The Instigator
chestermomo1
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dtaylor971
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

should people trust the flu shot

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
dtaylor971
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 995 times Debate No: 41620
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

chestermomo1

Con

People should not trust the flu shot because I once got the flu shot and then I got the flu within the next couple days. I do not believe in the flu shot for that reason and that the doctors may as well inject you with the flu and it is a waste of money (besides Walgreens).

Doctors should also have a limit on ages that children can get the flu shot at because it might hurt if you are just a little baby. It also doesn't work if you have the flu and you don't know it then you get the flu shot and it is too late by the time it works.
dtaylor971

Pro

I would like to start off by thanking my opponent for providing such a wonderful debate topic. I look forward to a strong and healthy debate!

"People should not trust the flu shot because I once got the flu shot and then I got the flu within the next couple days."
That's rare. Usually, a flu virus can linger in you for a little while before you get the symptoms. It is likely that you had the flu virus in you, and when they injected you with dead ones, your body went after the dead ones. Then the living ones gave you the flu. But that's actually your fault; you did not get the flu shot early enough. It is possible that you were infected by a different form of influenza, as the flu shot only saves you from the most common type, Influenza type A, H3N2, and Influenza type B [1]. And besides, you are only one person that has been affected by this. I'm sure millions have been saved from the flu by getting the flu shot.

"I do not believe in the flu shot for that reason and that the doctors may as well inject you with the flu and it is a waste of money (besides Walgreen's)."
You are not being injected with the actual flu virus; just dead ones [2] that your body can fight off. Think of it like a dummy in army training. It can't hurt you, but you learn how to fight it so the real ones won't hurt you. In my community, a small town by the shore of California, I can drive ten minuets and get a vaccine for FREE. Many people can. It doesn't cost any money.

"Doctors should also have a limit on ages that children can get the flu shot at because it might hurt if you are just a little baby."
They do have age restrictions, and severe ones at that [1]. Babies under 18 months will not get the flu vaccine. But even if they do, you are right, it world hurt. And if they don't, they die from the disease. You want a little prick in your arm, or death? Plus, babies don't remember much, if anything at that. I know I didn't.

" It also doesn't work if you have the flu and you don't know it then you get the flu shot and it is too late by the time it works."
As I said, that is your fault because you got it far too late. The vaccine is supposed to prevent the flu. Of course it won't work when you already have it. Does training during a raging battle help you with anything? Nope. You should get it in October. If you still get the disease before the flu shot, as I said, it's wither your fault or bad luck.

Note to the reader: That was literally his whole argument, and I proved each one of them wrong.

I don't have enough letters to post multiple arguments, so I suppose I will just point one out, that being how many people have been vaccinated over the years.

While there are no reliable statistics websites to see who got it and who didn't, I can still make an argument. So here we go. The flu shot was invented in the 1940s [3]. 36,000 people died in 1999, the peak of the flu season [4]. But now, that number has dropped to 23,000 in the U.S. And I think most of those people never got a flu shot. Before the flu shot, as many as (excluding 1918) 150 per 10,000 people died [5]. That is A LOT. I prepared a chart using the numbers app to sum up my argument.





On to you :)!


[1] http://www.cdc.gov...
[2] http://www.southernnevadahealthdistrict.org...
[3] http://content.time.com...
[4] http://www.flu.gov...#
[5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
chestermomo1

Con

Fist off I would like a healthy argument but just so you know it is a proven fact that doctors put some of the flu into the flu shot so you will be immune to it but you may as not have the flu shot because you will become immune to it. and all of the flu shot doesn't cover all of the types of the flu.

You may have been right about all of the facts maybe not but I can tell you one thing you will have a good match :-)
dtaylor971

Pro

Thank you for the debate, and I hope you had fun. Sorry about you getting the flu!
Last round, so I will only refute con's arguments.

"Fist off I would like a healthy argument but just so you know it is a proven fact that doctors put some of the flu into the flu shot so you will be immune to it but you may as not have the flu shot because you will become immune to it."
In the nasal spray, it is a proven fact that they do. But in the flu shot, it is dead flu bacteria or really, really weak ones incapable of causing the flu. I didn't get what you meant by the last part.

"All of the flu shot doesn't cover all of the types of the flu."
It can't, because it is in too high of demand. As I said, it covers the most common ones. You may not be immune to the more rare cases of influenza. The fact that it immunes you to three types aty one is a pretty big breakthrough.

That's all I can do since I can't state more arguments.

Thank you for the debate.

Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MrVan 3 years ago
MrVan
chestermomo1dtaylor971Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't really provide many arguments or rebuttals, but other than that both participants were very courteous to one another! So that's good.
Vote Placed by 19debater19 3 years ago
19debater19
chestermomo1dtaylor971Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO used sources and had longer arguments, and better ones.