The Instigator
HittinHard
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
rougeagent21
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points

recent health concerns justify compulsory immunizations_ld format

Do you like this debate?NoYes-5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 12/10/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,411 times Debate No: 10413
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (4)

 

HittinHard

Con

INTRODUCTION:
IMAGINE THIS: A NEW, SUPPOSEDLY DEADLEY, VIRUS IS SPAWNED ALL OVER THE NATION. THERE SEEMS TO BE NO STOPPING IT UNTIL SCIENTISTS GENERATE AN IMMUNIZATION. RUNNING ON PURE FEAR, THE GOVERNMENT EXACTS COMPULSORY IMMUNIZATIONS. WHEN THE WHOLE OF THE POPULATION RECIEVES THIS, THEY START TO DROP OFF LIKE FLIES. THE VACCINE HAD AN UNEXPECTED RESULT THAT TRIGGERED AN ALARMING REACTION THAT KILLED 10,000 PEOPLE. OF COURSE THE GOVERNMENT IS BLAMED FOR THE PHENOMENON. TODAY I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE RIGHT OF RESPECT A PERSON DESERVES AND THAT BY LEGALIZING COMPULSORY IMMUNIZATIONS WE ARE DESTROYING SAID RESPECT. WITH THIS IN MIND I URGE A VOTE IN NEGATION OF THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION:

RESOLVED: PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS JUSTIFY COMPULSORY IMMUNIZATIONS.

DEFINATIONS: NOW TO PREVENT THE CASE FROM HEADING TO DEFINITIONAL DEBATE, I OFFER THE FOLLOWING DEFINATIONS FROM WEBSTER'S NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY:

PUBLIC: OF, RELATING TO, OR AFFECTING ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF AN AREA

HEALTH: GENERAL CONDITION OF AN INDIVIDUAL

CONCERNS: WORRY OR A CAUSE OF WORRY

JUSTIFY: TO SHOW A SUFFICIENT LAWFUL REASON FOR AN ACT DONE

COMPULSORY: REQUIRED BY AUTHORITY OR LAW

IMMUNIZATIONS: A SUBSTANCE, ESPECIALLY A VACCINE, THAT WOULD CAUSE ONE TO BE IMMUNE

VALUE/CRITERION
Today, I offer the value of liberty, defined as a concept of political philosophy that identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will. "Health is the first of all liberties."- Henri Frederic Amiel. This is a vital part of our lives because without liberty we are completely controlled by our government. To uphold this I offer the criterion of the reduction of Foucalt's biopower. Biopower is defined as the regulation of subjects through "an explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugations of bodies and the control of populations." This simply means the control the government has over our body and the general population. This must be reduced in order to achieve liberty because if the government controls what we do with our own body, then we can't act in our own will and we eventually become puppets of the government. This Is unfair. By making immunizations compulsory, we are giving up our liberty by making it possible for the government act is what they think is our will.

Contention 1: Immunizations today cause adverse side effects.
According to MEDICAL.NET, many of today's vaccines cause adverse, or unfavorable, side effects that directly jeopardize one's health. The point of taking these immunizations is to prevent diseases or illnesses but more and more of these vaccines are just causing diseases such as common side effects that merely cause one to be uncomfortable to more serious effects such as diabetes, autism, and major allergic reactions.

A.) Immunizations cause side effects that some would find unfavorable.
Some side effects from vaccines are relatively minor and do not last long. For example DTaP/IPV vaccine for diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough) and inactivated polio can in about five in ten people result in swelling and redness where the injection took place. Some times there can be a slightly raised temperature, sickness, tiredness and headache And sometimes swollen glands and a sometimes severe swelling of the upper arm. Most of these are, like I stated, minor but any side effect to an individual from compulsory immunizations is to much. Therefore, these immunizations should be taken only on a consensual basis.

B.) Certain side effects directly related to these immunizations are deadly or life changing.

Such reported side effects were complications like seizures, encephalitis, autoimmune reactions, bleeding disorders, and neurological injuries. Often, there are severe allergic reactions because of how the vaccines are grown, inside of eggs. This causes, in some cases death. The influenza vaccine, the one we take every year, can cause many of the side effects listed in sub-point A. But there are a reported 9000 cases since the 1930's of paralysis. Yes the vaccine we take all the time can paralyze and even cause death.

Contention 2: Religious and philosophical exemptions stop compulsory immunizations from being fair.

Within the United States allowances are made for different religions views towards vaccinations. This has meant that many parents who claim to have deeply held religious convictions are not having their children vaccinated. There are twenty eight states, such as Florida and New York, that allow parents to opt out on the basis of religious grounds while a further twenty, such as California and Texas, allow philosophical and personal reasons as well as religious reasons and Mississippi and West Virginia allow exemptions for medical reasons only. If there is an religious (or philosophical etc) exception for one group then that also has to be extended to other groups as well in order for there not to be discrimination. Since 1983 there have been a series of decision by Federal District and Appellate Courts which have clearly established that children can be exempted from vaccination based upon the personal religious beliefs of their parents.
James Filenbaum

"The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from discriminating between people based on their religious beliefs. If there is any state law which allows for exemption based on religious beliefs, it is available to all those people who hold religious beliefs against immunization even if their beliefs are personal and unique to them alone... We have been able to convince the court that a whole body of law which prohibits religious discrimination applies to those who have personal religious beliefs against immunization."

Conclusion:
"Every human being is the author of his own health or disease."-Buddha. Enacting compulsory immunizations directly disregards our personal liberty because. It gives the government control over our being. These immunizations can either destroy, end , or change an individual's life and it is not fair due to religious beliefs. There is not a logical reason for compulsory immunizations to be enacted. It is for these reasons I urge a vote in negation of the resolution.
rougeagent21

Pro

First of all, I will point out that there are two different resolutions listed. I will debate the resolution that my opponent mentions in his case.

"The accident of where one is born is just that, an accident. Recognizing this, we should not allow differences of nationality or class or even gender to erect barriers between us and our fellow human beings. We should recognize humanity wherever it occurs and give all equal respect. We should give our first allegiance to no mere form of government, no temporal power, but to the moral community made up by the humanity of all human beings. One should always behave so as to treat with equal respect the dignity of reason and moral choice in every human being."
Martha Nussbaum [Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism, The Boston Review 1994]
It is because I agree with Mrs. Mussbaum, I must affirm the resolution resolved: public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. Before I begin, I would like to define a few key terms.
Public Health Concerns: according to Yale University of public health – are matters relating to the overall health of a population in a general sense, such as the flu
Justify: having a reasonable cause for doing so
Compulsory: mandatory unless exempted from
Immunization: to render immune to a certain disease or diseases
Because I agree that a person should be protected from the harmful diseases of today's world, no matter their socio-economic status, I will take up the value of Utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number.
This will be supported by the value criterion of upholding human rights. These rights are defined by several philosophers. The most common rights named are those of life, liberty, health, and property.

Observation 1: Immunization no longer requires the use of injection nor the use of a needle. Due to recent scientific advancements, we now hold the ability to immunize people from sickness and diseases with a simple nasal spray bottle. The influenza nasal spray vaccine is now a safe and valid alternative to the flu shot. The only nasal spray flu vaccine side effects include slight runny nose, and slight headache. The spray vaccine is also preservative free. The use of the spray eliminates all concerns about previous immunization methods. According to the WHO, these vaccines are currently in production for almost all of the common diseases. Because of the advancements of science, you are free to disregard whatever harmful information my opponent brings up about inoculation, since we now have a virtually side-effect free alternative.

Contention 1: Compulsory immunization maintains the herd immunity threshold.

According to the CDC, the herd immunity threshold, or HIT, is the proportion of individuals in the population above which a disease may no longer persist, and so long as we maintain an immunization rate above the HIT for a particular disease, it becomes impossible for that disease to spread.

The CDC has accurately determined the HIT for almost all of the most dangerous diseases. It varies by disease based on the virulence of that particular disease, as well as the effectiveness of the vaccine. For example, the herd immunity threshold is 94% immunization for Measles and Pertussis, 86% for Polio, and 85% for Diphtheria and Smallpox.

The Michigan Law Review argues:
In the past decade, personal belief exemptions have increased [by 200%] nationally, This trend is troubling—even a small increase in the use of exemptions translates to a higher percentage of unvaccinated individuals, which threatens "herd immunity." Consequently, recent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease throughout the country have been directly attributed to the use of personal belief exemptions. For example, according to the CDC, cases of measles have reached a ten-year high; with over half of the cases involving children whose parents were unable to immunize their children. This was largely due to financial shortcomings. There is a strong public health argument in favor of strengthening existing measures to obtain the highest vaccination coverage rates to ensure community protection.

As long as we maintain appropriate levels of immunization, outbreaks of dangerous disease do not spread, because they are confined by the natural boundaries that heard immunity sets. When levels of immunization dip below the herd immunity threshold, there is no longer sufficient protection to stop the disease from spreading; this can turn minor outbreaks in small communities into cross-country pandemics. This is completely unacceptable given our technology. Judge, how can we sit back and watch as the world erupts into modern-day pandemics? This is why we must adhere to my value and criterion. Utilitarianism here would protect all people, as well as protect their human rights. If you vote affirmative, you are voting for the protection of people and their rights.

Contention Two: Compulsory immunization saves money and boosts the world economy.

Harvard Professor and Chairman of the Department of Global Health and Population, David Bloom, explains:
"The World Health Organization, for example, has estimated that polio eradication will save governments $1.5 billion per year in vaccine, treatment, and rehabilitation costs. Estimates are that the $100 million invested in eradicating [smallpox] in the ten years after 1967 "saved the world about $1.35 billion a year". And the US Institute of Medicine reports that for every dollar spent on the MMR vaccine, $21 is saved."

Contention Three: Compulsory Immunizations look out for the poor.

However, despite the clear economic benefit, these vaccines are not being implemented in the indigent, third world countries that need them most, because the citizens are too poor to afford the vaccinations themselves.

Bloom continues:
"Moreover, doses of the DTwP vaccine offered to UNICEF declined from 600 million in 1998 to 150 million two years later."

In the Status quo, the poorest, most disease-ridden countries are being given the least protection. This only exacerbates the suffering in those who are already suffering most. Judge I hope you can see that we are denying people their inalienable rights. They are becoming everything but inalienable! By not providing compulsory immunizations, we are actively denying people their right to health, and even to life. It is estimated that over 500,000 deaths occur worldwide every year from the flu alone! Imagine how much good we could do, how many lives we could save by providing compulsory immunization. It is my belief that no one should suffer more than another simply because of where in the world they were born.
In conclusion, I strongly urge you to vote for the affirmative. Compulsory Immunization:
- protect everyone from disease, not just the wealthy
-upholds human rights
-even helps the world economy.
With all of these great attributes of compulsory immunization, I can see none other than an affirmative ballot. I will now move on to attack my opponent's case.

His Value

My opponent's core value is defined way too loosely to be used as a valid value. If we achieve his defined value of liberty, we will have achieved anarchy. No restrictions mean no order in society, partly because there would be no society.

His criterion is simply a restating of his argument, that we shouldn't let the government give compulsory vaccinations.

His first contention

My opponent brings up a few side effects of vaccinations. First of all, consider my observation 1. Secondly, the risks of getting the disease far outweigh the virtually absent side effects of receiving a vaccination. I would rather get a slight headache than contract polio.

His second contention

My opponent makes no arguments of his own here. He simply quotes a couple people. Unfortunately, I have run out of characters. I will address both of his contentions and his entire case in much more detail in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
HittinHard

Con

HittinHard forfeited this round.
rougeagent21

Pro

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
HittinHard

Con

My opponent cannot fully understand my case. he states that the risks of the disease far outwiegh the sideffects. there is not guarentee that the individual will ever recieve the disease. He mentions polio and i agree polio was once a deadly disease but is now eradicated.
rougeagent21

Pro

Eradication- e⋅rad⋅i⋅cate  [i-rad-i-keyt]
–verb (used with object), -cat⋅ed, -cat⋅ing.
1.to remove or destroy utterly; extirpate

http://dictionary.reference.com...

There were 1503 cases in 2009.

http://www.polioeradication.org...

Check your sources.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
*takes a bow*
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Nice final rebuttal. Owned.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
B/A-CON. I hate my aff case.
Conduct-PRO. Con forfeited a round and did nothing in his last round.
Spelling-Tied
Arguments-PRO
Sources-PRO
Posted by logicalmaster17 7 years ago
logicalmaster17
neg your case is pathetic
Posted by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
liberty sucks!!!!
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
I hate policy debate. A lot.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Darn character limits. :P
Posted by Ange154 7 years ago
Ange154
Has anyone ever tried debating in Policy format, lolz
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
To whom are you referring?
Posted by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
you sir are an idiot
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by SPENCERJOYAGE14 3 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
HittinHardrougeagent21Tied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by TFranklin62 7 years ago
TFranklin62
HittinHardrougeagent21Tied
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 Nails 7 years ago
Nails
HittinHardrougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
HittinHardrougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06