The Instigator
Shocktastic
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Sonofcharl
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Vaccinations do not cause Autism, Homosexuality, Or any serious illness (unless you are allergic)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2019 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 736 times Debate No: 120437
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Shocktastic

Pro

I've yet to see a reputable source show me anything in support of these mind numbing opinions

Please do not use the following arguments:

"I cannot find any research because the government controls the internet"
You can't back up a claim with a lack of evidence

"My *insert friend/family* died from vaccinations"
Unless you have records that show proof that the vaccination caused autism, This isn't proof, For all I know you could be lying

"The Bible doesn't have vaccinations in them, So they must be bad! "
This is a surprisingly common argument, And it uses personal beliefs, Please use cold hard evidence and facts

<3
Sonofcharl

Con

Hello.

I will accept. Primarily for the literary challenge.

Pro shoots themselves in the foot somewhat, By inserting "unless you are allergic" at the end of their proposition.

Pro has undeniably inferred that in some instances an allergic reaction to a vaccine can cause an adverse physiological reaction.

Similarly: By association, The whole proposition clearly implies that an allergic response to a vaccine could possibly cause "autism, Homosexuality or any serious illness".

I would suggest that the above premise that Pro has unwittingly invoked is probably the primary argument used by the anti- vaccine lobby.

Unintentionally or not Pro has come out in opposition to their own argument.

So how do they intend to move this debate forward?
Debate Round No. 1
Shocktastic

Pro

Like This!

Hi there!

To start off, My title isn't meant to mean "If you are allergic to a type of vaccine, They can make you homosexual". Rather, It's meant to provide insight into the fact that yes, You can become sick from a vaccine injection if you are allergic to the ingredients. The bracketed portion is not meant to relate to the other sections of the title other than the "serious illness" part, Hence the comma right before the section.

Secondly, You mentioned in your argument "Pro has undeniably inferred that in some instances an allergic reaction to a vaccine can cause an adverse physiological reaction. " as if it is a false statement. Most people are completely fine to ignore this, In fact, I might argue that 99% of people do not have to worry about this. But the fact of the matter is that the problem still exists, So I did use it in my title.

I cannot tell if you are Anti-Vax, Mainly because your argument is just "This title is bad". If you are anti-vax, Please do provide your reason for believing so!

<3
Sonofcharl

Con

Firstly:
Nowhere in Pro's proposition is there any suggestion that this debate is specifically pro-vaccine versus anti-vaccine.

The proposition is quite specific and clear. "Vaccinations do not cause".

Yet Pro also implies that an allergic reaction to a vaccine might cause.

No amount of commas will make any difference, To either the inference or the implication.

I'm am not saying that Pro's statement is false, But what I am say is that pro's statement is overtly contradictory.

Vaccinations do not cause, But vaccinations might cause.

For the record:
I am not specifically pro or anti vaccination. I think that certain vaccines are extremely worthwhile and I also think that certain vaccines are not necessarily as important.

But with regard to Pro's assertion:
I am in agreement with their implication that in some instances adverse reactions to vaccines in a small number of cases probably results in serious physiological problems.

Allergy:
"A damaging immune response by the body to a substance".

After all, Nuts kill in a small number of cases.

So why in a small number of cases wouldn't there be a damaging immune response by the body to a vaccine?

And let's not forget. Pro implies that they already agree with this principle.
Debate Round No. 2
Shocktastic

Pro

Hi there con! Thanks for responding so quickly!

I'm sorry you feel that this was a debate about how I wrote my argument, I thought the statement in my opening argument "I've yet to see a reputable source show me anything in support of these mind numbing opinions" would be enough for you to realize that this argument was geared towards anti-vaccinators!

You keep claiming that my statement is contradicting itself. . . But you fail to realize that my statement "(unless you are allergic)" was only meant to relate to the "Serious Illness" section. While i'm sorry you interpreted it in an unintended way, Your argument of me implying "Vaccinations do not cause, But vaccinations might cause. " is just invalid.

Let me put it in simpler terms; the statement of my title is more of a "Vaccinations do not cause unless this very rare thing that impacts less than. 5% of people" (https://vaccine-safety-training. Org/rates-of-adverse-vaccine-reactions. Html)

Now that we have that out of the way, Your other argument is just absurd

Of course I agree with you that a miniscule amount of cases may be impacted by allergies, Because I made that statement!

You can't argue that my title is poorly constructed, And then agree with me with no other points of argument, That's just you being a grammar nazi!

You mention that some vaccines are not necessary, I ask, Please provide those vaccines names and why you do not think they are important to further this argument away from my title, Since it has nothing to do with what I want to debate, And your initial theory is debunked.

Thanks!

<3
Sonofcharl

Con

Notwithstanding the fact that Pro's Round 3 is just as contradictory as their Rounds 1 and 2.

Lets cut to the chase and discuss M. M. R.

The whole thrust of the anti-vaccine lobby is centred on the issue of a possibly adverse reaction to a vaccine in a small number of cases.
Without going into comparative statistics, This is the exact same reason why we vaccinate against Measles, Mumps and Rubella.
That is to say that In a small number of cases there may be an adverse reaction to one of these viruses.

When I was a child there was no M. M. R. Vaccination available. Contracting these viruses was simply regarded as a normal stage in the growing process and they were treated with the same respect as other common viral infections.

In the case of M. M. R. I personally regard this as simply an issue if pre-immunisation versus post-immunisation. In both instances there is going to be a similar and inevitable risk of an adverse reaction in a small number of cases.

Therefore:
Where common mild viral infections are concerned I would continue to suggest that vaccination is not necessarily important.
Of course what is important to certain lobbies is the multi-billion dollar M. M. R. Vaccine monopoly.
How do you market a product that is not necessarily important?
By making people believe that your product is something that they simply cannot live without.

To reiterate and for the record:
I am neither pro nor anti vaccine.
What I attempt to be is pro common sense.
In this respect I regard immunisation against previously common high risk infections such as Tuberculosis or Poliomyelitis for example, As being completely sensible.

I would imagine that it is fair to suggest that it is possible to create vaccines to immunise against any indentifiable infection.
And I would also suggest that it is fair to imply that it is possible to have an adverse reaction to any infection.

Hopefully, The bottom line in decision making is going to centre around a sensible judgement based primarily on risk.
Nonetheless I would suggest that in todays society, Profitability is more often than not a greater factor in decision making.

Statistics:
Statistics is really a whole debate in itself.
The reality is that it is possible to create a set of statistics to either validate or invalid something, Depending upon the requirements of those commissioning the statistician.
For this reason I would suggest that pro-vaccine statistics are probably just as unreliable as anti-vaccine statistics.

Finally:
" I've yet to see a reputable source show me anything in support of these mind numbing opinions".

As Pro firmly agrees that in a small number of cases there is the possibility of an allergic reaction to a vaccination, Which may or may not cause "serious illness".
Isn't Pro unwittingly, Putting their own reputation on the line?
Debate Round No. 3
Shocktastic

Pro

Shocktastic forfeited this round.
Sonofcharl

Con

Shame.

But I think that Pro was never going to get this debate of the ground.

The obvious contradiction in their proposition and it's associated implications were too damaging.
Debate Round No. 4
Shocktastic

Pro

Shocktastic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
squeakly54n6
Honestly I hope someone debates this, I've been wanting to see the other side of this argument for a long time.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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