The Instigator
khizr
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SnowyOxygen
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

vaccinations should be mandatory

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...
SnowyOxygen
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/31/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,329 times Debate No: 61107
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

khizr

Con

I am going to argue that the vaccination should be a choice and not mandatory.

1 round acceptance only
2 round argument
3 round rebuttals
SnowyOxygen

Pro

I accept your challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
khizr

Con

Vaccines should not mandatory as:
1) They do not guarantee 100% protection from the disease. The efficiency of the vaccines can depend on various factors such age, health, sex etc, the efficiency of vaccines is usually between 60% to 80%.

http://www.nvic.org...

2) Vaccines are not very safe, many vaccines contain mercury which is directly entered into our blood stream. That could lead to mercury poisoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

3) Everyone is different, so a vaccine which might work for one individual may or may not work for the other. In some cases these vaccines can have a severe allergic reaction, which in rare cases lead to death.

http://articles.mercola.com...

Even after taking the vaccines the person may or may not get exposed to the disease, let us assume that at the very least the vaccines are 50% efficient, and from those people who are vaccinated 50% of them are exposed to the disease at the most, since the vaccine is only 50 % efficient half of those people will benefit. If you do the maths here, we can see that 75% of the people who take the vaccine do not benefit from it, they simply suffer the side effects.

So it should be clearly the peoples choice, if they would want to risk taking the vaccine or leave it.
Thus vaccines should never be made mandatory.
SnowyOxygen

Pro

I believe vaccines should be mandatory as since they have been used, they have helped to save the population from a various number of microbes, and have even eradicated numerous diseases including smallpox in 1979, and Rinderpest (a viral disease that infected cattle). Without vaccines a huge percentage of the population would be handicapped or die unnecessarily.

Your first point about not guaranteeing 100% efficiency from a disease is irrelevant. If I was faced with a large number of diseases, then I would still take a vaccine even if it only granted 50% efficiency. This is like saying: I can't get to work on time in a car, so I'll walk.
As for your argument about vaccines containing mercury, I don't think you've done enough research here. Vaccines contain Thimerosal, a mercury containing compound. The purpose of which prevents the growth of the dangerous microbes. Thimerosal has been used safely since 1930, and has never shown any signs of harm throughout the 8 decades of it being used.

Now, your argument about vaccines causing severe allergic reactions and having side effects that may lead to death is also irrelevant. Think about it this way: Even if it did cause an allergic reaction in for example 5 in 100 people, then removing the vaccines would mean killing ten times as much people as vaccinating them would. Furthermore, in the article you used, they say that they have no idea whether or not these reactions are related to the vaccines or not. So not only is it silly to remove vaccines for a 5 in 100 death rate, but there is no evidence to support the claim.

Probably my greatest problem with those who refuse to take vaccines is that you are not only putting yourself at risk by exposing yourself to countless diseases, but you also put the world at risk by letting yourself be a carrier and letting the disease roam free and evolve. This is not just a personal matter, it is not just about you because you are putting the surrounding population at risk. Examples of this would be those who think that vaccines causes autism, which it obviously doesn't. Or the Taliban who still think that vaccinations is a plan by the west to eradicate them, which it isn't. And thanks to the Taliban, we have failed to eradicate the disease Polio.
Your last argument seemed a bit strange, vaccines have protected our civilization from dangerous diseases and have even eradicated two, and almost eradicated several others.

In my view, I see absolutely no point in refusing to take a vaccine. In choosing to not take one, you are condemning yourself and others to a disease that could be eradicated.
Debate Round No. 2
khizr

Con

Pro says: I believe vaccines should be mandatory as since they have been used, they have helped to save the population from a various number of microbes, and have even eradicated numerous diseases including smallpox in 1979, and Rinderpest (a viral disease that infected cattle). Without vaccines a huge percentage of the population would be handicapped or die unnecessarily.

My reply: Yes, vaccines did help to save the population from a various number of microbes, and have even eradicated numerous diseases including smallpox in 1979, and Rinderpest (a viral disease that infected cattle). But in such rare cases like this where disease spread like wild fire, people them self would go and take a vaccine. There is no need to make it mandatory. I never told vaccines should be removed, they don't have to be mandatory.

Pro says: Your first point about not guaranteeing 100% efficiency from a disease is irrelevant. If I was faced with a large number of diseases, then I would still take a vaccine even if it only granted 50% efficiency. This is like saying: I can't get to work on time in a car, so I'll walk.
As for your argument about vaccines containing mercury, I don't think you've done enough research here. Vaccines contain Thimerosal, a mercury containing compound. The purpose of which prevents the growth of the dangerous microbes. Thimerosal has been used safely since 1930, and has never shown any signs of harm throughout the 8 decades of it being used.

My reply: I was just pointing out that they don't guarantee 100% safety from the disease, yea sure if you want it you can take it, i am saying it should not be forced on everyone.
Speaking of mercury, yes i know there is a purpose for adding mercury, they don't add it simply.
I was pointing out the dangers of mercury, and the fact that such things should not be injected in an individual without his/her permission.
You did not show any proof of thimerosal being safe, thimerosal is 50% mercury by wieght

http://articles.mercola.com...

http://www.wanttoknow.info...

http://drsircus.com...

Pro says: Now, your argument about vaccines causing severe allergic reactions and having side effects that may lead to death is also irrelevant. Think about it this way: Even if it did cause an allergic reaction in for example 5 in 100 people, then removing the vaccines would mean killing ten times as much people as vaccinating them would. Furthermore, in the article you used, they say that they have no idea whether or not these reactions are related to the vaccines or not. So not only is it silly to remove vaccines for a 5 in 100 death rate, but there is no evidence to support the claim.

My reply: I never said vaccines should be removed, i told that it should be the peoples choice.
Yes, it says there is no 100 % proof that it is linked to the vaccines, but it is possible.

Pro says: Probably my greatest problem with those who refuse to take vaccines is that you are not only putting yourself at risk by exposing yourself to countless diseases, but you also put the world at risk by letting yourself be a carrier and letting the disease roam free and evolve. This is not just a personal matter, it is not just about you because you are putting the surrounding population at risk. Examples of this would be those who think that vaccines causes autism, which it obviously doesn't. Or the Taliban who still think that vaccinations is a plan by the west to eradicate them, which it isn't. And thanks to the Taliban, we have failed to eradicate the disease Polio.
Your last argument seemed a bit strange, vaccines have protected our civilization from dangerous diseases and have even eradicated two, and almost eradicated several others.

My reply: No, the one who does not take the vaccine is not putting others to risk, If those other people want to be protected they can take the vaccines, or they can risk getting infected by avoiding the vaccine. It should the individuals choice.
SnowyOxygen

Pro

You cannot just take a vaccine when the disease arrives, as if you have already got the disease; chances are the vaccine wont do any good in that situation. Or it will be too late before you can take the vaccines. And I made an error on the first paragraph that you pointed out. I shall rephrase: A large percentage of those who do not take the vaccine will die from a disease and will let the disease progress.

Actually, the claim that the mercury contained in a vaccine dose causing autism and similar side-effects is a controversy. There is no evidence for the claim. And after eight whole decades of using vaccines, I doubt that doctors would still be making this mistake. Furthermore, I go back to my other argument: Even if it did cause 1 in 100 to be autistic, your chances are better when you are faced with a number of deadly diseases. Furthermore, those who claim to have found that it causes autism in 1 in 100 do not give any conclusive evidence. And even if 1 in 100 who have received vaccines had autism, did you know 1.5% of the American population (more than 1 in 100) have autism? There are lots of causes for autism, and concluding that vaccines cause autism is irrational.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

https://www.youtube.com... <--- Vaccinations causing autism controversy

Again, I rephrase: even if vaccines did cause a 5% death rate (which there is no proof of), then someone refusing to take a vaccine would rise their death chances to a lot more than 5%.

Lastly, I simply contradict your last argument. If you refuse to take a vaccines you are putting others at risk. Because of the Taliban several diseases haven't been eradicated due to them refusing the vaccines and letting the virus / disease roam free and evolve. So what you are doing by not taking a vaccine, is signing yourself up to being a disease carrier, and because a disease can evolve so quickly; you would be letting the disease evolve. At which point when it evolves, we would have to make an entirely new vaccine for the same disease because the previous one didn't work. This would obviously cost a fortune, but could be avoided by mandatory vaccines and eradication of the disease in question. The choice does not lie with the individual, it lies with the survival of the human race.

http://www.theguardian.com...
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Garsot 2 years ago
Garsot
My mistake I did not see the last part and that is actually a very good argument on the evolution of a disease. But giving vaccinations is no guarantee that a disease is not going to evolve. And vaccines have the chance of making the disease evolve even more. And just because something like smallpox has not sprung up since 1979, which who knows what kind of hush hush stuff has been going on, does not mean that is eradicated. And just as much as a disease can evolve, so can a human who is carrying the disease can evolve to not be effected by it anymore. But if you vaccinate people. you deny this step in evolution and allow people to be susceptible to the diseases which will continue to evolve. Meanwhile the vaccines are crippling the immune systems for people and causing major medical issues for them.
Posted by SnowyOxygen 2 years ago
SnowyOxygen
@Garsot; did you read my second argument? I corrected a number of mistakes I made in my first argument. I also explained quite a few of your questions already.
Posted by Garsot 2 years ago
Garsot
Dude, pro is literally making no sense in their arguments. First off, the argument is whether vaccines should be mandatory, not if they should be stopped. And pro is making the same stupid argument of if people don't take vaccines they are putting others at risk. How are the others at risk if they are taking the vaccine? If I choose to take the vaccine and am still at risk because someone else did not, then that should speak on the vaccine and not the person who refused to take it. Also, pro is working on the delusion that doctors are the all giving saints who would stop using a product because it is harmful. The medical field is just as much a business as any other field and doctors are just as much businessmen as others. They literally kick people out of hospitals that don't have money for treatment, if they can get away with it. So to think that they would not use something because it may or may not cause harm, please man get with the program. The fact is that it is literally all guess work. They don't know what sort of effects the vaccines will have until they inject them into people.
Posted by Garsot 2 years ago
Garsot
Because apparently some religions don't accept vaccinations into their customs. But I'm not really religious so I'll leave that argument to those who are. As for a biological standpoint, no they should not be mandatory because every body is different from each other. What might work for one may be completely detrimental for others. Also, using vaccines does two things for the body, decreases the natural growth of the immune system, which then can throw it completely out of whack and ensuring a life time of torment for the person. The other thing it does is any naturally occurring disease or virus would then be able to evolve much faster in order to be more effective in its efforts to infect hosts.
Posted by khizr 2 years ago
khizr
How can religion have to do anything with vaccines ?
Posted by CrazyCowMan 2 years ago
CrazyCowMan
I might accept this? Are you going to debate on grounds of religion?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Hlinnerooth 2 years ago
Hlinnerooth
khizrSnowyOxygenTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro easily defeated con even with his own sources. None of his statements stood up against pros period.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
khizrSnowyOxygenTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro showed that those who don't vaccinate risk not only themselves, but others as well. Con had the BoP, and failed to show that the harms of mandatory vaccination outweighed the benefits. Con failed to show any real harm, in point of fact, and 2 of his sources were bad enough to warrant loss of the source point--Nvic, Sircus, and Mercola are not reliable whatsoever, and are biased to the point of dishonesty (From the first line of the Sircus source: "Pharmaceutical companies are vampire corporations literally sucking the life out of children and we continue to let them do just that. The medical media, paid for in full by the medical industrial establishment, is not to be trusted. ") I urge Con to look into the actual science behind vaccines, using reliable sources and, if he wants to still maintain a voluntaryist position, use that.