The Instigator
Pro (for)
9 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Vaccination is beneficial for humanity

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,231 times Debate No: 44631
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




Welcome to my first debate as Pro!

Vaccinations have been a source of huge controversies: theories generally develop from it being the cause of AIDs to it causing autism. Though generally beneficial, some people deeply oppose vaccination.

I strongly support vaccination, and I would like to have this debate with someone who opposes vaccination for reasons of culture/tradition, and/or of scientific proof.

The Debate Rules:

1. NO TROLLING, please
2. Accept if you could participate in all rounds
3. If you can't make a complete argument, state that at the end of the debate argument.
4.If you forfeit, then you would be expect to provide a return argument at round 5. If you did not forfeit, then you could forfeit Rnd.5, or rebut some of the opponent's cases.
5. HAVE FUNNNN! (Oh yeah btw Rnd 1 is acceptance)


I accept the challenge and prove why vaccination is harmful for humanity.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank the opponent for accepting this debate and start with several definitions:

1. Vaccines: A vaccine is a biological preparation that improves immunity to a particular disease
2. Beneficial: Producing or promoting a favorable result; advantageous.
3. Humanity: The Human Race

The invention of vaccination has greatly improved society and the general health of the world. Before times of vaccination, there were no ways of granting "total" immunity from the disease without direct exposure to it. Famous Scientist Eziekel J Emmanuel once said "Vaccines are the most cost-effective health care interventions there are." The first practice of vaccines were brought to prominence in the 1770s, when doctors infected people with cowpox, which would then prevent chickenpox from spreading. Vaccination has come a long way since then, but still the concept is more or less similar. That shall be explained in latter arguments.

Imagine a world without vaccines: imagine the Black Death and the Middle Ages, when rationalism was shadowed by theology.

Before vaccinations, when a contagious disease struck, there would be no way for anyone to get out of harm's way when they come into contact with the contagious pathogen. The body's main defenses, although tough in name, would fall like cards in a strong gush of win. Many would be infected when coming into contact with a contagious and infected patient. That was a reason why the Black Death spread so rapidly in the world: because no one knew how to stop it. Fortunately, a Bubonic Plague Vaccine was invented in 1897, when the disease was limited to several endemics in parts of the world.

Vaccination is humanity's only hope of surviving in the future, partly because the need to provide humans with immunity from many harmful diseases. There are some downsides to vaccines, and there are many theories that attempt to attack some types of vaccine, but vaccination has saved billions of lives in the world, and they should continue to benefit society.

I wish all sides good luck in this debate, and I look foward to have an interesting debate with you.


Good luck to you too.

Harmful: likely to cause harm, dangerous.

First of all I would like to say that vaccinations do not guarantee "total" immunity against diseases. In many cases, for example, whooping cough, the immunity provided by vaccinations weakens over time. Therefore it is wrong to claim that vaccinations provide total protection.

UNICEF has spent $220 million on vaccinations in 2002, 40% of its total budget of $620 million. The prices of vaccines are going on an upward trend. A quote from a Vaccines Policy Adviser: "The two newest vaccines, pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) and rotavirus vaccine (against diarrhea), account for over 70% of the current package"s cost. While US$7 per dose of PCV (or US$21 for the recommended 3-dose course) may not sound high, it"s a big jump from US$0.25 for a dose of measles vaccine". One cannot simply say that vaccines are cost-effective. Such a lot of money could have been and should be used to develop alternative ways of preventing and treating diseases, especially when vaccination has such a lot of side effects.

Con wishes to correct Pro that in 1897, only a test vaccine for Bubonic Plague was created. As to whether it actually worked or not, there is no evidence. Currently, there is no vaccine for the bubonic plague. It is usually treated with antibiotics. Therefore vaccinations would have no impact whatsoever in the prevention of the stoppage of pandemics like the bubonic plague.

Vaccination is not humanity's only hope of surviving in the future. There are many other recent developments in medical science like stem cell technology which can play a much more important part in human being's survival.
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to start by addressing some of the opponent's points.

There are two types of Pertusis vaccine, one of them contains the entire bacterium, and one of them contains a part of the bacterium. Both of them are attenuated vaccines and presents artifical passive immunity; therefore, if the bacterium has been spotted by the White Blood Cells, there are no chances of the bacterium ever being able to reproduce in the body. Therefore, that point by the opponent does not seems to be true. Also, if vaccines do not provide total protection, they give the bodies a high or medium levels of antigens, which could be boosted by a booster vaccine if ever needed. Although some vaccines do not provide total immunization, many vaccines do immunize it's patients forever. An example of this is the Inactivated Polio Vaccine, which contains a high level of antigen, and therefore is unable to provide any harm, and gives total immunization to the most common types of polio strand, Polio 1,2 and 3. This vaccines saved the lives of millions and continue to do so in the western hemisphere: to be fair, in fact, it has eradicated polio in the countries that embraced this vaccine. The last case of polio in the United States, the first country to enact this vaccine was in 1984, 30 years ago. This proves the efficiency of this vaccine, but if the opponent is not satisfied, then he should know that in places where polio is still a widespread phenomenom, the OPV is the used type, not the IPV. Although some immunity do weaken over time, like breastmilk and some vaccines, many vaccines, like the IPV, do not weaken at all.

To the opponent's points about the cost of vaccines, I can only agree, but the prices of vaccines are going up with the cost of living, and therefore should not be any surprise to anyone. Yes, one cannot say that MMR Vaccines are cost effective, but what I can say that there are many ways to make any vaccines cost effective. Although the research part might cost alot, as the world develops, we can only say that MMR Vaccines are going to cost less, as it is right now a mixture of attenuated viruses and antigens, which would definitely cost more.

I would like to end my rebutalls with the fact that our debate is on whether vaccination is beneficial for humanity, not vaccination is humanity's only saviour.

Section References:

Now on to main arguments: Vaccination have been proven to save lives

This is a graph showing the number of polio infected (per 100,000 patients). Firstly, we have to analyse the graph in 1952, when there was a major polio epidemic in the United States. That could be the high point, where we could see 40 people infected patients per 100,000 people. That is alot of patients infected with this virus; we can also state at that year, 28,000 people in the US alone died from this virus. The Salk Vaccine was the so called Inactivated Polio Vaccine, and the Sabin Vaccine was called the Oral Polio Vaccine. Although there were many other extensions of both vaccines, they both saved lives. Poliovirus, the main pathogen responsible for the many infections that evolved into a disease called polio, is usually found in any places where the saliva and sweat of the patient who has the poliovirus was: usually, but not limited to, swimming pool and playgrounds. Therefore, it is easily spread, especially through young children. If a member of a household gets the virus, then it is almost certain for everyone else in the household to get the virus. With the invention of the polio vaccine, this can be seen as a remarkable achievement: within 12 years, polio cases reduce by almost 200%. That is clearly an indication of life-saving. Although the project was not "cost effective", it saved millions of lives, and as I stated before, has eradicated polio in the western hemisphere. Is that not beneficial? Is eradicating a very harmful disease not beneficial? For the human race, it is. For the greater good of humanity, it is.

I can only say so much: there are many other examples, like MMR and Smallpox, and they all have the same results: the almost complete eradication of the number of infections of the disease.

We the human race will benefit from vaccines. It is for these reasons, and many more that I am about to present, is why vaccination will benefit the human race.

Thank You and Have a Nice Day



Pro has reminded me that our debate is on whether vaccinations are beneficial for humanity, not vaccination is humanity's only saviour. Pro forgets that in Round 2 he himself claimed that "Vaccination is humanity's only hope of surviving in the future". Therefore Con requests Pro to read the topic of the debate properly and to think carefully before arguing.

Copied from TIME Health dated 29/11/2012:

"Protection from Whooping Cough Vaccine Wanes Over Time"

"Vaccines are by far the best defense against pertussis, or whooping cough. But protection among kids dwindles with every year since the last dose of vaccine, a new CDC study finds"

"Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) report in the Journal of the American Medical Association that while vaccines do work well in protecting against childhood infection with the pertussis bacterium, or whooping cough, that the strongest immunization occurred among kids in the year after their last shot than among those who finished their full immunization series more than five years ago.

This is the first-ever study to test the long-term effectiveness of current pertussis vaccines, which contain snippets of the pertussis bacterium and were introduced in the 1990s. The newer shots trigger fewer adverse reactions than previous versions, which contained whole pertussis bacterial cells, but public health officials had been concerned that the effectiveness of the shots weakened over time. The findings are significant in light of the major pertussis outbreaks in the U.S. over the past few years, which have caused illness in tens of thousands nationwide. Earlier this year, the CDC recommended that adults over age 19 also receive another dose of the older, whole cell pertussis vaccine to maintain immunity against the bacterium. Pertussis is highly contagious and sometimes fatal; symptoms including violent, uncontrollable coughing that can lead to breathing problems, pneumonia and convulsions"

Therefore it is right to say to say that the immunity provided by the whooping cough vaccine is not 'total' and does fade away with time.

Con wishes to say that vaccinations can be beneficial in some cases, without any doubt , but it not enough to label all vaccines as safe. In your given example of polio, it is evident from the graph that polio rates had already dropped sharply before vaccines were created. The fall in polio rates can be attributed more to better hygiene, nutrition and sanitation than the polio vaccines. If these vaccines do not actually work then how can we possibly say that they are beneficial for humanity? If there is no evidence that it has attributed to the elimination of epidemics, then how can one possibly claim that vaccines are good for us?

Vaccines also contain a lot of toxins. Metals like mercury and aluminium are commonplace in vaccines. Plus drugs like Formaldehyde and 2-phenoxyethanol are known to have adverse effects on children like the depression of the nerve system and dehydration. The insert for the DPT vaccine from Sanofi Pasteur warns that, "A review by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) found evidence for a causal relation between tetanus toxoid and both brachial neuritis and Guillain-Barr" syndrome [pain and loss of nerve and motor function]."

Are we really willing to take that gamble with human life? Are we willing to give our children these harmful vaccines thinking that its benefits are going to be worth it? Are we going to pretend that we are doing something for the greater good? There is clear cut evidence that vaccines contain toxins and everytime we vaccinate a child, we are making him a potential victim of the effects of these toxins. We should all stop for a moment and think "Is this all necessary?". Is putting a child through all this danger really necessary? No it is not.

And how can we say that children need these vaccines when ,in many cases, they have been proven not to work? Are we not doing this all for nothing? Risking a child's life for medication that does not even work.

We all really need to think about this once.

Debate Round No. 3


Pro would like to remind everyone of the current debate we are facing, despite the things Pro said in his first and second round. Pro does believe that vaccination is humanity's best hope of surviving for the future as they will, one day, cleanse the world of all infectious and harmful pathogens in the world. Nevertheless, the debate topic is "Vaccination is beneficial for humanity", not "Vaccination is humanity's only saviour".

Pro would like to say that vaccines do not contain toxins, but toxoids, whose toxicity has been suppressed by heat treatment or formalin, and therefore, unable to do any harm to the body. Pro would like to say that 2-phenoxyethanol, or as pro will now like to refer to as Monosodium glutamate, is used in only a few vaccines to ensure that vaccines do not react; pro would also like to add that Monosodium Glutamate is present in food, and Food Standards Australia New Zealand declared Monosodium Glutamate "safe for the general population". Formaldehyde is used to inactivate pathogens in Inactivated Pathogen Vaccines, and is removed from the vaccine before it is packaged and used; therefore, it presents no harm to the patients using the vaccine. Aluminium is also present in vaccines, but in small quantities. If a baby was to receive all of his or her's vaccinations, the baby would receive 4mg of aluminium, much less than the 40mg of aluminium the baby would receive from drinking breastmilk, and 120mg from drinking both breast milk and breastmilk formula. Therefore, the threat presented here is not enough to harm anyone.

How does the opponent see vaccines harming human lives? Is it more of a gamble with human life to not vaccinate children? Are we to ignore the fact that the greater good is the embracing of vaccination? There is a clear answer to these questions, and they are all answered in favor of vaccination.

Also, I would like to add that the opponent states the opposite: vaccines have been proven to work. In my previous argument, I stated that polio cases have been decreasing ever since the Salk Vaccine was introduced. Although cases were already decreasing, it decreased dramatically with the Salk Vaccine, and was almost eradicated by the Sabin Vaccine. Is this not proof that vaccines have been proven to work?

Due to time constraints, I am unable to provide the opponent with a full reply, but I hope this is enough for the opponent to use.



Con has forfeited this round due to time constraints. Con wishes to apologize and will provide rebuttals and the final argument in Round 5.
Thank you and have a nice day.
Debate Round No. 4


The opponent keeps stating this mere and deniable fact: that vaccines do not "work". By do not work, we can assume that they do not save the lives of any people, or at least, provide no protection to diseases. However, in an article by Times Magazine, vaccinations is said to have save 33,000 lives and 14 million disease cases per year. In another article published by the US National of Medicine, 6.4 million lives and US$ 2 billion could be saved if vaccines are given. The opponent says that vaccines contain many harmful material that might cause a reaction, but over 50 years, there has been only 400,000 cases reported of vaccine reaction (not necessarily death); that is 8,000 per year, and many of these cases were "special cases" and were cured.

The opponent says that "We risk human lives by giving our children vaccination". However, isn't it more of a risk to not give our children vaccination?

I would like to return to the opponent's points about tetanus toxoid: although there are some reactions, there is yet to be a case where those affected died. The opponent says that "vaccination will put our children into danger". But through my previous arguments, I have clearly stated that vaccination may have some minor side-effects, but is it really worth it to let our children go through their childhood without any form of immunity until they become exposed with that particular pathogen (which by then could be too late)?

Con states that "vaccination has not attributed to the elimination of epidemics". This is true; Pro does not wish to rebut this fact. But what pro wishes to say is that vaccination has attributed to the elimination of a disease. Polio, for example, is a good example of this. Through proper sanitation, polio cases dropped little by little. However, when Dr. Jonas Salk created his vaccine, polio cases dropped to almost zero in many parts of the world. Polio is still in endemic in several places in the world, because in those parts of the world, especially Nigeria, many have missed their OPV vaccination because of religious reasons. This is a pattern in many places of the world, and frankly, Polio is still evident in those places. Places, like Afghanistan and Pakistan, still have polio endemics, because the polio vaccinations have been missed, allowing the poliovirus to linger on upon the people of these respective nations. Is that not proof? Where Polio Vaccines have been introduced, Polio has been completely eradicated; where it has been introduced but still refused, it lingers on. Is that no sign that polio vaccines are effective?

I would also like to repeat my previous case. Formaldehyde are only used to deactivate the pathogen, and are removed before the vaccination is packaged. If a baby receives all of the recommended vaccines, the baby would receive only 4mg of Aluminium, compared to the 120mg from drinking breast milk and a formula. The usage of Monosodium Glutamate has been stated as "safe for the general population" by Food Standards of New Zealand and Australia, and therefore, the opponent's claims that this could have an effect isn't true. Mercury is used in vaccines as thiomersal, and there are no convincing cases of harm ever done. In fact, this was called the "Greatest Medical Hoax" by a 2011 Medical Journal.

Because vaccinations have been proven to eradicate diseases, or at least help eradicate diseases (such as polio and measles), and eradicate many harmful pathogens from ever returning to humanity, is why vaccination continues to benefit the world. Millions of lives have been saved, and more continue to do so. There are some downsides to vaccination, and many controversies, but it is still undeniable, even to many people, that vaccination benefits humanity. That, in itself, is undeniable.

Think about the world without vaccination? Would we have come this far, or would we still be stuck in the harms of olden days? Would we have eradicated Polio and MMR without vaccination? Would we, or could we, have progressed so far without vaccination? No.

It is because of these reasons, and many other reasons I am unable to present, vaccination benefits humanity. Therefore, I urge you to vote pro, as there is a plethora of facts to rebuke many of the claims made by the opponent. I would like to thank the opponent for this interesting debate, and wish him the best of luck in his next argument.



First of all, Con wishes to say that 2-phenoxyethanol is not MonoSodium Glutamate. The scientific name of MSG is Sodium 2-Aminopentanedioate. 2-phenoxyethanol is present in many diptheria vaccines. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the chemical is toxic to infants via ingestion, and "can depress the central nervous system and may cause vomiting and diarrhea". According to the now defunct University of Oxford Department of Chemistry Material Safety Data Sheet, 2-phenoxyethanol is classed as "Very Toxic Material". "May lead to kidney, liver, blood and central nervous system (CNS) disorders. Harmful or fatal if swallowed. Effects include behavioural disorders, drowsiness, vomiting, diarrhoea, visual disturbances, thirst, convulsions, cyanosis, and rapid heart rate, CNS stimulation, depression, cardiopulmonary effects, kidney disorders. May also lead to liver and blood disorders. Produces reproductive and developmental effects in experimental animals. "
Therefore is it quite clear that 2-phenoxyethanol harmful to children.

Although Pro claims that formaldehyde is harmless, its wikipedia page states that "In view of its widespread use, toxicity and volatility, exposure to formaldehyde is a significant consideration for human health.[4] In 2011, the US National Toxicology Program described formaldehyde as 'known to be a human carcinogen'" . Its effects, though suppressed, are still harmful to children.

One thing we must all think about is why are we vaccinating even when we know there are so many risks associated with it? Why are taking the gamble for diseases which have not occurred yet? Are we vaccinating children so that they might not fall prey to future diseases? Diseases that might not even occur to our children? Are we putting them at risk because of our own exaggerated concerns? The whole logic of our actions is wrong and baseless. We cannot harm a children's life like this. Putting them at severe risk of nervous damage and other harmful diseases.
We need to think about this. If the side effects of vaccines can be so easily cured as argued by Pro, so can other diseases that could occur to us. Point is we cannot put others at risk for something that could happen in future.
Vaccinations have too many side effects to consider them to be safe for the general population.
Therefore they are not beneficial to humanity.

Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Kc1999 6 years ago
13 minutes left oh lol
Posted by whiteflame 6 years ago
This debate seemed pretty straightforward to me, and the results are compounded by more solid sources on Pro's part. Con simply never endeavors to look at how much harm the side effects of vaccines have. He quotes links stating what the side effects look like, but never gives us a number of people affected, number of people killed, or even a set of commonly-used vaccines that cause these harms. Without this, I can conclude that the harm caused by vaccines exists, but not how substantial it is. I can't weigh it in the round. The only other argument Con makes (in R2) goes cold dropped by him throughout the remaining rounds, though I might have found cost transfers to, say, development of new antibiotics, an appealing alternative.

Meanwhile, I get specific weight measurements from Pro, providing me with some idea of what the "lives saved" count looks like, though I'd like to see more on quality of life improvements as a result. Making a clear delineation between the ways that vaccines were preserved before and the ways they are preserved now would have helped against some of those harms. You could also have mentioned where vaccines are going. There are plenty of very good options down the road, like DNA vaccines and new ways to present epitopes, that you could look at as confirmation. We're getting better at specific targeting, and therefore at longer-lasting, more effective immunity without the harms of the virus reverting to a non-attenuated state. Just a thought, could've helped to warrant the costs of research
Posted by Kc1999 6 years ago
You too Nade! Quite intense. Good luck to you in future debates.
Posted by nade_92472 6 years ago
great debate though! thanks and good luck to you kc.
Posted by nade_92472 6 years ago
i've been choking on time so badly. :(
Posted by Kc1999 6 years ago
Post my case later
Posted by Kc1999 6 years ago
I really didn't know what to say. I'll save the best for rebuttals. Thanks for accepting and good luck Nade!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cheetah 6 years ago
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a tough decision. Both sides have stood by their stance well by providing significant facts and explanations. However, CA is given to pro for valid statistical evidence and coherent analysis (which Con did a good job too in rebutting) . Con lost conduct marks for forfeiting round four. For reliable sources, I'd give it to pro but it does not seem like he is in desperate need for points. Good job both of you.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 6 years ago
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.