Under the current Affordable Care Act it is possible to get vaccinations even without copay as those poor families who didn't have the ability to get these vaccinations before will have a greater amount of vaccinations which would not only increase the amount of economic effiecentcy, but will also lead to an increase and betterment of the individual as they will save a massive amount of money from getting these vaccinations. [11]


Sources
1. (http://tinyurl.com...)
2. American Academy of Pediatrics, "Vaccine Safety: The Facts," www.aap.org, 2008
3. Shot@Life, "The Solution: Vaccines," www.shotatlife.org (accessed June 4, 2014)
4. US Department of Health and Human Services, "Community Immunity ('Herd Immunity')," www.vaccines.gov (accessed June 5, 2014)
5. Mark Fishetti, "Too Many Children Go Unvaccinated," www.scientificamerican.com, May 14, 2013
6. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)
7. MacGregor, Sherilyn (2006).Beyond mothering earth: ecological citizenship and the politics of care. Vancouver: UBC Press. p. 286
8. CDC, "About Rubella," www.cdc.gov, Apr. 29, 2011
9. Bahar Gholipour, "Vaccination Has Saved 732,000 Children's Lives Since 1994, Says Report," www.huffingtonpost.com, Apr. 25, 2014
10. CDC, "CDC Study: Treating Children's Flu Illness Costly," www.cdc.gov, May 21, 2012
11. US Department of Health and Human Services, "The Affordable Care Act and Immunization," www.hhs.gov, Jan. 20, 2012
12. Bahar Gholipour, "Vaccination Has Saved 732,000 Children's Lives Since 1994, Says Report," www.huffingtonpost.com, Apr. 25, 2014
Debate Round No. 1
scorepit

Con

Forcing people to get vaccinated is uncostitutional, and should ALWAYS be your choice. Even though all that stuff you said is mostly true we can never force people. Some people just flat out believe vaccinations are bad, if they don't want them then that's fine. Most people get vaccinated anyway, the only thing this law would help to do is prevent a small amount of people from not getting vaccinated.
lannan13

Pro

My opponent has conceded a great deal of arguments, but he does has a few left and I shall refute those.

Consitutionality

My opponent states that forcing individuals to get vaccines is unconstitutional, but it's not actually. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constiution reads:

"1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" [1]

I have defined what the general welfare is in my first contention that I have provided in my opening arguments in my Utilitarianism arguments. It is for the betterment of the general welfare of the nation that these vaccines be manditory. I extend my arguments across.

The last argument that my opponenet argues is that some people don't want to get vaccinated, so it doesn't matter. This is not true. I have shown in my first round of what happens when heard immunity drops, we see tons of people die and the economy suffers. Not requiring vaccines will have a substantial harm to the general public.


Sources
1. US Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.
Debate Round No. 2
scorepit

Con

General health might be increased but think about this. What about those that just don't want vaccines? What are you gonna do? Secure them to a chair and stick a needle in them? Or send them to jail? All because they didn't want vaccination? That would be way over the top.
lannan13

Pro

My opponent has dropped all points in this debate and I extend them across the table.

My opponent's last round is irrelivant in the scope of this debate as we are debating the merrits of mandatory vaccinations, not the punishments against them. There would likely be fines attatched to it or having things like how unvaccinated children cannot atttend schools. Stuff like this would be how the situation would likely be gone about. Not litterally force them or jail them. I agree that would be over the top that's why these things would have to be more realistic such as the example that I have brought up.

With that I thank you and urge you to vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 6 months ago
dsjpk5
Ram, I think you meant to vote for Pro.
Posted by whiteflame 6 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Ramshutu// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments

[*Reason removal*] Conduct is insufficiently explained. While the voter is welcome to see misconduct in a lack of engagement on substantive issues presented in the debate, the voter is not allowed to award a conduct point on that basis. Unless one of the debaters a) engages in behavior that is clearly insulting, b) forfeits a round, or c) goes against general or specific rules of debate, the voter may not award a point on this basis. The voter is welcome to give arguments that are dropped more weight within the debate, but that is not sufficient reason to award conduct.
************************************************************************
Posted by Ramshutu 6 months ago
Ramshutu
And others, which were well sourced, he tied them all together with explaining necessity of mandatory vaccinations.

Cons argument were mostly about questioning how mandatory vaccination would be carried out; using opinion, no sources and little in the way of argument: premise1 + premise2 + logic = conclusion.
Posted by Ramshutu 6 months ago
Ramshutu
Conduct to pro: con did not seem to engage at all, and constitutes disrespectful behaviour considering the effort pro made in his arguments. when pro makes a long, well sourced argument, it takes time and effort, throwing together a handful of sentences, with no sources: it is highly disrespectfully of pros timed

Finally arguments to pro. Apparently, despite accepting my vote for conduct, I have to analyze in detail cons obvious-non argument in order to award points to pro. I can see the vote moderators point, after all; how many times have we seen a photo-finish in NASCAR to check whether the person who crossed the line, of the person that rolled their car on the first lap won?

Pro provided an argument: he created a premise (for example that mandatory vaccination is cheaper, or less kids get sick), then attempted to argue the premise by providing (dun dun duuunnnn) an argument where he showed the cost of vaccination is cheaper than the cost of other care, and provided reasons why vaccinating child a, can help child b.

Perhaps con is a wise zen master, so let's analyze his pearls of wisdom: "Some people just flat out believe vaccinations are bad, if they don't want them then that's fine." Shame on everyone! Why on earth should we mark con down for arguments for gems like this! It's obviously well sourced and well justified proof rather than a hastily asserted opinion that doesn't even dress itself up as an argument!

Or how about cons response to the detailed and outlined health benefits: "General health might be increased but think about this. What about those that just don't want vaccines? What are you gonna do? Secure them to a chair and stick a needle in them?" That certainly invalidated the whole logically thought out detail pro put in.

This is literally insane I have to spell this out: con did not make an argument; he through one of two hastily writtenn opinions. Pro made detailed points to justify mandatory vaccination using ethics of car, eco
Posted by Ramshutu 6 months ago
Ramshutu
7 points to Con. Reasons for voting in order to satisfy the ridiculous and overburdensome moderation that is starting to turn vote reporting into a tool : RFD:

Sources to pro: only pro used any sources at all; so by default pro had, by definition "the most reliable sources", but as the vote Moderator has somehow decided that when one person does f**k all in a debate, not providing source doesn't seem to count towards sources, he has forced me to analyze them anyway; pro cited sources such as the CDC, and scientific papers: con cited sources such as "blank space", and "telepathic signals", neither of which I was able to receive. As the scientific credentials of cons blank space could not assertained: and pro cited genuine scientific studies, sources to pro.

Spelling and grammar to pro. Again: due to the overzealous vote moderators, I am strangely forced to explain what stilted grammar and run on sentences are:

For example: "Those sort of things you can't enforce on people. The idea that this is more beneficial to overall public health is a bit exaggerated. I don't take flu shots and i've hardly ever gotten the flu. And it's never been too serious."

We have an example of various poorly structured sentences and poor grammar including a non-capitalized I, a run on sentence using and as the starting point, and stilted small sentences that make the whole thing hard to read... and that was in cons opening round.

And this: "General health might be increased but think about this. What about those that just don't want vaccines? What are you gonna do? Secure them to a chair and stick a needle in them? Or send them to jail? All because they didn't want vaccination? That would be way over the top."

There are about 3 too many question marks, and two too many sentences jumbled together in a difficult to read mess.

I found no such error in pros argument. S&G to pro.
Posted by dsjpk5 6 months ago
dsjpk5
Excellent job, as usual, Lannan!
Posted by Fluffcat 6 months ago
Fluffcat
Stabby needles.
Posted by Thoughtmoldbreak 6 months ago
Thoughtmoldbreak
Vaccinations are like security or government working properly. The problem is that you never will know (currently) if they work properly, because the only thing you will hear about is if they fail. To base a success or working ratio on this criteria is a fallacy. One must exclusively look at statistical data to conclude the actual results. I understand perfectly not wanting to do something against your will, but this is for the good of the many.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 6 months ago
Ragnar
scorepitlannan13Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: "Even though all that stuff you said is mostly true" with whatever the untrue part was unchallenged. This was practically a concession ... Con is opposed due to a personal liberties argument, but it's generally agreed such freedom ends when the harm to others begins, and pro laid out a compelling case for the macro level harm inflicted to avoid mere discomfort at the micro level. ... Sources for the sheer work pro put into citations, which included three separate .gov sites in agreement with him, and generally supported the magnitude of the problem stated. ... S&G tied as it never became a distraction from the debate. Conduct likewise.