The Instigator
beastboy838
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Cherymenthol
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

publichealth concerns justiffy compulsory immunization

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,877 times Debate No: 10295
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (8)

 

beastboy838

Pro

I would like to offer the following definitions. According to Merriam Webster's Dictionary: to justify is to prove or show to be just, right or reasonable. Just is to be in conformity with what is morally upright and good. According to Random House Unabridged Dictionary compulsory is to be required; mandatory. Public health, according to medterms.com, is medicine that is concerned with the health of the community as a whole. Also according to Random House Unabridged Dictionary concern is to relate to; be connected with.

My value is morality. Morality is to be in good or right conduct. The resolution is asking whether compulsory immunizations are justifiable which as stated in the definitions mean they are moral. Thus morality should be the value for this round.

My criterion is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism states that the morality of an action is determined by how it affects utility. So if an action maximizes happiness/utility then it is morale. This achieves morality because with immunizations we are saving more lives thus creating more utility and thus it is morale.

Contention 1)
When members of society go unimmunized it is dangerous for society as a whole. John Mill's harm principle states that "The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." Then the people in the society become potential hosts for disease and allow the disease to be spread. When more lives are saved there is more happiness which is utilitarianism and in turn achieves morality. Therefore thousands could possibly die if that one person doesn't take that vaccine shot to save others and that with minimal side effects of the shot.

Contention 2)
Immunizations are effective in eradicating disease. According to the CDC after the small pox immunization was given out it eliminated 100% of the disease, diphtheria by 99.99%, and measles by 99.98% and polio by 100% and tetanus by 98%. Also vaccinations provide direct and indirect protection because if one person slips through the cracks herd immunity protects that person. According to The Western Journal of Medicine during 1988 through 1990, California experienced its worst measles epidemic in more than a decade, with 16,400 reported cases, 3,390 hospital admissions, and 75 deaths. The major cause of the epidemic was low immunization levels among preschool-aged children and young adults. Rates of complications, admission to hospital, and death were surprisingly high. Outbreak control efforts met with immediate success. But cost of medical care and outbreak control for the epidemic costed an estimated $30.9 million. The Western Journal of Medicine states that unless the level of immunization in preschool-aged children is increased, this type of epidemic will probably recur. So immunizations are effective in getting rid of disease. With compulsory immunizations it would allow herd immunity to benefit society.

Contention 3)
Immunizations protect society from the negative impacts on the economy caused by disease. "It has long been recognized that a malarious community is an impoverished community." That is from T.H. Weller, a Novel prize winner. Another expert on this is James Klieenstein from Iowa State University, and he talks about how disease causes loss of revenue with its increased death rate. It also puts a burden on the health care system to treat all of those infected which must in some way be payed, most likely through taxes. Dead or sick people cannot work and with our bad economy the worst thing that can happen if millions of people who don't show up to work because they are sick from simple treatable diseases like the one in California as reported in my second contention. First we would have to pay the sick a sick leave which is $21 per day on average but multiple that by a million. Now we have to pay for their rehab, that would be another $17 a day multiply that by a million and we would have to take up losses for every hour they do not work the average is $18.56 an hour multiply that by a million. How much more money do we have to lend from china to pay our bills, well I'll tell you $56,560,000. That's more than half of what we spend on the Iraq war in a year. With compulsory immunizations all of this can be avoided thus maximizing utility and achieving morality.
Cherymenthol

Con

IF WE OVERSHOT OUR CARRYING CAPACITY. WE, AS A SPECIES, WILL BE ON THE BRINK OF EXTINCTION. Zerker 2008 [Sally F., professor emeritus and senior scholar at York University, National Post, "Malthus was right", 7/11/08


Malthus saw the 18th-century phenomenon of continuous population increase as a threat to human civilization. Left unchecked, be believed, populations would double themselves every 25 years, a growth rate that would quickly outstrip the available food supply. This Malthusian idea soon took on the mantra of certainty: Unlimited population growth has only ended in disastrous famines and starvation.

In recent months, food prices have risen dramatically and suddenly. In the past year, the price of wheat is up 120%. The costs of cooking oil, rice and other staples have doubled since January. For the 1.5-billion people who live on less than $2 a day, food typically accounts for almost their entire meager budget. Soaring food prices represent a calamity for these people, which explains why: At current inflated prices, we can expect outright starvation in the poorer regions of the world why food riots have broken out across the globe.

But it is not only the dramatic rise in food prices that are a clear indignation of this eminent threat, A study by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) called the Global Environment Outlook which involved 1,400 scientists and took five years to prepare comes to similar conclusions. It "found that human consumption had far outstripped available resources. Each person on Earth now requires a third more land to supply his or her needs than the planet can supply." It faults a failure to "respond to or recognize the magnitude of the challenges facing the people and the environment of the planet... 'The systematic destruction of the Earth's natural and nature-based resources has reached a point where the economic viability of economies is being challenged - and where the bill we hand to our children may prove impossible to pay'.

For these reasons and more I value Quality Life, in this aspect of the word I mean it to occur when an individual is able to reach and acquire the maximum amount of resources needed. When this occurs an individual is able to flourish and can truly be happy because he has had more than just his basic needs met. And in order to achieve quality life we must ensure my value criterion, of not exceeding the carrying capacity, is preserved. Carry capacity is the population size of the species that the environment can sustain indefinitely, given the food, habitat, water and other necessities available in the environment. In comparison to the human race we can see that resources are strained to the point where humans cannot live comfortably and safely, all in all it is safe to say that human beings are overpopulated. Overpopulated does not depend only on the size or density of the population, but on the ratio of population to available sustainable resources.

Peter H. Gleick, President, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, Oakland, California reported that," Social water issues can be measured by looking at per-capita water availability or use; i.e., the water available or used in a region per person. Assuming that the world's renewable freshwater supply is relatively constant, the average amount of water available per person in 1850 was about 43,000 cubic meters per year. By 1990, this figure had dropped to 9,000 cubic meters per year, simply because of the increase in global population. When measured this way, the spatial and temporal distribution problems become even more evident.
As we can see we are becoming dangerously close to exceeding our carrying capacity and in some areas we all ready have.

Contention 1) DISEASE PLAYS A MAJOR ROLE IN CHECKING POPULATION EXPANSION. MODERN MEDICINE HAS DESTROYED THIS NATURAL CHECK. Hardin 1991 [Garret, PROFESSOR EMERITUS HUMAN ECOLOGY AT UCSB, "From Shortage to Longage: Forty Years in the Population Vineyards"


The potential of exponential growth in the human population is a standing threat of human welfare. Until very recently, however, this threat was mitigated by the sporadic eruption of such crowd-diseases as dysentery, cholera and plague which, at their worst, could wipe out a quarter to a half of a population in a year or two.
Or viruses, such as Adeno-associated virus; which acts by rendering males infertile, were to occur infertility on a large-scale would happen, causing a mass scale viral epidemic and thus resulting in a natural human population-control over time.

However supposed "pre-cautionary" measures such as inoculation and vaccination has made it so disease and viruses such as these are unable to occur and to and ensure the population is in check. This is true because the fact of the matter is that vaccinations work. As my opponent surly agrees and has expressed in their case "Vaccines save lives". However as I have proved this is where the problem occurs. When vaccinations save the lives of individuals who ought to have been sickened and possibly killed by nature we are tampering with the cycle of life. When vaccinations prevent nature from performing customary population checks, the world becomes overpopulated and the overall value of life for individuals diminishes for all.



Contention 2) OVERPOPULATION LEADS TO GENOCIDAL WARS. Kodel 2004 [Gary S., M.D., family physician in private practice in Los Angeles, volunteer for The Children's Nature Institute, 2004, World Future Society, Global Strategies Forum "Why Are We So Vulnerable?"

Overpopulation caused crowded living conditions with enhanced competition for scarce resources, which contributed to the development of a style of war unique to civilization: the destruction of human cultures causing reductions in human diversity - genocide - rendering humanity vulnerable to changes leading to human extinction.

A clear example of this is the situation currently underway in Darfur. Darfur's current genocidal warfare can be blamed on overpopulation. The gradual reduction in annual precipitation, coupled with a growing population, had begun a cycle in which increased use of arable land along the southern edge of the Sahara increased the rate of desertification, which in turn increased the use of the remaining arable land. As a result the region was plunged into a horrific famine.
The World Health Organization reported that a campaign against measles reached over 2 million children in Darfur with vaccinations to treat and cure the illness against measles, and another campaign was launched to reach another 150 000 children from 9 months to 15 years in remote areas of North Darfur controlled by the Sudanese Liberation Movement (SLM). Now at a glance this may seem like terrific new but put into perspective it is the opposite. When these children are cured they become a viable target for the SLM to abduct and brainwash into a soldier, or they risk becoming they next target.

As we can clearly see the situation in Darfur is horrendous and due to the fact that the population wasn't checked a genocidal war broke out, which sadly will most likely lead to the extinction of yet another culture.



=========
REFUTATIONS
=========

Framework: Con solves for better and no warrants to support the claim that lives saved = utility, the contrary may be assumed because of my case.
C1: Mill also said "Over his own body man is Sovereign", so dismiss contention because of hypocrisy.
C2: Extend, but keep in mind "Lives saved does not equal utility".
C3: Individuals who die from disease open jobs for healthy, helping economy.

Thanks and vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1
beastboy838

Pro

beastboy838 forfeited this round.
Cherymenthol

Con

This forfeit signifies two things:

1. The extensions of all my arguments, because the resolution/ debate is specifically LD style no new arguments may permitted. So I have one the round.

2. The lack of respect he has to me, numerous times I have seen my opponent online yet he has never made an effort to comment or post a response, he had 72 hours.

So please vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
beastboy838

Pro

beastboy838 forfeited this round.
Cherymenthol

Con

Once again unfortunate... Please give me the win seeing as my opponent has forfeited.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
True, I left him several mesages thanking him and asking if it was alright. I actually had to cut this case down to size, thus eliminating the citiations... But i agree plagarism is bad, but in debate especially online, people are cutting and pasting and also just to clarify i was not saying i wrote this. I editied it.
Posted by omelet 7 years ago
omelet
Well, I noticed that there were some random symbols in your argument - which is a sure sign that it was copied (often from Microsoft Word or from a web page). A lot of the time it's plagiarism, so I put a quote from your argument in Google to see if perhaps this was a case of plagiarism. The quote I tried was "In recent months, food prices have risen dramatically and suddenly. In the past year, the price of wheat is up 120%." Lo and behold, I ended up with a 2008 document containing at least a large portion of that paragraph word-for-word: "In recent months, food prices have risen dramatically and suddenly. In the past year, the price of wheat is up 120%. The costs of cooking oil, rice and other staples have doubled since January. For the 1.5-billion people who live on less than $2 a day, food typically accounts for almost their entire meager budget. Soaring food prices represent a calamity for these people, which explains why: At current inflated prices, we can expect outright starvation in the poorer regions of the world why food riots have broken out across the globe."

Of course, it seems that's the source Goldstandardanarchist was using, seemingly without citing it. And it looks like you've done the same. Even if it was Goldstandardanarchist's argument, you're supposed to cite him, especially if you're taking portions word-for-word, in which case you should even put the quoted part in quotation marks rather than making them appear to be your words.

I'm not big on the whole concept of the ownership of ideas, so I'm not going to take any action against you. However, I think you'll find that the system doesn't really agree with me on that point.
Posted by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
why do you ask?
Posted by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
No I added some empiracl evidence to the case used by Goldstandardanarchist.
Posted by omelet 7 years ago
omelet
Cherymenthol, you didn't happen to write some of those arguments in late 2008, did you?
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Conduct and Args to Con.
Posted by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
I know but when Justice fails and Superman is not around hyperbolic comlaining becomes a viable option...
Posted by Demosthenes 7 years ago
Demosthenes
Only one vote against you besides your opponent Cherymenthol, don't go out of your mind.
Posted by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
are you kidding me? I am sorry but this is corrupt.
Posted by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
Btw don't pull something about your poor spelling...
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by beastboy838 7 years ago
beastboy838
beastboy838CherymentholTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by omelet 7 years ago
omelet
beastboy838CherymentholTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
beastboy838CherymentholTied
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 
Vote Placed by Apologician 7 years ago
Apologician
beastboy838CherymentholTied
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 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
beastboy838CherymentholTied
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 Demosthenes 7 years ago
Demosthenes
beastboy838CherymentholTied
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 Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
beastboy838CherymentholTied
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 Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
beastboy838CherymentholTied
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