Question: Should any vaccines be required for children?

Title: Mandatory Vaccinations Content: Vaccines should be mandatory.

Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: Children should receive vaccinations? Well, some vaccines are untrustworthy, and may even be harmful to children.

Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: This debate is on children having mandatory vaccination with the exception of children who cannot receive it for reasons such as (but not excluding) allergies or religious reasons. Definitions: Child: A young human below the age of 18. Vaccinate: treat with a vaccine to produce immunity against a disease; inoculate. [1] Rules: 1. No trolling. 2. No outsourcing to other texts or images, except for sources. 3. Above are the terms and definitions that will be used throughout the entire debate. 4. Forfeiting one or two rounds is acceptable but will result in loss of conduct points. Forfeiting 3 or more rounds will result in a forfeit of the entire debate. 5. My opponent will provide his or her arguments in the end of round 1. For round 4, no new arguments or "ideas" are to be provided. The same goes for me in round 5.

Title: Vaccines should be mandatory Content: I believe vaccines should be mandatory (unless you have an allergy or some other medical problem), because it is for the greater good of the public. My preferred opponent would be an anti-vaxxer, although if you are a pro-vaxxer and against mandatory vaccinations, that is fine too.

Title: Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Content: I would just like to note, for absolutely no relevant reason, that he is my classmate and that I was very excited to take this, due to the previous fact. I am on the Proposition, arguing that, "Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. " Many thanks for allowing me to go first. I will begin with a refutation of the first, small quote my opponent has stated, which, to my disappointment, does not have a source. Refutation "This quote is from a man whose daughter suffered devastating side-effects from the mandatory Hepatitis B vaccination on his 5-week-old little girl. " This Hepatitis B vaccine is still good, no matter how many deaths (very small amount) occur. Would you rather like to possess this horrible disease. If so, the very small bacteria of this disease will cause liver inflammation, vomiting, jaundice, and, sometimes, death. Chronic Hepatitis B will result in liver cirrhosis and liver cancer, which means the chances of death are greatly increased [1]. A third of the world's population, more than two billion people, is infected with this disease. The most infection occurs within areas in Asia, mostly China, and Africa. There are also 350 million carriers of chronic Hepatitis B [2]. Chinese vaccinations are not mandatory. They are voluntary or optional. If more of the Chinese were treated with a Hepatitis B vaccine, then most would not have this disease. Africa is a very poor country. Many families can't afford vaccinations for their children and thus, get sick. Arguments 1. Vaccinations help children. Vaccinations help children. There can't be any doubt about it. Without vaccinations in America, many children would be sick and subject to violent diseases. Diseases will simply make children suffer more compared to a small dose of that disease. Diphtheria is an small respiratory sickness where a membrane forms that covers the throat and then makes it very hard to breathe. Whooping cough is named after the whooping sound that is made by its victims during one of their coughing periods. Mumps is another disease that can cause swollen glands on the face, but can be prevented with a vaccine. Tetanus is a horrible disease due to the fact that if obtained, you can die. You have a 50% chance of survival if you contract this sickness. There is also Rubella, Polio, Chickenpox, Measles, and Meningitis. All of these diseases are life-threatening and can only be stopped with a vaccination. There will be dangers when parents don't get their child vaccinated. In Boulder, Colorado, half of the 292 students attending Shining Mountain Waldorf School did not receive all vaccinations, with some not receiving any. The result of this has been a case of spreading whooping cough. In Colorado, all a parent needs to do have a child exempt from vaccinations is to sign a sheet of paper. 2. Vaccinations should be mandatory because diseases can spread. Children can get diseases that they could have prevented with a vaccination, and spread it to others who think they are safe without a vaccine. Children touch many things, such as park structures, and then others will get sick. There are some diseases that seem very small at first, but then develop to be potentially dangerous. The only ones that can be free of this disease are the vaccinated children. Just look at countries in Africa. They have numerous children with diseases, not because bacteria separately went and touched them all, but because they spread it among each other by playing, working, and using the same supplies. An African child dies every minute due to Measles [3]. This could be stopped with vaccinations. I eagerly await for the response. Sources: 1. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2. . http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com... 3. Cuttino, Phyliss A. "Where a Child Dies Each Minute. " UN Chronicle. June/August 2002:26.

Title: vaccinations should be mandatory Content: 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.

Title: vaccinating children must be a law Content: It is true that some people can't be vaccinated due to allergies, BUT all other children should have to be vaccinated as it prevents awful diseases such as influenza and whooping cough which if a baby gets she/he will most likely die.

Title: vaccinations should be mandatory Content: 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.

Title: Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines. Content: I think that if kids are required to get vaccines that there shouldn't be religious exemptions. The parents risk getting their kids seriously sick for there personal beliefs.

Title: Mandatory vaccinations (for government services) Content: Well yeah, I couldn't rebuttal you without you making a point first. Duh. 1: Yes they do 2: As proven as humanly possible Yes. 3. I would be inclined to agree. 4. Never knew that was a thing, But sure, Why not. 5. They have side effects, What you mean is serious side effects, But I get the point. 6. Well I wouldn't care if they did per se, But sure. So these are all great arguments that people should use vaccines. Where's the evidence that they should be mandatory?

Title: Mandatory Childhood Vaccines Content: A very good point you have made but if you realize these mandatory vaccines include a wide variety of vaccines include a wide variety of "disease preventers" so yes although some of the diseases are uncommon safety must always be considered. I hate using what it's but what if a family from Africa moved next door and they carried a rare disease you are not vaccinated against, then you have a high chance of contacting that disease. My opponent also mentions that vaccines pose dangerous threats against human life (and I want to mention the theory that vaccines cause autism has been disproven), the chance of getting a life threatening condition is much slimmer than getting the affects of an actual disease such as polio or smallpox which are highly life threatening and painful. A few arguments I shall pose are milder affects because I know a large portion of people feel like vaccinations don't 100% protect people from the disease they create milder affects so the difference between a fever and death.

Title: Mandatory childhood vaccination Content: Vaccinations should be mandatory to eligible children before reaching adolescence not just to protect them, but to protect the health within the community. Vaccines are safe and effective. They are cost-effective compared to medical treatment. Severe reaction from vaccines occurs rarely. Deaths due to vaccine-preventable diseases are undeniably high. Preventing this deaths through vaccinations does not only save lives, but it is also beneficial for the growth of the community. Stories that lacks scientific evidence continues to spread and if this continues to happen, future generations will be unvaccinated and can lead to a big outbreak. Take an action. Parents will do everything to keep their children safe. Protect them. Vaccinate them.

Title: should kids be vaccinated Content: should kids at school have to be vaccinated. Yes! if the kids are not safe it could cause them to no be going to school because they are sick. do you want your child to have a good education. vaccination should be mandatory

Title: immunizations for babies Content: In conclusion, 1. Vaccinations help protect babies against deadly and destructive diseases, viruses, bacterium and other infections. In essence, they save millions upon millions of lives. 2. Vaccinations for babies (in particular) are necessary, because they eventually stop receiving antibodies from their mother (which they need for protection). 3. SOME vaccinations may cause MINOR complications, such as a rash or small fever, but in reality these "side effects" are infinitely better for a child than the threats that you are vaccinated for. 4. Most (sane) people feel a sense of moral obligation to vaccinate their children and protect them and their health/safety/well-being so long as they have the ability to do so. It helps that vaccinations are almost always covered by medical insurance or Medicare and Medicaid, etc. 5. On a final note, most if not all schools (and colleges) require their students to have vaccinations in order to attend. Although I can make many more arguments for my position, I don't feel a longer list is necessary; my opponent failed to engage me in any type of real debate thus far. I thank you for this challenge, though, and hope I have helped my opponent to understand just some of the many reasons why vaccinations are essential to a child's life.

Title: Vaccinations (mandatory/ disbursemenet) Content: Vaccination should be mandatory because a vaccination does nothing to harm ones religion or other beliefs. If the human body is so precious then shouldn't we be doing anything to protect it? Advances in medical science can now protect our society, families, and friends from disease that could have wiped away our race. These vaccination have completely eliminated disease like polio and whooping cough. Vaccinations have no serious side effects, they only side effects are redness or soreness. When people say that vaccinations can cause autism or other deadly side effects are just myths.

Title: vaccinating children must be a law Content: Children must be vaccinated it is a fact! 6 million lives if children are saved each year due to vaccinations.

Title: Vaccines can cause autism and other problems Content: I do not believe that vaccines should be banned. I do believe that they should not be mandatory and that each parent should choose wether they have their kid vaccinated or not. Most of the time vaccines do not cause harm to people. But sometimes they do. Everyone has different body types. Every body will react differently to vaccines. Most people will not be harmed by them but because some people will be hurt or even killed by them, vaccines shouldn't be mandatory.

Title: Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines. Content: I would like to address two things before I really get into the argument. 1. Yes I was using necessary to mean "required by public schools" 2. I don't think I have 100% BOP because I'm arguing against the current accepted policies. However I would agree I have more BOP then pro does. Most likely 60-40 I will now debunk all of you're contentions. -Contention 1 There isn't really much to debunk here you basically just pointed out that most places allow religious exemptions. Just because most places allow it doesn't make it correct. -Contention 2 Yes it's true that there are ingredients that can violate the parents religious convictions. However when you are talking about getting first graders vaccinated, it's irrelevant. Because first grader don't have a religion. They have whatever there parents tell them they have. A first grader hasn't but any thought into it. He's whatever his parents tell him to be. However my bigger issue with it, is that I don't think the religion of the parents of one kid should be allowed to endanger the health of all the other kids in that school. You address this later in your argument saying something along the lines of " If my kid doesn't get vaccinated it doesn't matter if your kid is. The issue with this is that vaccines are not 100% effective. They work very well and everyone should get them, but sometimes they fail. So if one kid doesn't get vaccinated because his parents don't want him to and he gets say chicken pox, well he is a danger to other kids even if they have there vaccination because if the vaccination they got didn't work, well now that kid has gotten someone else sick because his parents don't personally like that vaccination. However even that isn't my biggest issue with religious exemption. My biggest issue is that parents are legally allowed to put there kid's health in danger because they personally don't like what's in the vaccine. If the parents don't want to get there kids the measles vaccine because they're religion doesn't like it and the kid gets measles then the parents religion put the child in danger. ColeTrain would you honest say that parents should be allow to risk getting there five and six year old children getting sick and even possibly dying all because the parents don't like it. It's the same reason i don't think faith healing should be allowed. Because the parents religion can't be used as a justification to put a child in danger. -Contention 3 You say religious exemption is protected under the first amendment. Well I disagree. Here is why. The first amendment protection is only when religion doesn't conflict with other peoples freedom or harm others. As I showed above not vaccinating your kid puts that kid and others around him in danger. So your religion is harming others and so is not protected under the first amendment. - Contention 4 Yes it's true vaccines can cause side effects. For most people it doesn't but it can. I am in favor of medical exemptions. If getting a vaccine poses a significant risk to a kids health and safety then yes they can be exempted. However that is rare and for everyone else they should get vaccinated. Also you bring up the vaccine and autism link. This has been disproved many times and in fact the author of that study lost his medical license and got thrown in jail because the study was so bad. So that's invalid. -Contention 5 I have addressed everything in this argument. But I will address one thing. You say that if people accept the risks then let them take them. However this doesn't work because we are talking about kids. So the parents are not the one who are taking the risk. They are forcing there kids sometimes as young as six to accept life threatening risks. If a adult doesn't want to get vaccinated I don't care. However parent forcing little kids to take life threatening risks is unacceptable and should not be allowed. So I think I have debunked all of your points I would like you respond to my points I made.

Title: immunizations for babies Content: its been many of times that i recall kids not getting sick untill they got a vaccine. if this is true something must be done .

Title: Vaccinations are necessary Content: I myself do not think vaccinations are necessary. Usually every time I get one I end up getting sick after. Also some may have the risk of cancer or actually do cause it. There have been many recalls on vaccines, and the people who were the first to get them were at risk for disease or were left sick. If people ate right and took care of their bodies we would not need them. Yes, there is bacteria and virus's but the healthier the person the less chance they are of getting sick.

Title: Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Content: "That night she became agitated and feisty, then she fell asleep and never woke up." This quote is from a man whose daughter suffered devastating side-effects from the mandatory Hepatitis B vaccination on his 5-week-old little girl. Hello. I am on the CON side for the debate that Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Definitions: mandatory-an action that you must perform without question vaccination-an injection into your body consisting of weak or dead bacteria which is or is similar to a disease. Because I am CON, I will allow my opponent to go first.

Title: Mandatory Childhood Vaccines Content: Childhood vaccines have been a hot topic and I wish to argue for them. These arguments should suffice- 1. Disease eradication 2. Milder symptoms of a disease 3. Lives saved 4. And herd immunity I will also put down arguments like abridging freedoms, etc.

Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: Voters, please don't vote solely for forfeiture. This debate is on whether or not children should receive vaccinations, and I am saying yes.

Title: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization Content: Compulsory Immunizations are necessary to protect the right's of others.

Title: Mandatory Childhood Vaccines Content: There are laws about what vaccines are required for a VISA both to certain countries and from them. Unless the African family hid in a suitcase while going to a country without the disease, taking a vaccine would be mandatory and the proof of vaccination (usually a yellow sheet of medically verified paper) would be required to get the visa. If they ALREADY had the disease they would have failed the blood tests required to get the VISA and/or vaccination in the first place. You seem to not understand that although some vaccinations should be mandatory to make all vaccinations mandatory for children would be most ridiculous and be wasting precious biological resources which could save adults and/or be used to better understand the virus as opposed to worrying about wasting it on vaccinating children in a nation where that microorganism isn't even present.

Title: Why parents should immunized or Vaccinated they're kids Content: There is no need for vaccines. Our immune systems can fight most ailments. Not only that, but vaccines result in almost 30,000 adverse events each year, including death, according to the department of Health and Human Services. [1] Sources: 1. www.vaers.hhs.gov

Title: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified Content: I have refuted all of the con's points with superior evidence and logic, while upholding my own points. Just to sum up the main arguments: 1. Without a mandate, herd immunity will be threatened. A mandate is the only way to make sure that enough people will get vaccinated, and will ultimately remain healthy. Furthermore, it is not right to put someone else in danger if it can be helped. By depriving their children of vaccines, parents are not only putting their own children in danger, but also putting the children of others in danger. Referring back to my Contention 2, subpoint B, when people fail to vaccinate their children, kids with weak immune systems etc. can and will be hurt. 2. Parents don't always make the best choices for their children. Diseases that cannot be be protected through herd immunity, such as tetanus, creates a greater need for everybody to get vaccinated. A child should not be forced to endure diseases such as tetanus because of a bad decision of their parents. 3. Vaccines are expensive. If vaccines were mandated, those with less money would be able to get the vaccines. 4. All of my opponent's "religious beliefs" claims have been proven to be incorrect. First and foremost, biblical word isn't taken literally. All of the religions my opponent brought up allow vaccinations. 5. The constitution does not provide absolute rights. Furthermore, because my opponent cannot proven that any religions explicitly prohibit vaccines, this point falls in my favor. 6. Vaccines are safe. If a parent is concerned about certain ingredients, they can get an alternative brand of vaccines. 7. Vaccination is preferable to natural immune systems. (Refer to my Japanese example) 8. It is preferable to give children vaccines: So they're safe throughout their life. It's more effective when given to children. Because of these reasons, I can only urge a Pro vote.

Title: A child has a human right to be protected from preventable diseases from birth Content: Yes, but that is only if they want to, what if children don't want to be vaccinated, if compulsory immunizations are carried out, there could be major strikes by kids and teens, also, what if the child becomes autistic due to this? As of now, people are allowed to decide whether or not they get vaccinated. If your value is Justice, this is a major question. If this law is carried out, who knows what terrible things could happen? Also, the resolution is not asking about whether or not vaccination is a bad thing, but if the government should have to FORCE the child to be immunized. Parents should be the primary decision-makers of their child's life, as they know whether or not the child will actually be exposed to the virus. Vaccines usually are not free, they cost money, and may actually risk the baby's life by exposing the virus. Thus, parents must make the child's critical decisions. If they are inadequate at doing this, we do have a thing called child custody requirements.

Title: On balance, children should be vaccinated. Content: PrefaceI have worked in healthcare for a decade now and find that the anti-vaccination crowd has become a small but booming voice in the industry. I am genuinley interested in a cultered debate on the issue and would love an engaging and academic contest.There is a 48 hour response time on this debate. Please consider before accepting.Full TopicOn balance, children should be vaccinated.TermsOn balance - means in general and after weighing all the available evidence.Vaccine - a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and humane atmosphere5. No trolling or semantics6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. The BOP is shared8. Pro must go first and must waive in the final round9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Constructive CasesR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's Case Thank you for your consideration

Title: Vaccinations (mandatory/ disbursemenet) Content: Vaccinations should not be mandatory, because of peoples religious beliefs. Many people hold religious beliefs against vaccination, forcing parents to vaccine their children would violate the first amendment, which is the freedom to exercise their religion. Vaccines interfere with the natural law and God's plan for humanity. Disease is natural and humans should not interfere with it. The ethical dilemmas associated with using human tissue cells to create vaccines. Also people believe that the body is sacred, it should not receive certain chemicals or blood of tissues from animals, and should be healed by God or natural means. www.vaccines.procon.orgwww.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/cultural-perspectives-vaccinations-cultural

Title: Not getting children vaccinated Content: Vaccination is a relatively new process. For this reason, there are risks to using any vaccine. However, these vaccines are not limited to the HPV vaccine. Because of the nature of our health system, these risks should be taken into account, and the risks that a parent wants expose their children to should be their own decision. Second of all, all public school systems and most private school systems already require the immunization of children. The fact that most parents send their children to school is clear sign that most children are already being vaccinated for the biggest diseases(such as hepatitis.) The few parents without children attending school would not have much risk of having their child exposed to such a diesease, as the vast majority of the population (attending public or private schools) are immunized. Therefore, it can be seen that an official mandate to REQUIRE all parents to immunize their children is unnessesary because the vast majority of our population, that attend public and private schools have already been vaccinized, and with a majority of the population immune, a spread of diesease is unlikely.

Title: Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Content: Thank you, Strike, for responding I would like to set a road map: First, I would like to refute my opponents points Second, I would like to bring up my own points I do realize that the road map is quite useless, however it is a nice addition to organization, and I hope you grade accordingly. [1]My opponent has consistently stated that "without vaccinations diseases will spread. " However, only the parents who do choose to not vaccinate their children will find that their child has the sickness. According to my opponent himself, the children who are vaccinated should be okay. Therefore, the parents' decisions will not impact other children, if vaccinations are as useful as my opponent suggested. [2]Thank you for giving us a lecture on the usefulness of the Hepatitis B vaccine. However, judged by your [#] symbols that is not normal for you, I believe that you have copied and pasted this from a website. If not, you still produced many statistics that require a source; Readers, please grade accordingly [3]To defend myself, the fact that vaccines frequently cause unintentional deaths is a well known fact that has been proven by many scientists. However, to support this, over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have en filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims between 2001 and 2009. Also, The US Court Federal Claims Office of Special Masters, between 1988 and 2009, has awarded compensation to 1,322 families whose children suffered brain damage from vaccines. To top it off, about 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, defining serious as "associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, lifetaking illness, or death. I would like to bring some of my points into this debate. [1]Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children.31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan. [2]Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to free exercise of their religion. [3]Vaccines are often unnecessary in may cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically BEFORE IMMUNIZATION BECAME AVAILABLE. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification,effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition. [4]Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening. [5]Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), and other disorders. [6]Vaccines can cause brain inflammation (encephalopathy) which can le to death or permanent brain damage and disorders such as autism, ADD/ADHD, and other developmental problems. In addition, the vaccine additive thimrosal (found in most pre-1999 vaccines) has been associated specifically with the development of autism and is still found in certain meningococcal, tetanus, and flue vaccines such as the H1N1 vaccine. [7]Vaccines clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients contained within vaccines) which may lead to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma. [8]All vaccines cause immune system suppression, and can permanently damage the natural immune system. Unvaccinated children build and strengthen their immune systems through fighting off infection and developing natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox. Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections. I would like to top this off by giving some facts and statements to support my points. [1]All 50 states require vaccinations for children entering public schools even though no mandatory Federal vaccination laws exist. All 50 states issue medical exemptions, 48 states (excluding Mississippi and West Virginia) permit religious exemptions, and 20 states allow an exemption for philosophical reasons. [2]over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have been filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims between 2001 and 2009. [3]The US Court Federal Claims Office of Special Masters, between 1988 and 2009, has awarded compensation to 1,322 families whose children suffered brain damage from vaccines. [4]About 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, defining serious as "associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, lifetaking illness, or death.

Title: vaccinations should be mandatory Content: 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.

Title: Compulsory vaccines for everyone, except immunocompromised and contraindications. Content: Pro will keep this argument brief. Claim: Vaccines save lives. Warrant: "Vaccines given to infants and young children over the past two decades will prevent 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations and 732,000 deaths over the course of their lifetimes, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." [1]. Warrant: "The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 2 million child deaths were prevented by vaccinations in 2003"[2]. Impact: Vaccination saves lives therefore as many people as possible should receive vaccines. It is clear that the resolution would save many lives and the benefit would greatly outweigh the cost. Links 1. http://www.usatoday.com... 2. http://www.cdc.gov...

Title: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations Content: Judges ready? Opponent ready? CROSS EXAMINATION: - My opponent failed to present a negative constructive, there is no information to challenge. - Does the lack of a negative constructive by the CON/NEG imply concurence with the PRO/AFF? FIRST AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL: The pros greatly outweigh any cons (none stated notwithstanding) in regard to immunization. FACT: Medical science proves that vaccine lots are routinely checked and deemed safe. FACT: Medical professionsals are in favor of immunization. FACT: Immunizations are a cost effective way to protect people and prevent many diseases. FACT: The CON/NEG has not presented any argument. Given the above, there is no reason whatsoever why people should not be vaccinated. It makes perfect sense to receive vaccinations. It is clearly in everyone's best interest to receive vaccinations. In concern for public health, compulsory immunizations are in fact justified. Thank you.

Title: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. Content: Good LuckFirst off, I would like to remind my opponent of the topic- State Mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. We are argueing on the fact whether or not childhood vaccinations should be mandated or not. Not whether vaccines are good or bad. We want the parent to have a choice instead of it being mandated. This could go against religion, and beliefs. If parents want to believe that the vaccine causees autism, let them, as they must have a choice. Your first argument is the autism claim is false. My response is that since I have evidence that vaccines cause autism while you have no evidence proving me wrong. Thus that stands. Your second argument is that people will be blinded by measles because they didn't get the vaccine. Again, look at the topic and again I will state that the parents will have choices. Second, If almost everyone in the US takes the vaccine, and if one person doesn't because of beliefs/religion, then he/she will not get the disease since every one around he/she will be sterile.

Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: In an ideal society, everyone would be healthy. Vaccines prevent sickness, and therefore work at this goal. In addition, childhood is the most important time to get vaccinated to build strong antibodies and be able to fight off disease in their adulthood. Parents shouldn't be able to stand in the way of their children's good health because of radical and incorrect suppositions. Another reason would be herd immunity. Everyone has the right to protect everyone else by being vaccinated. That way, if someone who physically cannot get the vaccine (such as someone with an allergy, an elderly person or a baby) is almost as immune as everyone else because nobody else has the sickness. This only works if everyone around them is vaccinated, so in order to protect this, we need to keep people vaccinated. Vaccinations work well. A couple of diseases that are no longer majorly present in first-world countries because of vaccinations are smallpox, polio, tuberculosis, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough and so on. There is proof that vaccines are the reason: Recently, in California, there was an outbreak of measles because so many people there are not vaccinated and in a crowd. The measles disease rapidly spread and now many people are infected. This is another example of why herd immunity is so important. In conclusion, children indisputably need to get vaccines. They promote health well, and provide herd immunity.

Title: should kids be vaccinated Content: I believe vaccines are a useful tool at preventing illness and saving lives. The smallpox vaccine was able to eradicate smallpox from the earth, which has saved countless lives. The rabies vaccine is the only way you can survive rabies, otherwise it would be 100% lethal. And there is work on an ebola vaccine which would stop ebola outbreaks in the future. Yet despite my support of vaccines, I do not think they should be mandatory. Making vaccines mandatory is a bad idea for two reasons. Reason one, some people have dangerous or even fatal reactions to vaccines. Reason two, the government should not force substances into people's bodies. I will expand on these point in the next round.

Title: Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Content: I'd like to start right away. Refutations "However, only the parents who do choose to not vaccinate their children will find that their child has the sickness. According to my opponent himself, the children who are vaccinated should be okay. Therefore, the parents' decisions will not impact other children, if vaccinations are as useful as my opponent suggested." Exactly. That's the problem. Their child will have the sickness. They think they're safer off without the vaccination, however, that is untrue. They will obtain diseases, spread it onto other children who think they're safe without the vaccination, and then spread it to the kids who were going to get a vaccination. One child can get infected, due to a careless or careless parents, and then spread the danger to all his classmates or friends. The argument is not that the vaccinated kids will be sick, it's that one child can spread it to many others. The only ones who, in a sense, "benefit," are the vaccinated ones. "Thank you for giving us a lecture on the usefulness of the Hepatitis B vaccine. However, judged by your [#] symbols that is not normal for you, I believe that you have copied and pasted this from a website. If not, you still produced many statistics that require a source; Readers, please grade accordingly" Who are you to judge me as such? If you did research, you would have found that in many of my recentd debates, I decided to use the brackets and the number. I found it a very useful tool to ensure that you are not lying, and I am not. So please refute my argument that vaccinations actually benefit people, as seen in previous argument. "Vaccines are often unnecessary in may cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically BEFORE IMMUNIZATION BECAME AVAILABLE. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification,effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition." Plagarized from here [4]. Vaccines are very necessary, even if percentages of death is small. Vaccine deaths are even smaller. The sicknesses I previously listed out are all very harmful and potentially death-threatening diseases. They cause an extreme amount of suffering. Imagine if you were a child, suffering from a very horrible disease, and you know you could've been saved if you just took one needle in the arm. That's it. Whooping cough (pertussis) was the cause of 5,000 to 10,000 deaths in the United States a year [1]. Tell me that's not small. As my source states, pertussis was a deadly killer BEFORE VACCINES WERE CREATED [1]. The annual amount of deaths are now only 30 [1]. Measles is a much less serious circumstance, however, there are 20 million cases each year when children get them [2]. That could be stopped with one vaccination! Also, this rash is contagious and can be spread among kids. Why would these diseases just suddenly decrease in numbers before vaccines became available? Why would there suddenly be improved hygiene, purification, and other methods? Where is the source for this? "Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening." Plagarized. The "risk" is most certainly worth taking, as the percentages of problems are very, very, very, very small. Most diseases cause huge amounts of suffering among children, and all that could be ended with a vaccine. "Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), and other disorders." Plagarized as well from previous site. However, no vaccines means a child can obtain these numerous diseases: Anthrax Chickenpox Diphtheria Hepatitis A and B Hib HPV Japanese Encephalitis Lyme Disease Measles Meningococcal Mumps Pertussis Pneumococcal Polio Rabies And many, many more [3]! "Vaccines clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients contained within vaccines) which may lead to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma." Plagarized from the same site, as well. I have to once again weigh down on this one refutation. The good of the vaccination far outweighs the bad of the vaccination. There is a very small chance you will obtain such diseases. "All 50 states require vaccinations for children entering public schools even though no mandatory Federal vaccination laws exist." Plagarized. What's the argument here? "Over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have been filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims between 2001 and 2009." Plagarized. However, vaccines do not cause autism. Researchers at the John Hopkins University School of Public Help and Centers for Disease Control reject the idea that vaccine and autism are linked. The US Court of Federal Claims has said that, "theory of vaccine-related causation [of autism] is scientifically unsupportable." My opponent has listed several facts to "support" his case. They are all plagarized, but nonetheless, they are very strong supporting evidence... until you read the fifth argument from the site he copied from. "According to a 2003 report by researchers at the Pediatric Academic Society, childhood vaccinations in the US prevent about 10.5 million cases of infectious illness and 33,000 deaths per year. [4]" Clearly, this benefit outweights so many of the numbers my opponent has listed. Arguments 1. Because of a few ignorant parents, their children are at risk, putting even more children at risk of being infected with a horrible disease. 2. Most childhood vaccines have a 90-99% success rate in stopping disease [5]. When children who have been vaccinated do get sick, they usually have milder symptoms with less serious complications than an un-vaccinated child that gets the same disease. For example, an un-vaccinated child with mumps can become permanently deaf and spread the disease to more students, but the vaccinated child won't. 3. Children especially need to get vaccinated. Children have weaker immune systems than adults and thus, are more susceptible to various diseases than adults. The Proposition should currently be winning this debate due to the reason that I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments, and he has never completely refuted all of mine and some were left untouched. All of my opponent's arguments are plagarized and they are not his own work. Sources: 1. http://kidshealth.org... 2. http://kidshealth.org... 3. http://www.cdc.gov... 4. http://vaccines.procon.org... 5. http://www.healthychildren.org...

Title: Why parents should immunized or Vaccinated they're kids Content: parents should immunized for the safety of community such as schools or any sorts of public place. if not it could cause a epidemic

Title: Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. Content: Not a full case yet.. Just some little points I put together... Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children. 31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan. Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to the free exercise of their religion. Vaccines are often unnecessary in many cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for the childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically before immunization became available. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification, effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition. Vaccines interfere with natural law and God's plan for humanity. Disease is a natural occurrence, and humans should not interfere with its trajectory. Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening. Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barrï¿½ Syndrome (GBS), and other disorders. Vaccines can cause brain inflammation (encephalopathy) which can lead to death or permanent brain damage and disorders such as autism, ADD/ADHD, and other developmental problems. In addition, the vaccine additive thimerosal (found in most pre-1999 vaccines) has been associated specifically with the development of autism and is still found in certain meningococcal, tetanus, and flu vaccines such as the H1N1 vaccine. Vaccines clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients contained within vaccines) which may lead to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma. All vaccines cause immune system suppression, and can permanently damage the natural immune system. Unvaccinated children build and strengthen their immune systems through fighting off infection and developing natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox. Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections. Children should not be required to receive the DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) vaccine. Some studies have shown that children who receive the DPT vaccine exhibit shallow breathing which has been associated with sleep apnea and may be a causal factor in sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Studies of infants whose deaths were recorded as SIDS show a temporal relationship with DPT vaccination (these infants tended to die at similar time intervals in relation to when they were vaccinated). Children should not receive the hepatitis B vaccine. Hepatitis B is a blood-born disease and is primarily spread by sexual intercourse and intravenous drug use. Children are not at great risk of contracting the disease. In addition, researchers have found that immunization with the hepatitis B vaccine is associated with an increased risk of developing multiple sclerosis. Young girls should not receive mandatory vaccination for HPV (human papilloma virus). The vaccine was approved in 2006 and the long-term effects are unknown. Since approval, adverse side effects such as severe allergic reactions, Guillain-Barrï¿½ syndrome, spinal cord inflammation and pancreatitis have been reported to the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. Although these adverse reactions may be rare, they are not worth the risk since the vaccine only protects against two of the 15 strains of HPV that may cause cancer of the cervix (20-40 years after an individual is infected). Vaccines are promoted primarily to generate profits for manufacturers and financial donations for medical organizations that endorse vaccines. In 2003, a House Committee on Government Reform report revealed that the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices had members with significant financial ties to vaccine companies. The American Academy of Pediatrics, a leading pro-vaccination organization, receives millions of dollars from vaccine companies.

Title: Compulsory vaccines for everyone, except immunocompromised. Content: Pro's position is that vaccines should be compulsory for everyone except immunocompromised people. I will not be arguing that vaccines should not be compulsory (I take no position on that issue here). Rather, I will be arguing that Pro's exception fails to exempt people with legitimate excuses. For this reason, Pro's position should be rejected. Pro's exception fails to exempt people who have a contraindication for a particular vaccine. In medicine, a contraindication is "something (as a symptom or condition) that makes a particular treatment or procedure inadvisable". [1 - http://goo.gl... ] For example, gastrointestinal problems are a contraindication for aspirin [2 - http://goo.gl... ], as "aspirin causes gastrointestinal bleeding". [3 - http://goo.gl... ] There are many different vaccines, and each vaccine has a specific list of contraindications and precautions. [4 - http://goo.gl... ][5 - http://goo.gl... ] According to the CDC, contraindications for vaccines include severe allergic reactions after a previous dose to a vaccine component, pregnancy, intussusception, severe immunodeficiency, encephalopathy, etc. [4 - http://goo.gl... ][5 - http://goo.gl... ] If we were to adopt Pro's proposal, then we would be subjecting people to compulsory vaccination even though these vaccines would be injurious to their health. That's not a good idea. Sources: 1 - Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary - Entry for Contraindication - http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2 - WebMD - Contraindications for Aspirin - http://www.webmd.com... 3 - American Heart Association - Article on Aspirin - http://circ.ahajournals.org... 4 - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Chart of Contraindications and Precautions to Commonly Used Vaccines For Childhood Vaccines - http://www.cdc.gov... 5 - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Vaccine Contraindications and Precautions for ADULTS Only - http://www.cdc.gov...

Title: Unvaccinated children should be home-schooled Content: We need to Weigh the Cost the Child Receiving a Possible "Illness" from remaining unvaccinated, against the Premise that they would be denied a Basic education. CONTENTION 1. Children Being Denied a Basic Education Vaccination is no prerequisite to anything. Regardless of Age, ethnicity, social and economic background, children should have the right to attend School. According to many Constitutional and Laws Globally, this would infringe on the Act of Liberty, and Free will, in accordance with the First Amendment of the US constitution.(1) CONTENTION 2. Denial of Free will As stated Above, this would infringe on the act of Free will, a Basic right that all Humans should have, regardless. REFUTATIONS "Although it is ultimately up to the parents on whether they wish to vaccinate thier kids, I think it breaks a social contract to exclude your child from vaccination and place them into an environment that may put your child and other children at risk." What Social Contract do you speak of, I've never heard of it. For whatever reasons an individual has, be it religious or Moral, they have the right to NOT have there children vaccinated. "Vaccinations have proved to be more good than harm children and if you decide to to not vaccinate you should not be able to enter your child into a school that requires vacvcinations as a standard." No Schools require children to be vaccinated, as of saying this. Vaccinations are very effective, and carry little side effects, but as stated, people have the right to not vaccinate there child. "This is not to say that not vaccinating isn't a right parent have, but that right should have consequences. Those children should not be intergrated with others in order to avoid reversing our progress against nearly eradicated diseases." What Studies do you have the Say not vaccinating your child "Reverses" our progress against nearly eradicated diseases? That sounds completely made up. You make another Statement based on opinion, rather then fact. " "Those children should not be intergrated with others" That's not for you to decide. You may or may not Vaccinate your child, if you have one, but Making decisions for others is Unjust, and Unconstitutional. (1)(http://www.google.ca...)

Title: Vaccines are a waste of time, money, and cause health problems. Content: Do you think childhood vaccinations should become mandatory? >Yes, it protects everyone >No, it's a family decision I>'m undecided Thank you, we have already counted your vote. Yes, it protects everyone 79.08% (707 votes) No, it's a family decision 18.12% (162 votes) I'm undecided 2.8% (25 votes) Total Votes: 894 In this poll, 80% of people, 4x the people have proven that they have low intelligence. All thos people have no idea what's in the vaccines nor read the leaflets. They want 96% of people to be vaccinated where I live!!! They are forcing me to get a vaccination or they're gonna fire me!!! That's against freedom and I totally disagree with it... You think even more diseases can be cured?! Come on! You listed like 10 that we *must get* which is absurd!!!

Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: This debate is on whether or not children should receive vaccinations, and I am saying no.Voters think over it and vote . I strongly believe that students should not receive vacations

Title: Resolved: State Mandated Administration of Childhood Vaccinations is Justsified Content: I seem to be doing a lot of medical debates recently, but this one caught my attention. It is my firm belief that state mandated administration of childhood vaccinations, as my opponent proposed it, is a complete waste of time. The key flaw in my opponent's model is the ability to opt out given ANY argument, no matter how unconvincing, so long as it is valid. For instance, "I believe in the religion of nonvaccionism, so I don't want my kid getting a vaccination" would be a valid excuse for somebody who doesn't understand the science of vaccinations. Also, "I don't have the time" would be permissable as a "physical" exemption, because of course if you don't have the time you can't physically get a vaccination. I'll demonstrate why this is a problem with reference to my opponent's own arguments. My first contention is that it's not up to us to decide if vaccinations are reasonable or justified. My opponent and I both agree that this should instead be left up to the individual, and thanks to my opponent's opt-out clause, it is. Since we're dealing with minors here, the consent process (in this case, consent not to have a vaccination) would not be given by the patient but by their legal caregivers. These are the people we trust to make the best decisions on the children's behalf in virtually every aspect of their lives, so we can reasonably trust that the vast majority of them will probably make a highly informed decision. They're making these kinds of decisions right now under the status quo. Parents aren't like "here's my baby, stick whatever medicines into him you want to", they seek out all the relevant information. They'll do that whether the model is accepted or not. So assume you're a parent who wants to give their kids a vaccination. Under the status quo, you'd give your kids a vaccination. Under my opponent's model, your kids will be given a vaccination. So there's no difference there. Now assume you're a parent who doesn't want to give their kids a vaccination. Under the status quo, you'd not give your kids a vaccination. Under my opponent's model, you'd exempt them from giving them a vaccination. If my opponent's case is that herd immunity is not being reached voluntarily, then proposing a voluntary model definitely won't solve the problem. My second contention is that there is no right to mandated vaccinations. That's because no government in this world is, or can ever be, a John-Locke-utopia. Governments in reality enact policy until they are overthrown by people. The problem with a John-Locke-utopia is that, like Karl Marx's socialism, it implies a commonality or accepted philosophy among all the people in that society - everyone working for the common good, not their own. Karl Marx envisioned a neutral state in exactly the same way as Locke, but Marx actually tried to make it practically workable. Of course, anybody who knows the history of communism will know that it didn't practically work. Even if the world was so utopian, however, the fact that your own model has an opt-out clause implies that it isn't. If everyone agreed to one social contract - we'll all value our longetivity forevermore - then things would be different. With such a large proportion of the world smoking, however, I think you'll find that's not what happens - there is no social contract. Furthermore, non-vaccinated people pose no threat to vaccinated people, because they're vaccinated. Once you have a vaccine you can't get the desease, that's the whole point. So the whole idea is false that you're "doing harm to others" by not vaccinating. My third contention is that there is no justice in simply asking lawyers whether something is just or not. Seriously. Every single person pro cites in this paragraph was a lawyer at some stage. The fact is that with an opt-out clause, you're making all these opinions meaningless. You're telling them that the state cannot mandate vaccinations, only they can shift the burden of proof from one group of parents to the other. In law there's an idea called precedent - future laws should conform to past decisions. If my opponent is going to use the precedent of US case law and philosophy, why is his model inconsistant with it? I'm going to add another three contentions. Not everyone is as liberal as I am, and some people just resent being forced to do anything. If you force them to do something, instead of asking them nicely, they're likely to not co-operate. This is true even if you're not actually forcing them to do something, such as in this model. The perception that the government is using public policy to control people's personal lives won't jar well with this "libertarian" crowd, and you bet that they'll reduce the number of vaccinations they give their kids for precisely this reason. Less vaccinations is bad, even from a utilitarian perspective. The second contention is that there's no recourse. Pretend I flouted the law and didn't give up my kids for vaccination or give a proper excuse. What will the authorities do? There's two ways they can find out - if my child gets sick (in which case it's too late), or by checking every single child for every single vaccination. That's a mammoth administrative task. And if you take the parents to court, they'll simply say (through their lawyers) "my children shouldn't have a vaccination, it's in their best interest, but I couldn't think of a reason why. I am obliged as a parent to do what's best for my children, and thus found this law irreconcilable with my legal obligations as this child's guardian". That's thee sort of legal case that can only result in one of the two being struck down (or in systems where this is not allowed, in the judge making an arbritrary ruling, which doesn't help anyone) - and you bet parenthood will beat mandated vaccinations any day. This makes the law a total waste of time. The third contention is which vaccinations this law applies to. My opponent wasn't very specific, but he mentioned the 23 key illnesses. 23 vaccinations is actually a lot. Most of the vaccinations on the list have been around for less than a few decades. Scientists cannot even be sure that they are safe in the long term. When I was a child, I was given a minimum of vaccinations. By some strange coincidence, my preschool was hit by a spectacular outbreak of glue ear. It affected every single child except me. And every single other child had at least twice as many vaccinations as I did. I'm not saying vaccinations should be avoided outright - I'm saying that this law applies even to very new vaccinations that cannot reasonably have undergone sufficient long-term scientific testing.

Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should enforce mandatory vaccinations. Content: I assume my opponent means all people in the USA will be subject to these mandatory vaccines. I mean what would be the point otherwise? I see no list of exceptions, so I expect an easy win. I made a similar debate and got nailed for this. 0. Medical contraindications. Sometimes for whatever reason a person is unable to receive medication. This is called a contraindication. This is true for vaccines. [1] By forcing everyone to take vaccines you are exposing them to unnecessary risk and harm. People with contraindications should not be forced to take vaccines. 1. Severely immunocompromised patients should not have vaccines. "In general, these patients should not be administered live vaccines" [2] At this point I think I've effectively destroyed my opponent's premise. Forcing people who have contraindications and are severely immunocompromised is dangerous and cruel. I see no good reason to force these people to have to go through mandatory vaccines. Note this could fall under "6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)" I don't think so, I think this was a vast oversight by my opponent. Assuming my above arguments fall into kritiks of the topic, I apologize and have therefore forfeited the debate. Thanks for your time. Sources. 0. . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 1. . http://www.cdc.gov... 2. . http://www.cdc.gov...

Title: Compulsory Vaccines, pick which side in r1. Content: Thank you for allowing me to be a part of this debate. I will be going with option B, therefore I will be arguing that vaccines should not be compulsory.

Title: Not getting children vaccinated Content: I am in awe and opposed to people not getting their children vaccinated. Not getting children vaccinated is why we are suddenly having outbreaks of diseases we haven't seen in years. Since vaccines have been found, we are living longer than we ever lived in the past. There is a reason for them. To not get your children vaccinated is irresponsible. I think it should be mandated that everyone get their children vaccinated. The only vaccination that I believe should still be up to a parent is the new HPV vaccine because it is new, cost money and is not neccessary until your child starts to have sex.

Title: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization Content: My opponent cites vactruth. com, a lunatic fringe conspiracy website, in order to lend credence to his views. However, the claims of this site are entirely unsupported by science. In order to win all I must do is show that there is at least one scenario where compulsory immunizations would be justified. Contention 1: Compulsory immunizations are justified to prevent the spread of polio, smallpox, and SARS. In the case of an outbreak of dangerous viral infections, compulsory immunizations would be morally necessary. Even if I were to grant the fabricated claims of my opponent the negative effects of polio [1], smallpox [2], and SARS [3] would still warrant compulsory immunizations. People do not have a constitutional right to jeopardize the life of other people by refusing to get vaccinated any more than they have a right to murder someone. (Resolution affirmed) ---References--- 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Resolved: State Mandated Administration of Childhood Vaccinations is Justsified Content: According to the Centers for Disease Control, "Universal vaccination is a critical part of quality health care and should be accomplished through routine and intensive vaccination programs." We strongly affirm the resolution, "Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified." This is because of justice, righteousness, and reasonability. Before I begin, I would like to make one preliminary observation: the PRO is not obligated to prove that state mandated administration of childhood vaccinations should be implemented into any past, current, or future system of government, merely that they are justified. I would also like to define a few key terms. I would like to define state as a politically organized body of people, mandate as to formally order or command, and justified as an action that is shown to be just, right, or reasonable all according to Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. Through these definitions, we still allow for society to keep its free will and allow for exemption. The government will mandate the vaccination program to ensure that those who wish to be vaccinated receive the vaccination while those opposed and provide reasonable grounds to be exempt, can be. This would include philosophical, religious, and physical exceptions. Our first contention is that mandated vaccinations are reasonable. Before I begin, I would like to introduce an important concept: utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory, which justifies actions or events based on the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Firstly, vaccinations themselves improve the safety of the individual and the public. According to a 2003 report by researchers at the Pediatric Academic Society, childhood vaccinations in the US prevent about 10.5 million cases of infectious illness and 33,000 deaths per year. About 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, meaning associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death. Next, mandated vaccinations are beneficial towards the safety of the individual and of the public. Without mandated vaccinations, it would be highly difficult or impossible to reach herd immunity, a situation in which a sufficient proportion of a population (roughly 85%) is immune to an infectious disease to make its spread from person to person unlikely. Currently, according to the most recent National Immunization Survey from the Centers for Disease Control, only 70.2% of children 19-35 months are vaccinated against 23 key illnesses. Clearly, herd immunity is not being reached voluntarily. Also, without mandated vaccinations, health and safety issues arise. Even if a disease does not severely harm an unvaccinated person, they still have the potential to pass the disease on to another, possibly killing them. The risks of not being vaccinated far outweigh the small risks associated with vaccination. Clearly, mandated vaccinations improve overall safety and health, and are therefore justified. Our second contention is that mandated vaccinations are right. Every government in the world has a moral obligation to protect the rights and safety of its citizens. However, every government must infringe upon the lives of the individual in order to maintain national security and freedom. This is known as a social contract, in which individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm. John Locke argued in Second Treatise of Government that "…individuals would agree to form a state that would provide a "neutral judge", acting to protect the lives, liberty, and property of those who lived within it." He then postulated, "the government thus acts as an impartial, objective agent of that self-defense." Since we have already proven that vaccinations are not only beneficial to society, but that not vaccinating is directly detrimental towards society, the government has an obligation to mandate vaccinations and is justified in doing so. Since not vaccinated citizens pose an immediate and dangerous threat to the remainder of the population, mandated vaccinations qualify as self-defense. According to the social contract, mandated vaccinations are justified because of a duty to the society. Our final contention is that mandated vaccinations are just. Courts have repeatedly upheld compulsory vaccination laws in the United States as a reasonable exercise of the state's police power, even in the absence of a disease outbreak. Such laws survive constitutional challenge even in cases where they conflict with the religious beliefs of individuals. In the first such case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court ruled that: "the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint." John Stuart Mill in On Liberty wrote "The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant." Therefore, the government serves justice when preventing citizens from immediate threats (unvaccinated citizens). Clearly, mandated vaccinations are justified because of justice. In conclusion, since we have proven that mandated vaccinations are reasonable, right, and just, they are justified.

Title: DO NOT VACCINATE YOUR INFANT! the risks are MUCH higher than the possible benefits! Content: I repeat: There is no more thimerosal in vaccines for childhood viruses. Vaccination is a fairly simple process. I'm sure most of us understand how they work. Our immune systems recognize pathogens that it was dealt with before. Upon discovery, the proper antibodies are created and the pathogen is destroyed before any damage comes to the body. Getting sick once is still too much though. Weakened versions of the virus are injected into the bloodstream and the immune system attack it. Of course, there is no damage, but now the patient is immune to the disease and will never have to have it. Vaccination is one of the most important tools of public health. My opponent is trying to give a reason why the risks are *much* higher than the benefits. I have already eliminated his first argument. As it stands, I see no risks at all in vaccination and quite a few benefits. It is now up to my opponent to tip the scales.

Title: There should not be Mandatory Vaccinations Content: Pro makes the claim that there shouldn't be mandatory vaccinations on the premise that they cause autism, are a scam, and have other negative consequences. However they haven't provided any evidence this is the case. The claim that vaccinations cause autism isn't true. :The MMR vaccine controversy started with the 1998 publication of a fraudulent research paper in The Lancet linking the combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine to colitis and autism spectrum disorders." [1] The key word there is fraudulent. "An investigation by journalist Brian Deer found that Andrew Wakefield, the author of the original research paper linking the vaccine to autism, had multiple undeclared conflicts of interest,[9][10] had manipulated evidence,[11] and had broken other ethical codes. The Lancet paper was partially retracted in 2004, and fully retracted in 2010, when Lancet's editor-in-chief Richard Horton described it as "utterly false" and said that the journal had been "deceived" [2]. As we can see, basing the outlook that vaccinations shouldn't be mandatory because they cause autism is completely unfounded. Claims ought to be based on fact to be considered true. A scam can be defined as a dishonest scheme. It vaccinations are a scam, about what and why in particular? A case hasn't been provided. So with Pro not offering cant substance whatsoever, allow me to showcase why vaccinations are important. Immunizations can save your child's life. "Because of advances in medical science, your child can be protected against more diseases than ever before. Some diseases that once injured or killed thousands of children, have been eliminated completely and others are close to extinction" primarily due to safe and effective vaccines. Polio is one example of the great impact that vaccines had have in the United States. Polio was once America"s most-feared disease, causing death and paralysis across the country, but today, thanks to vaccination, there are no reports of polio in the United States [3]" Immunizations protect the future generation. " Vaccines have reduced and, in some cases, eliminated many diseases that killed or severely disabled people just a few generations ago. For example, smallpox vaccination eradicated that disease worldwide. Your children don"t have to get smallpox shots any more because the disease no longer exists. By vaccinating children against rubella (German measles), the risk that pregnant women will pass this virus on to their fetus or newborn has been dramatically decreased, and birth defects associated with that virus no longer are seen in the United States. If we continue vaccinating now, and vaccinating completely, parents in the future may be able to trust that some diseases of today will no longer be around to harm their children in the future [4]". Humans have been able to live longer, flourish often, and progress society due to the lack of bubonic plagues and mystical diseases we previously died from before the research of science. Mandatory Vaccinations not only save lives, but allow the human race to be stronger than ever before. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://www.vaccines.gov... [4] https://www.vaccines.gov...

Title: Mandatory childhood vaccination Content: Extend. Also freedom of religion is expressed in the first amendment. Making it mandatory would be a violation of this. But justified by the risk of spreading disease? Vaccines don't actually help that much. It is healthy practices such as hand washing that get the job done.

Title: Mandatory vaccinations (for government services) Content: sure, All that stuff about herd immunity is true. However, That still doesn't tell me why it should be mandatory. where's the imperative justification? Sure I can say "you ought to do this or that". But what's the basis for the ought. We certainly can't just go denying kids school for no good reason. The problem here is that once we open this flood gate of mandatory vaccines, Then the government can just tell us what vaccines to get. What if a harmful vaccine comes out? Just because they're all good now doesn't mean they always will be right? So while we can say that people should get vaccines. We can't say they should be mandatory because it violates our civil rights and those are held to a high standard. All you've shown me so far is that vaccines are a good idea. You haven't shown me a good enough reason to deny millions of kids education. That's a tall order to fill.

Title: On balance, children should be vaccinated. Content: you shouldn't vaccinate children since it gives autism and it contains the virus if you get the choice of contracting non-deadly diseases that you are likely not to contract vs getting autism what would you rather have.

Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: Our society needs to be healthy, we want it to be healthy.But does that mean that we start giving vaccinations to every person would help in being disease free. In olden days there were no vaccines but still the rate of getting ill was very less. there are natural ways for protecting ourselves from the diseases. Moreover the chances of getting ill have increased from the past when there were no vaccinations. Pharmaceutical Companies Can"t Be Trusted. ALL Vaccines are Loaded with Chemicals and other Poisons which make the immune system of a lad weaker and if confronted by a disease takes a longer time to heal. Fully Vaccinated Children are the Unhealthiest, Most Chronically Ill Children I Know.A Number of Vaccines Have Already Had Problems/Been Removed from the Market so you can't trust all vaccines maybe you would take the vaccine now but later you come to know that the vaccine is faulty. You Can Always Get Vaccinated, But You Can Never Undo a Vaccination. Vaccination does not guarantee even immediate immunity, and boosters are necessary for all vaccinations. I think there is no care taken of our body,immune system or our health by ourselves ... we don't want to prevent it by natural methods and take vaccinations which gradually weaken your immune system. There are new diseases which have originated recent days because of our practices. So I conclude on saying that children must not be given so many vaccinations that their body becomes weaker.

Title: State-mandated administration of childhood vaccines is justified. Content: Topic: State-mandated administartion of childhood vaccines is justified. Rules:1. No Ad Hominem2. No plagiarism3. No semantics/abusive arguments4. Dropping = Conceding5. By accepting, my opponent accepts the given rules.5a. If not, post in comments. =/Definitions:1. State-mandatedMandated is defined as requirement, so this phrase means each state has requirements relating to medical and safety issues.2. Administartion Administration, in this case, relates to allowing the government to give permission and obligating to trained medical professionals to give a shot to you. 3. Childhood VaccinesA series of vaccines, biological preparation, given during childhood to prevent future diseases. 4. JustifiedFor debate purposes, it means that on balance, it does more good than harm to the people. Good luck to whoever accepts.

Title: Vaccination is a natural way to stimulate our immune system to fight a disease. Through vaccination... Content: Some vaccines include toxic materials such as chemicals including mercury, formaldehyde, aluminium, and a variety of other known toxic materials. Vaccines might be capable of causing recurrent infections in children because they weaken the immune system. Parents should have the right to choose on behalf of their children whether they should be vaccinated at all, or to choose vaccination against some diseases but not others.

Title: Parents who don't vaccinate their children should still receive benefits from the government Content: Firstly, you have said that "parents may not be in the budget for the vaccination for their child', which is indeed possible, but that doesn't mean that they should be allowed to not give provide the vaccination, the government should provide the funds in that case. Which is the case in several countries already. For example, there is the Universal Immunisation Programme in India which pays for the vaccination for the children in poor families. In the USA, there is CDC (Centres for Disease Control and Prevention) which does so as well. Secondly, you have said that there are negative side effects of vaccinations on children. However if you would have researched the topic, you would have realised that the only possible issues that could arise are mild fever, shivering, fatigue, joint/muscle pain and headaches. These- by the way, are not in anyway going to hurt the child since active immunisation (that is what vaccination is) is the injection of dead or inert pathogen into the recipient's body for the white blood cells to create memory regarding the antigen's structure to fight a similar alive one in the future. Which would explain the negative effects. Next, just because it isn't legal to not vaccinate your child doesn't mean it is okay to not do so. As a matter of fact it should be illegal since a child's life is risked. And moreover, the statement is inaccurate as well since in the USA alone, it is legally required in all the 50 states to do so if he/she is entering an educational system (school, day care, etc). In addition to that, the motion suggests that the issue being debated refers to al the countries all around the world and not only Australia, so we should broaden our horizons and not only focus on one country. Additionally, you have said that parents should have the option of taking the risk of not vaccinating their child simply shows that you have said that it is wrong for children to be deprived of the medical necessity. Which is basically saying that you agree with me. Finally, I would like to say that if the government does indeed give these benefits to these families, it just suggests that it is okay to be ill and be a possible reason that a epidemic is spread. It will have a negative impact on all the future generations. It is the government's job to improve the standard of living of a nation, not deteriorate it. That is why the citizens have chosen them.

Title: Compulsory Vaccines, pick which side in r1. Content: I'm still on the fence about vaccines. I am willing to argue for or against vaccines. This is because many of my real life friends are anti-vaxxers, yet I pride myself on being a rational person. Therefore, I am in conflict. Finally, depending on which side my opponent picks, I will argue the opposite. Just make sure to state which side you are on in round one. If you don't choose a side I assume we go with me as Pro and my opponent as Con. Sides to choose from: A. Compulsory Vaccines should be enforced by law in the USA regardless of any religious beliefs, conspiracy theories, or moral objections. B. Compulsory Vaccines should not be enforced by law in the USA if the person has a religious, conspiracy theories, or moral objection. Exceptions, contraindications [0] and immunocompromised patients, or any other physical reason is it ill-advised patient for the patient to receive the vaccination treatment verified by a licensed medical doctor. Example one, person A receives a vaccination, then a rare reaction of some kind occurs. Then, the doctor would write a note that particular person shouldn't receive any booster shots for that vaccination. Example two, immunocompromised patients. Patient B has a condition, like receiving chemotherapy that hinders the immune system rendering the vaccine ineffective. Just to be clear, physical reasons that can be verified by a doctor would be excluded from the debate. Having moral, irrational fears, and/or religious objections to vaccines is the epicenter of the debate. Round one Pick sides and definitions Round two arguments, don't respond to opponent's argument Round three rebuttals, respond directly to opponent's r2 Round four Defense, respond directly to opponent's r3. Burden of proof will be equally shared. Common definitions are assumed unless otherwise and agreed upon. Sources 0. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Title: Compulsory vaccines for everyone, except immunocompromised. Content: Have fun. Vaccines save lives, its common knowledge. Therefore, everyone who can should get one. "Vaccines given to infants and young children over the past two decades will prevent 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations and 732,000 deaths over the course of their lifetimes, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vaccines also will have saved $295 billion in direct costs, such as medical expenses, and a total of more than $1.3 trillion in societal costs over that time" Liz Szabo, USA TODAY [4] The immunocompromised shouldn't be forced to receive vaccines because they are in too weak a state. "Immunocompromised patients are a unique group with special issues regarding immunization. Pharmacists need to work closely with these patients' physicians in deciding whether and when immunization might be appropriate. " [5] . http://www.usatoday.com... . http://www.medscape.com...

Title: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified Content: I Negate. Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. My First Contention: Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Subpoint A: It is a direct violation of the 1st amendment in the Constitution to mandate the vaccination of any individual. It is a direct violation of the 1st amendment in the Constitution to mandate the vaccination of any individual if it is a direct violation of their religious belief. These religions include (but are not limited to): Christianity, Mormonism, and Jehovah's Witnesses. 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to the free exercise of their religion, as it can be quoted as saying "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." My Second Contention: Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions. Subpoint A: These reactions can include anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening. Vaccines can also trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barrï¿½ Syndrome (GBS), and other disorders. Vaccines can cause brain inflammation (encephalopathy) which can lead to death or permanent brain damage and disorders such as autism, ADD/ADHD, and other developmental problems. In addition, the vaccine additive thimerosal (found in most pre-1999 vaccines) has been associated specifically with the development of autism and is still found in certain meningococcal, tetanus, and flu vaccines such as the H1N1 vaccine. Subpoint B: Vaccines clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients contained within vaccines) which may lead to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma. All vaccines cause immune system suppression, and can permanently damage the natural immune system. Unvaccinated children build and strengthen their immune systems through fighting off infection and developing natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox. Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections. Subpoint C: About 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, meaning associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death. According to the CDC, infants (children less than one year old) are at greatest risk for adverse medical events from vaccination including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome. My Third Contention: Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents. Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children. 31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan. Extending the power of the Federal Government to this extent (ignoring it's violation of the Constitution) would be directly opposite of AT LEAST 31% of the populous. This would reflect poorly on the federal government. http://www.senate.gov...(1791) http://vaccines.procon.org... Moshe Tishler and Yehuda Shoenfeld, "Vaccination May be Associated with Autoimmune Diseases," Isralie Medical Association Journal, July 2004 National Vaccine Information Center "Autism: Introduction to Autism Information," www.nvic.org (accessed Jan. 8, 2010) Joseph Mercola, "Vaccines and Immune Suppression," www.mercola.com (accessed Jan. 5, 2010) Richard Moskowitz, "The Role of Vaccines in Chronic Disease," www.whale.to (accessed Jan. 13, 2010) Gary L. Freed, et al., "Parental Vaccine Safety Concerns in 2009," Pediatrics, Mar. 1, 2009 Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, "About the VAERS Program," vaers.hhs.gov

Title: Vaccination with the MMR vaccine should be mandatory Content: Alright, let"s kick this thing off with the case. The U.S. Federal Government will require that all individuals before attending school receive the vaccination. All individuals who are beyond schooling age and under the age of 65 would have to get the vaccine within 5 years. These will be subsidized on an as-needed basis, ensuring that it is broadly affordable. Failure to vaccinate oneself or one's family results in a fine that scales with income. There would be other exclusions based on allergies, pregnancies, and those individuals who are immunocompromised. Before I transition into some contentions, I"ll start with some general overview of this issue. This debate is fundamentally a comparison between individual choice and public good. I think both agree that vaccines are a public good, at least insofar as having vaccines available to the public is a net benefit to society. It is generally beneficial for people to be able to protect themselves against potentially deadly viruses and bacteria. These are infectious, so there is also a benefit to others around us. If Con wishes to argue that this is not the case, he"s welcome to do so, but for now, I"ll function under the assumption that we agree on the efficacy of vaccines. We know that there is also a fundamental level of value to individual choice, which I"m certain Con will get into in his argument. So, how do we balance freedom vs. health? As a society, we do this quite often. Think about traffic laws. We require people to follow certain rules of the road because not doing so makes them a danger to both themselves and others. And this isn"t the only instance where our government goes against basic beliefs in the general population. Despite widespread acrimony over drug tests, workplaces are still allowed to require them. We are taxed despite the protestations of individuals who don"t like certain taxes. All of this is allowed not because the government is being overbearing, but because we"ve accepted an aspect of shared responsibility for our actions. We accept that individual rights do not always trump that responsibility, particularly when doing so could cause harm to others. So, when is it justified to subvert individual choice to the public good? That requires that two conditions to be met. Whatever is being regulated or mandated must be safe and effective, and the risk of not participating in said behavior must outweigh any risk from the behavior itself. I would argue that vaccines meet these criteria. Vaccines are both safe and effective, and they have a track record of reducing illness and death from the diseases they prevent. Again, if my opponent wishes to challenge this, I will be more than happy to provide evidence to support this argument (some of the coming arguments will support this), though I believe it"s a point on which we agree. All of this puts Con in a difficult position. He"s going to try and argue that vaccines are markedly different from other issues that encounter the liberty vs. public good question, and he"ll have to show that the personal freedoms lost outweigh the widely evidenced good that vaccines provide. To do that, he"ll have to counter life and quality of life lost, which comes with numerical weight, with a vaguer conception of impact, as personal freedom isn"t clearly quantifiable. I look forward to seeing what he comes up with. With that, onto my contentions. 1. Disease Spread We must recognize that vaccination is not a choice that solely affects the individual being vaccinated. The decision to get the MMR vaccine affects everyone around you. Measles, mumps and rubella are all transmitted through droplets that are sprayed into the air, making them airborne pathogens with a high likelihood of transmission to those around the infected.[1, 2, 3] The mere fact that others are put at risk by people who refuse to take these vaccines creates a substantial societal harm in the status quo, as many are allowed to refuse to get the vaccine. We're living this harm today, seeing a resurgence in these entirely preventable diseases in the U.S. and abroad.[4] This resurgence is most marked with measles, a disease that the U.S. had eliminated by the year 2000, but which returned in 17 outbreaks among 222 people just in 2011.[5] Mumps has had 4 reported outbreaks this year alone, and has had several small and two large outbreaks in the last 5 years, encompassing thousands of people.[6] Rubella has also returned from a long absence, appearing in three cases in the U.S. in 2012 after being eliminated back in 2004.[7] This change resulted mainly from a false public perception that vaccines have been linked to autism.[8] In order to understand why vaccinating a large portion of the population is necessary, we have to understand the term "herd immunity." This has been defined differently by different authors, but I will use the term in this fashion: "a particular threshold proportion of immune individuals that should lead to a decline in the incidence of infection."[9] What that means is that if someone becomes sick with a given disease, herd immunity would ensure that that person is so much more likely to run into someone vaccinated against that disease than someone who is vulnerable that they would be extremely unlikely to infect other people. We cannot possibly vaccinate everyone and achieve absolute immunity because of the necessity of the exclusions I listed in my case, but we can seek to achieve herd immunity. What does that threshold look like for these diseases? For measles, this is 95%.[10] For mumps, it's at least 88%, though it "may need to be higher" than this previously established threshold.[11] For rubella, it sits at 90%.[12] Only through mandatory vaccination could we ever hope to reach those numbers. 2. Disease Impact My first contention established a threshold for harm in status quo, but I will now show that that threshold has a tremendous impact on society. In order to understand that, we have to know what the impact of these three diseases is. Measles: "Prior to the vaccine, 3-4 million people were infected in the U.S. each year, resulting in 48,000 hospitalizations, 400-500 deaths and approximately 1,000 who developed chronic disabilities. Even with modern medical care, the disease can lead to serious complications, including blindness, pneumonia, otitis media and severe diarrhea. Despite the availability of a vaccine it remains a leading cause of death among young children worldwide, with deaths mainly attributable to the complications of the disease... More than 90 percent of susceptible people, usually unvaccinated, develop the disease after being exposed. There is no treatment except to make the patient as comfortable as possible by keeping them hydrated and trying to control the fever. Unvaccinated young children and pregnant women are at the highest risk for measles and its complications, including death."[13] Mumps: "Mumps is not normally a fatal disease, and up to 30% of mumps infections are asymptomatic. There can be serious complications, however, including aseptic meningitis, orchitis, oophoritis, mastitis, pancreatitis, and deafness. Meningitis occurs in up to 10% of mumps cases; it is usually subclinical and self-limiting. Symptoms of mumps-related meningitis include fever, headache, vomiting, and neck stiffness, which peak for a period of 48 hours before resolution and might appear up to 1 week before parotid swelling. More serious neurologic symptoms are rare and are due to encephalitis. Hearing loss following mumps infections is rare (1 in 2000 to 30,000 cases) and usually results in mild to moderate hearing loss. Orchitis [swelling of the testicles] occurs 4 to 8 days after the onset of parotitis and is a common complication, affecting 20% of men who develop mumps after puberty. Of those cases, 40% will develop testicular atrophy and 30% will have lasting changes in sperm count, sperm motility, and sperm morphology."[14] Rubella: While the disease usually only results in a light fever and small rash, this disease is mainly problematic for pregnant women. "In 1964-65, America had a major rubella epidemic, with more than 12 million cases and 20,000 babies born with congenital rubella; of these, 13,000 were deaf, 3,500 were blinded by congenital cataracts, and 1,800 more suffered severe cognitive impairment."[7] Since pregnant mothers are among the few who cannot get the vaccine, every single person who decides not to get the vaccine is putting these mothers at risk. Taken together, this means these three viruses present as enduring, broad threats to public health that are made dramatically worse in the absence of herd immunity. As we have clearly not reached a level of herd immunity in the absence of a mandate to vaccinate with the MMR vaccine, my plan solves for this harm. With that, I await Con's argument. 1. http://www.cdc.gov... 2. http://www.cdc.gov... 3. http://www.cdc.gov... 4. http://www.npr.org... 5. http://www.cdc.gov... 6. http://www.cdc.gov... 7. http://www.thedailybeast.com... 8. http://online.wsj.com... 9. http://cid.oxfordjournals.org... 10. http://www.theguardian.com... 11. http://jid.oxfordjournals.org... 12. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 13. http://guardianlv.com... 14. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Title: Should doctors be aloud to give you vaccines Content: Medical exemptions These are allowed when a child has a medical condition or allergy that may make receiving the vaccine dangerous. All 50 states allow medical exemptions. For school entry purposes, these exemptions require a physician's note supporting the medical necessity of the exemption. Religious exemptions These are allowed when immunizations are not in agreement with the parents' religious beliefs. Forty-eight of the 50 states allow these exemptions. Philosophical exemptions These are allowed when non-religious, but strongly held beliefs, prevent a parent from allowing their child to be immunized. Twenty states allow these exemptions. In certain situations an exemption can be challenged by the state. These situations include those that would put the child at a higher risk of disease than is reasonable (medical neglect) or those that would put society at risk (e.g., epidemic situations). Also, in some states, if an unvaccinated child is found to transmit a vaccine-preventable disease to someone else, the parents may be liable in a civil suit. Because vaccines are considered medically necessary (except in the medical cases mentioned above), they are considered to be "best-care" practices. Therefore, if parents choose not to immunize their children, doctors will often have them sign a statement that they have discussed the risks and benefits of the vaccines and they understand that they are taking a risk in refusing vaccines for their children. Risking disease Many people incorrectly assume that a choice not to get a vaccine is a risk-free choice. But it isn't. The choice not to get a vaccine is a choice to risk the disease that the vaccine prevents. Studies have shown that unimmunized children are more likely to get vaccine-preventable diseases if there is an outbreak than those who have been immunized. Unimmunized children will be barred from school during an outbreak to protect them from the disease. Here are some things to consider before making a decision not to immunize a child: Vaccines are considered the best way to protect your child against diseases that could cause liver damage, liver cancer, suffocation, meningitis, pneumonia, paralysis, lockjaw, seizures, brain damage, deafness, blindness, mental retardation, learning disabilities, birth defects, encephalitis or death. Vaccines are studied extensively for their safety before being recommended for children and continue to be monitored after recommendation (see How Are Vaccines Made?). Because vaccines are given to healthy children, they are held to the highest standards of safety. Vaccines are considered by some to be a civic duty because they create "herd immunity." This means that when most of the people in a community are immunized, there is less opportunity for a disease to enter the community and make people sick. Because there are members of our society that are too young, too weak, or otherwise unable to receive vaccines for medical reasons, they rely on "herd immunity" to keep them well. Harm to others There are four ways that others in the community may be harmed by a parent's decision not to immunize their child: If the unimmunized child gets a preventable disease, he or she may pass that disease to other unimmunized people in the community. Even when people are immunized, there is always a small percentage of them for whom the vaccine did not work or their immunity has waned; so these people will also be at increased risk if an unimmunized child gets a preventable disease. If a person cannot receive vaccines for medical reasons, they rely on those around them for protection from the diseases. Families that have received vaccines and contract a vaccine-preventable disease from an unimmunized person will need to pay the medical costs incurred by the disease. Treatment for the diseases cost much more than the vaccines, so the unimmunized child's family or society will bear these costs. Those who choose not to immunize their child may be considered to be "free riders" by those who have immunized their children. For example, a mother whose son recently experienced a severe bout with pertussis was angry that other children in the classroom were not immunized. In discussing vaccine safety as the reason that many parents give for not wanting to immunize, she wondered why their children should be protected by herd immunity when her child and all of the other immunized children bore the small risk of side effects. In addition, she wondered why she wasn't made aware that so many of the children in the school weren't immunized due to personal beliefs. She concluded by saying, "Had I known . . .I would never have enrolled him in that school." BACK TO TOP Requirements versus recommendations Are requirements and recommendations the same thing? No. Recommendations made by the CDC are based on health and safety considerations. Requirements, on the other hand, are laws made by each state government determining which vaccines a child must have before entering school. To use an example, consider smoking. Experts tell us that smoking is bad for our health, but it is still our choice whether we smoke or not; that is like a recommendation. In contrast, no-smoking laws prohibit people from smoking in certain places and vary from state to state; this is similar to a requirement. It is important to remember that even if a vaccine is not required, it may be the best health choice. Talk to your doctor about vaccines that are available and whether they are important for you or a loved one to receive. BACK TO TOP Vaccine recommendations and package inserts I understand that the information included with a vaccine sometimes differs from more commonly available information. Can you explain why? While a package insert provides information about the vaccine, it is important to realize that it is being provided by the company and, therefore, has legal requirements that must be followed in its preparation. During the development of a vaccine, safety studies are completed by comparing a group of people who received the vaccine to a group of people who did not, called the placebo group. If a side effect occurs more times in the vaccine group, it may be a result of the vaccine. However, the company, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), must report any side effects that occurred in the vaccine group, even if the number of occurrences was similar to those in the placebo group. All of these side effects are then listed in the package insert. Groups that make recommendations about vaccines to healthcare professionals, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), don't use the same criteria as the FDA to determine whether a side effect is caused by vaccines. When these groups make recommendations, they review the data in the context of whether a particular side effect occurs significantly more often in the vaccine group than the placebo group. If it does, these side effects are listed in educational materials to physicians. For this reason, the number of side effects listed in the package insert is much greater than that listed by the CDC and AAP. https://www.chop.edu...

Title: Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. Content: ok so we should justify compulsory immunization because people can and will die from diseases.

Title: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization Content: My opponents said vactruth. com will not work as a source but he did not say why and has no proof there's no scientific reasoning. Onto my opponents case. My opponents only contention says compulsory immunizations are justified to prevent the spread of polio, smallpox, and SARS. Which is incorrect because the diseases can be stopped by affirming or negating. Immunizations are not to be used during an outbreak either, they are precautions that do absolutely nothing except hurt people and their own rights. He also used wikipedia which everyone knows is NOT to be used as a source for anything! !! !! Because it can be changed by the public so his contention is not legit so therefore to be thrown out.

Title: THW: make vaccinations against deadly diseases mandatory unless there is a medical exemption Content: I'm glad to hear that my opponent agrees that vaccines are safe and effective. My opponent's points seem to be as follows: 1) Making vaccines mandatory will not convince antivaxers of the safety of vaccines. 2) It is cruel to force someone to take something they get, even if it is good for them. 3) It could not be enforced. In response: 1) The point of this motion was never to convince antivaxers of the safety of vaccines (although of course such a goal is desirable). The point is to protect the health of those who cannot be vaccinated and of children whose parents are negligent by failing to vaccinate them. 2) Though it is preferable not to have to force someone through a moment of discomfort for their own health, their children's health, or the health of those around them, it is a so-called "necessary evil"; the alternative is to risk the health of that individual or of others. People have died- and will continue to die- as a result of antivaxers' reckless negligence and it should be made illegal to fail to vaccinate oneself and one's children as a result. Sometimes it is necessary to violate the consent of someone for the health of that person or those around them- we recognise, for instance, that it is necessary to force-feed someone with severe anorexia in order to protect them from starving themselves to death, or to place someone with an infection disease in quarantine in order to prevent them from infecting others. It is in a similar way that we must force people to vaccinate themselves and their children, even if they (falsely) believe that vaccines are harmful- there just simply isn't time to convince them- people are dying- and we will never be able to convince them all. 3) Though I recognise it would be impossible to identify- and therefore charge- the individual responsible for an outbreak, it would be considerably more practical to check everyone's medical records and to ensure everyone has had their vaccine, and to apply some kind of statutory penalty like a fine until they have had them. My opponent mentioned that this would be "unconstitutional", but: 1. This is a debate on an international forum, so the US constitution needn't apply; I'm speaking from the UK. 2. So, of we must obey the US constitution, then part of this motion would be to amend the US constitution such that a vaccine mandate is allowed. 3. People are still dying. We should therefore apply the "Quod Est Necassarium Est Licitum" principle (that which is necessary is legal*). So, to summarise my case: Making vaccines mandatory is necessary in order to save lives; vaccines are safe and effective, and do save lives both of those who are vaccinated and if those who cannot be vaccinated through herd immunity. Saving lives with a mandate in vaccines makes such a mandate necessary, and overrides the (false and irrational) fears of antivaxers, and any constitutional concerns. *https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Title: public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations Content: Resolved: public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. I negate the resolution with a VALUE of CHOICE. The value criterion that I will be using is FREEDOM. Contention1--for many people, vaccines are the right decision for them. And for many, whether from ethical or religious beliefs, they aren't. Christian scientists, for example, simple believe that if god wants to take their life's, then it must be the right thing, and refuse to put any barrier between them and that fate. And no matter what your views are regarding that belief, there is no denying that it is an important one for that certain group of people. And who is anybody to go in and tell them too bad so sad they'll have to stick to other beliefs because that one is getting flushed down the toilet? Of all of the decisions to be made in our lifetimes, what we put in our bodies should be high up there on the importance scale. Contention 2—nothing so personal should be compulsory. The definition of compulsory is required, mandatory, or obligatory as an adjective. As a noun, however, it takes on a slightly different meaning. Something, as an athletic feat, that must be performed or completed as part of a contest or competition. While the resolution uses the word as an adjective, its full meaning isn't covered without all of its definitions. So if to get vaccinated is something that "must be performed or completed as part of a contest or competition", then what is this competition that we speak of? Is it life? And it is being stated that this is vital to our survival? Well I beg to differ. For thousands of years we have survived without immunization. So why is it now making such a dramatic appearance. Nothing that directly affects the health of one person should be a decision of another. Contention3—adverse side effects are proven to exist. While some people may accept this as a minor setback, many people find it to outweigh any good that could come from the shots. Also, many people have allergic reactions to different vaccines. Pretussis, one of the most common vaccinations in babies has the following list of probable side effects: soreness, redness and swelling at the injection site, fussiness, mild fever, loss of appetite, tiredness and vomiting. And while these may seem to be minor side effects, there are other vaccines that cause much worse. In rare instances, administration of OPV has been associated with paralytic poliomyelitis in health recipients and their contacts. Contention4—many are totally unnecessary for anyone. The chicken pox. Those lovely spots covering our body. Certainly not fun, and the older you get the worse you itch. In the state of Oregon this is a required immunization. How can something so natural and unharmful become something that each person in the state of Oregon HAS TO for. The chicken pox vaccine has a life span as well. It must be renewed every 6-10 years. Or you could get the chicken pox for a week or two and not have to worry about it at all anymore!! And another example. Hepititus b is a disease transferable only through bodily fluids. This means that we are giving BABIES a vaccine for a disease that they are most likely to get through sex. Contention5—misinformation exists. It is a very common belief that polio was eradicated because of vaccines. This is not true. Polio was eradicated by increased sterilization and the end of open sewage systems. This is simple one example but there are numerous out there.

Title: You choose the topic Content: I just realized that I wrote 'the only rule is to be a dick' rather than 'to not be a dick'. Lol. Vaccines for kids - The argument is really pretty simple: there is absolutely no reason for kids to die of preventable illnesses. Vaccines work by imitating infection and training the body to fight those infections[1]. Weak, dead, inactive and/or incomplete viruses are put into the body and the body's immune system is able to use these viruses to produce antibodies against them. It's no different than using a training simulation to teach someone how to do something in real life. [1] . http://www.cdc.gov... Vaccines are also important for protecting those who can't be vaccinated due to health reasons or age. Some vaccines require children to be a certain age before they can take them, so by making sure that other children are vaccinated on schedule we keep otherwise deadly viruses from spreading through a phenomena called 'herd immunity'[2]. When everyone who can be vaccinated is vaccinated, we create a sort of buffer which keeps the disease from spreading further. It would be like if you surrounded a fire pit with stones - sure there are things outside of the pit that could still catch on fire, but those stone create a buffer that makes the spread unlikely. [2]. http://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk... There is rarely any reason not to vaccinate a child. Sometimes a child's specific medical history may warrant avoiding or putting of vaccination entirely if they have an autoimmune disease or some other medical problem, but these specific instances are ones that a child's pediatrician will diagnose. On balance, there is a net benefit to vaccinating children.

Title: Compulsory vaccines for everyone, except immunocompromised and contraindications. Content: Pro will contend for the resolution. Con will contend against the resolution. Only the immunocompromised and/or patients with contraindications would be exempt from compulsory vaccines in the entire world. Regardless of faith or opinion. contraindication ": something (as a symptom or condition) that makes a particular treatment or procedure inadvisable " [1]. immunocompromised "having the immune system impaired or weakened (as by drugs or illness) " [2]. Compulsory "required; mandatory; obligatory: compulsory education. " [3]. Vaccine "Vaccination: Injection of a killed microbe in order to stimulate the immune system against the microbe, thereby preventing disease. Vaccinations, or immunizations, work by stimulating the immune system, the natural disease-fighting system of the body."[4]. 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com... 4. http://www.medicinenet.com...

Title: vaccinating children must be a law Content: I think that all children who CAN be vaccinated, many children and adults are immunocompromised, or undergoeing chemotherapy, etc., etc. But other than that, hear hear sir.

Title: Why parents should immunized or Vaccinated they're kids Content: If you dont immunize your kids your putting the children at risk of getting even more sick because if the child has already a weakened immune system; but not vaccinating them your putting other children at risk of exposure and they can even sicker and some rare cases the child could even die

Title: Not getting children vaccinated Content: Ah yes, state health insurance. Yes most states have SOME form of health insurance, however not all citizens are eligible for it. If they were, than we would not have this whole hype about Universal Healthcare Plans among the Democrats! Therefore the reasons that I gave before in 2nd round still stand. Also you stated that all vaccines except for HPV should be made mandatory. This is quite a long list of vaccines, and insurance would not completely cover the entire list without making premiums go through the roof. This would also raise the strain on the state health insurances that you have mentioned, leading to possible raised taxes, cut education funds. If in the event, that a diesease does pop up upon an unvaccinated population, it can be quickly controlled. It is very unlikely that a child with symptoms of measles would be allowed to contact your child at a party. Quarentine of the sick child is likely. Yes, vaccines are meant to prevent dieseases, however vaccines also work in creating "rings of immunity" around outbreaks. This is how small pox was eradicated. By immunizing in regions AROUND out breaks, the disease was contained. A similar infrastructure is already in place in the United States with our current usage of immunizations. Now, there are carriers of dieseases with no visible symptoms. However, a person can be a carrier of diesease even with a mandatory immunization. The government does have the right to protect the citizens of a country, however there are limits to how far the government can go. Our federal government does not have the right to completely disregard one's religious beliefs, like I said before. This is one of our base constitutional rights and would be violated if your plan were to be enacted. However, I also find it disagreeable that the government should have a right to dictate what goes into our bodies without personal choice. I do not completely disagree with your statement about parents needing to be responsible-- in fact quite the opposite. Parents should be given their own reins to how to best protect their children, for children are the Parents responsbility, and not the responsibility of politicians in our government. Finally, I would like to thank you for starting this debate. I found it very informative and interesting. Thanks!

Title: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations Content: OBSERVATIONS: My opponent has failed to present a quality argument. SUMMARY: One could say that making vaccinations compulsory is just more government interference in our personal lives. We're not talking about tickets for not wearing a seatbelt folks. We're talking about what is good for society. It makes perfect sense to make immunizations compulsory. Let's examine the PROs: - Prevents most illnesses - Cost effective - Higher immunity equals less disease - Less chance of disease spreading / epidemic - Less disease equals the potential for higher GDP - Fewer insurance claims - Healthier people - Creation, testing, marketing equals jobs Requoting statesman Benjamin Franklin, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". These are all facts of my case, and they remain undisputed. Thank you!

Title: Vaccines are a waste of time, money, and cause health problems. Content: Rebuttals/Closing Arguments: Pro has contradicted himself in referring to a poll (which he has failed to link) in which the majority of people questioned have said that they are 'for' vaccines - on the basis that they 'protect everyone'. Pro then rather oddly states that the 707 people *for* vaccinations are of 'low intelligence' - which is an empty and bareless assertion as he hasn't provided any source(s) in support of it. That Pro can go from using statistics that show most people are in agreement with the vaccination process and then say that these people are all simply stupid, demonstrates what little understanding of the topic he has and how poor his ability to construct consistent arguments is. Pro asks if I think more diseases can be cured, to which the obvious answer is yes, as this is what's continually been happening within the last 100 or so years; more diseases have become identified, and more diseases have been treated and cured through vaccinations. Many of the vaccinations I listed are given to infants - and are very important. The rest, were primarily travel vaccinations and the flu jab. People who are going to travel to third-world or tropical countries are highly advised to get vaccinated. Infants and the elderly constitute the primary demographic for flu vaccinations - though they are beneficial to anyone. The reality is that as an infant, Pro would've been vaccinated against early-childhood diseases and other highly contagious ilnnesses that can be fatal if not life-impacting, and, these vaccinations naturally have been of benefit to him as they are to every other person who gets them. All babies within their first year are vaccinated against Diptheria, Tetanus, Polio, Haemophilus Influenzae type b, and Hepatitis b, in what is what is known as the 6-in-1 vaccine. So, my opponent has failed to fulfill his BoP and has completely dismissed most of my case, to the extent that not one source I used was addressed.

Title: Make Vaccination Compulsory Content: It is a parental right to decide about vaccinations for a child

Title: Vaccines can cause autism and other problems Content: So, there will be deaths from vaccines. But clearly, if we knew who would suffer from vaccines, we wouldn't give them the shot (Well, to a certain extent we do know some people who couldn't handle vaccines, but I'm talking about the ones we don't know). But, if we don't, then with all the vaccine-caution parents would be way to scared to give their children vaccines. That would be terrible. We need those that can get vaccines to get them. In a sense, it's like sacrificing one to save to save the rest. It isn't something we want, but it's needed to protect from the diseases.

Title: The state has a right to impose compulsory vaccination. If an age group is protected, that results ... Content: The state has a right to impose compulsory vaccination. If an age group is protected, that results in a better health conditions for the whole society. In an industrialised country such as the USA, those choosing exemption from statutorily compulsory vaccination were 35-times more likely to contract measles than vaccinated persons; in developing countries where these viruses are still endemic, the risk would be considerably higher. Those who wish to opt-out of vaccination (often on behalf of their children, who have no say in the matter) are classic free riders, hoping to benefit from the more responsible behaviour of the rest of society. Unfortunately, irresponsible behaviour soon spreads and diseases which were once under control become endemic again; this can be seen with outbreaks of measles in parts of London where childhood vaccination rates have dropped sharply in recent years, resulting in unnecessary suffering and some deaths or permanent disabilities.

Title: Should people be forced to get vaccinated Content: Greetings. I thank my opponent for opening this debate. I will be arguing that people should not necessarily be forced to get vaccinated. I await my opponent's opening arguments.

Title: Public Health Concerns Justify Compulsory Immunization Content: Thank you NEG. Extending my case... My value "Public Health" is the basis of this resolution; the resolution is questioning whether public health should be considered in mandating immunizations. Thus without the value "Public Health", there would be nothing to justify compulsory immunization. My VC also is essential; as my contentions have proven, the ultimate goal of compulsory immunization is to protect the welfare of society as a whole, aka public health. Without public health, there would be no fully functioning society, and thus nothing else can exist without it. My second contention first establishes the fact that government is created in order to protect the welfare of society as a whole and ensure its well-being. Thus, rights of the individual citizen must be given up when it is against the interests of other citizens in the same community. A government is obligated to choose and implement policies that are considered the best for society as a whole; if it does not accomplish this (in which negative is suggesting) then what would be the point in establishing a government in the first place? Alas, my second contention leads and proves my first contention which is critical to this debate; that vaccinations are effective in protecting the human population. Vaccines have been proven to protect the welfare of humans, and if required for all citizens, would protect the whole society. An individual might resist against the vaccine, but then he would be seen as a potential threat to society; that particular individual would have the risk of carrying the disease and infecting those around him. Under these circumstances, the individual must be required to be immunized so to protect other people; his individual rights cannot be considered. Now responding to my opponents case and rebuttal: My opponent's value is morality. What is morality based on? an individual's perspective, or society's perspective? my opponent's value is too vague, and thus cannot be considered. My opponent's criterion is human agency, defined as "the capacity of humans to make rational decisions." Obviously "rational" would be influenced by an individual's moral conscience, but what if this indivudal had corrupt or aboslutely no sense of moral righteousness. Then he is free to do whatever he may please, because he considers it to be rational. If this rationality was to be judged by other people in the same given society, then thus he would be restricted by others for his particular actions. In a sense my opponent's criterion is agreeing with the affirmative; if society considers this individual's rationality to be not justified, then it have the right to restrict it. In the same way as my case, an indivudal can not freely roam in this society; they give up some of their individual rights in exchange for protection and security as a whole. My opponent advocates that humans are always unpredictable and we would have to respect that. He criticizes that compulsory immunization would dennounce individualism; Yet compulsory immunziation does not take away all rights and identity of people; it only does so under the circumstance of public health. Also, there is no proof or direct link that a government would abuse its power and create "horrors such as slavery, eugenics, or holocaust." This arguement is extremely flawed, and I would like to point out my opponent does not give any sort of warrant or proof of this. Thus my opponent's criterion is invalid. His whole arguement, and case would thus not make any sense. Responding to my opponent's rebuttals, my case is built on protecting public health, because the resolution is asking whether compulsory immunization can be justified through public health; public health thus is the determining factor, not compulsory. For the given reasons, vote for affirmative. The main arguement is that government is established to insure the welfare of society, and when vaccines have been proven to benefit society, government has to mandate vaccinations so to ensure this beneficiary. thus, public health concerns justify immunization.

Title: Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. Content: "Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children. 31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan." Appeal to majority and authority, I need reasons why the Gov has no right to intervene in health decisions. "Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to the free exercise of their religion." Frankly I don't care what rules the parents think they are breaking of some book written thousands of years ago, I stand for the well being of the children. If I prove that vaccines have health benifits then this point falls. "Vaccines are often unnecessary in many cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for the childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically before immunization became available. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification, effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition." Yes I agree with you. There is a lot less disease, and the black plagues gone. It's true this isn't entirely due to vaccin ation. But the fact is there are still many infectious diseases rampant in all socieites, and hepititus is a plague. You're closing your eyes to a very important problem-disease still exists and spreads very regularly. "Vaccines interfere with natural law and God's plan for humanity. Disease is a natural occurrence, and humans should not interfere with its trajectory." Yes I agree! Let's all be literal Darwinists and kill the babies who are born with deformations in the hospitals because God obviously wanted them to die! People with leprosy are being punished for sins in a past life! Oh wait this isn't the dark ages any more, if a member of our society is sick we do our best to cure them and prevent sickness. Gods plan for humanity is a future without disease. "Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening." Can I have some sources for this ourageous claim? Just because HPV isn't life threatning we don't protect our children from it? Vaccines aren't supposed to be life savers all the time-their job is to stop the spread of infectious diseases around our society. As for these reactions you talk of, first please source. Secondly, they are proabably one in a million scenerios and the child is surrounded by health proffesionals will make it a minor issue. I agree that they might happen, but we still go to surgery even though their are risks of side effects yes? Vaccines destroy an immediate risk to our health. "All vaccines cause immune system suppression, and can permanently damage the natural immune system. Unvaccinated children build and strengthen their immune systems through fighting off infection and developing natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox. Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections." You're trying to prove that un-vaccinated children are more resistant then vaccinated children? Do you even know why children get vaccines? It's to protect them from the diseases thier bodies can't cope with on their own. Vaccines don't push out a natural defense-they provide the only defense. Having your child contract hep C won't toughen him up. It will kill him or her. "Children should not receive the hepatitis B vaccine. Hepatitis B is a blood-born disease and is primarily spread by sexual intercourse and intravenous drug use. Children are not at great risk of contracting the disease. In addition, researchers have found that immunization with the hepatitis B vaccine is associated with an increased risk of developing multiple sclerosis." When the subject is children and disease, well to be honest any risk is enough to warrant vaccination. Plus, you need to source the information that shows there's more than a one in a million chance for a child to contract a disease from a vaccine. There's also a chance kids can contract bone cancer from cell phones, but that doesn't mean we outlaw cell phones-the risk simply isn't larg enough. "Vaccines are promoted primarily to generate profits for manufacturers and financial donations for medical organizations that endorse vaccines. In 2003, a House Committee on Government Reform report revealed that the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices had members with significant financial ties to vaccine companies. The American Academy of Pediatrics, a leading pro-vaccination organization, receives millions of dollars from vaccine companies." Of course the vaccine companies make tons of money...people buy their products because it makes them immune to diseases..supply and demand...I think there's a large market for people who want to stop the spread of disease.. MY ARGUMENT P1. Vaccines make children immune to certain diseases and illnesses p2. Being Immune to certain diseases and illnesses is good p3. Any Parent who does not want their child to be immune to certain dseases and illnesses is not acting in the childs best interests p4. It is the role of the state to act in the childs best interests C. The state should administer vaccinations

Title: Resolved: Vaccination is, on balance, both safe and effective Content: I have done this debate a few times, with less-than-challenging opponents. This debate is open to anyone, however please only accept if you are of the opinion that vaccines are bad or you consider yourself to be an 'anti-vaxxer'. I will borrow from my previous debates in my opening round, and from then on any responses will be driven entirely by this debate. - 10k characters- 4 rounds- 72-hour argumentation- 10-day votingThe resolution is as follows: On balance, vaccination is both safe and effective. I will contend that it amounts to criminal negligence not to vaccinate your children, and that the anti-vaccination movement should be held accountable for murder and crimes against humanity.

Title: Pick your topic : Team Debate Content: Many thanks to Mikal and Whiteflame for their opening arguments! This round, we will be putting forth our own case against the resolution. Our burden of proof is to demonstrate that the US government should *not* make the MMR vaccine mandatory. C1) Bioethics In Western medicine, the personal autonomy of patients is of paramount importance, and rightfully so. When a patient undergoes a treatment or procedure from a medical professional, he has to place absolute trust in the competence and character of that professional, as the fate of his well-being and sometimes even his life is completely dependent on the outcome of the treatment/procedure. Given that, it is only fair that the patient be allowed to *choose* whether or not he wishes to place that kind of trust in somebody else"s hands; he has the right to know every detail of what is going to be done to his body, and subsequently choose whether or not he is okay with it being done. Vaccination is no different; it is a medical procedure which involves the purposeful injection of pathogens into a person"s body, and if they do not feel safe having such a procedure done, then they should have the right to abstain from it. Furthermore, there is ample ethical justification for granting people an absolute right to bodily autonomy. The only factor which truly distinguishes human beings from the rest of the amoral universe is their characteristic of self-ownership -- in other words, their ability to exert conscious and deliberate control over their own actions and have complete jurisdiction over their own bodies. Without self-ownership, human beings would more or less be inanimate objects, functioning like highly advanced computers and moving about only by virtue of the deterministic processes governing the rest of the universe. Such a mechanistic view of reality leaves no room for prescriptive claims about what "should" or "should not" be done, and thus the resolution presumes that all human beings posses self-ownership -- which, in turn, necessarily entails that all humans also have a right to bodily autonomy. The implications of all this on a policy like mandatory vaccination are clear. The government simply does not have the right to force a person to undergo a medical procedure, which is enough to negate the resolution all on its own. Not only that, but violations of autonomy by the government and the medical community are also harmful in that they create an endless pretext for *further* violations down the road for the sake of the "greater good" -- mandatory organ donation, childbirth limitations, and eugenics programs, for example. All things considered, allowing the government to violate peoples" bodily autonomy through policies like mandatory vaccination is untenable. C2) Counter-Plan We propose that rather than violate the fundamental tenets of bioethics and make the MMR mandatory, the US government should instead opt to educate people to voluntarily vaccinate themselves and their families. There are a variety of ways in which this could be accomplished, some of which barely even involve the government. The American Medical Association could create an initiative among physicians to specifically target and inform patients who are averse to getting vaccinated, or the CDC could launch a publicity campaign encouraging vaccination (as it has already done a few times before for different causes). The government could even just force people who opted out of vaccination to take a class debunking the myths surrounding vaccination. This sort of targeted public education *does* work, as can be seen from previous public health campaigns [1] and efforts to boost recycling rates [2]. Obviously, our CP wouldn't produce 100% immunization rates, but it would certainly boost rates up to the optimal threshold for herd immunity. With the means and efficacy of the education approach established, we can go on to demonstrate that there are numerous advantages which our counter-plan has over mandatory vaccination. First and foremost, our plan costs less. Pro says that their mandatory vaccination plan will subsidize vaccinations on an "as-needed basis", which means only low income people can get vaccinations for free. However, there are about 160 million people in the US who fall into that category [3][4], and an MMR vaccine costs about $19 [5], which amounts to a total of $3 billion in expenses. Meanwhile, out of the potential methods of education listed, two of them don't actually cost the government *any* extra money because they either aren"t government organizations (AMA) or they would simply be using funds which are already allocated to them by the government in the status quo (CDC). Only the required-class option would really cost any money, and not much of it either, considering that just 7% of children in the US aren"t vaccinated against MMR [6]. Since the total number of households in the US is 115,000,000, and the percentage of households with children is 46% (and assuming that only one parent per household needs to be educated), we're looking at 3.7 million people who would need to be educated. If it costs $200 to send each person to class, then the total expense of our proposal would be a bit less than $750 million. Obviously, these are very rough estimates, but it is nonetheless quite apparent that our CP is much cheaper. Secondly, whereas Pro's plan can only force people to vaccinate themselves against MMR, our plan educates people on why *all* vaccines are safe. In other words, people who are convinced through education are likely to go ahead and vaccinate themselves against other diseases as well, such as influenza, tetanus, pertussis, pneumonia, hepatitis A, and diphtheria. Most of these diseases have even higher mortality rates than MMR and drastically lower rates of vaccination [7]. Therefore, educating people on vaccines in general has far greater, more all-encompassing benefits for public health than just making MMR vaccines mandatory does. Our plan is also far better than mandatory vaccinations in terms of public relations between the government and the populace. Most of the people who avoid vaccination avoid it because they genuinely fear the supposed side-effects of vaccines. Violating their bodily autonomy and forcing them and their children to undergo the very procedures they so desperately fear is simply going to be perceived as tyranny; it will only generate embitterment, resentment, and mistrust in the long run. Considering that we're talking about at least 3.7 million people here, that is rather concerning. Fostering anti-government sentiments among a significant portion of the population is dangerous and socially unhealthy, hence making our CP the safer long-term strategy. . == Conclusion == The resolution is negated: (1) Mandatory vaccinations are a violation of a fundamental tenet of bioethics, which have defined the doctor-patient relationship for centuries; depriving individuals of their right to bodily autonomy is immoral, and a grave over-extension of government power. (2) Educating people to voluntarily vaccinate is a viable and sufficiently effective alternative approach to containing disease spread; it is preferable to Pro's proposed policy because (i) it is more than 3 times cheaper, (ii) it provides the additional benefit of encouraging other more important types of vaccinations, and (iii) it is sounder in the long-term due to the inevitable minority backlash and socio-political tension in response to mandatory vaccinations. With that, we hand the debate back over to our opponents! . [1] http://www.cdc.gov... [2] http://americancityandcounty.com... [3] http://www.census.gov... [4] http://www.cbsnews.com... [5] http://www.cdc.gov... [6] http://www.cdc.gov... [7] http://www.foxnews.com...

Title: Modified LD - Resolved:Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. Content: 1. Liberty vs. liberty: though my opponent attempts to call this argument a wash at last, I will extend all of my responses in RD 4 which sought to validate my analysis on the concept of liberty as the only valid conceptualization of it in the round. Not only did I warrant the heck out of that argument, but I invalidated his definition legally and logically, since his provided "freedictionary. com" definition leads to a state of nature existence. Hence, you are going to prefer my analysis here. If you do, then compulsory immunizations are justified, as being able to immunize everyone in the population (excepting those with medical exemptions) from a given disease will achieve herd immunity, which will in turn maximize natural rights. 2. In reference to my opponent's RD 5 voter #2: both my evidence and I have readily stipulated that some very rare and minute health risks are involved in vaccinating human beings. It would be unrealistic not to. No institution or product in existence is without its flaws, but that doesn't give a valid reason to call those things categorically unjust. Hence, at the end of the day, I've still proven that the medical benefits far outweigh the costs of immunizations. 3. In reference to my opponent's crystallization: my opponent has, unfortunately, forwarded an entirely new argument in his final rebuttal stating that we already have enough people voluntarily vaccinating to create herd immunity. Though I'm not obligated to answer the argument, I would like to since I have the opportunity: *First of all, as my card stated, only 75% of US school children are being mandatorily vaccinated to enter the public school system. This piece of evidence is meant to prove that large, diverse populations aren't negatively affected (health-wise) by receiving a vaccine. Not every country in the world uses mandatory pediatric vaccination models. We wouldn't be having this debate if herd immunity were working on a worldwide level, as there would be no "public health concern" over pandemics. *Second of all, as Dr. Pazos states in my original case, some diseases require up to 95% of the total population to be immunized before herd immunity is successful. In the US, only 75% of children entering school are vaccinated against certain diseases. Even if those specific diseases only require a 75% immunization rate to protect a population, that only covers a few diseases and doesn't include adult populations who weren't vaccinated as children or who didn't keep up with necessary boosters. Hence, since I'm winning standards on both sides of the debate and case, I encourage readers to cast their vote in favor of compulsory immunization.

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

Title: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization Content: I think I understand your case. However, you did write a few things that caught my eye. "My opponents only contention says compulsory immunizations are justified to prevent the spread of polio, smallpox, and SARS. Which is incorrect because the diseases can be stopped by affirming or negating." The poliovirus can spread back into a society if everyone isn't vaccinated. Even if only a small number of people don't get treated it can become resurgent. Therefore, compulsory vaccinations would most certainly be justified. The fact of the matter is that there is no other way to stop certain viruses apart from mass vaccinations. "Immunizations are not to be used during an outbreak either, they are precautions that do absolutely nothing except hurt people and their own rights." It is now obvious that my opponent's case rests on nothing more than the unsubstantiated claim that vaccinations are useless at preventing disease. This claim is demonstrably false, vaccinations are an effective method to prevent disease. For example, the polio vaccine was largely responsible for the eradication of polio in the 20th century. [1] –[2] Wikipedia isn't the greatest source in the world, but it is largely useful in many occasions. Moreover, the disastrous affects of polio, smallpox, and SARS are quite well known even if I didn't use sources. ---References--- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.accessexcellence.org...

Title: mandatory vaccination Content: My opponent has dropped all points in this debate and I extend them across the table. My opponent's last round is irrelivant in the scope of this debate as we are debating the merrits of mandatory vaccinations, not the punishments against them. There would likely be fines attatched to it or having things like how unvaccinated children cannot atttend schools. Stuff like this would be how the situation would likely be gone about. Not litterally force them or jail them. I agree that would be over the top that's why these things would have to be more realistic such as the example that I have brought up.

Title: Parents Should Vaccinate Their Children Content: Thanks to Miguel for accepting. I will now construct my case. I apologize for keeping my arguments rather short; I am running low on time.MY CASEParents have basic societal obligations to their children. By choosing to engage in actions that would lead to pregnancy, parents must accept the consequences of those actions, i.e. custodianship of a child or of children. It is a parent's job to act in the best interests of their child to ensure that he or she is healthy and capable of handling themselves in the broader world. I will contend that vaccinations are an essential part of meeting these parental obligations, inasmuch as they are in the best interests of the child. If that's true, then the resolution is affirmed."Vaccines have historically been the most effective means to fight and eradicate infectious diseases." [1] For example, "In 1958, there were 763,094 cases of measles in the United States; 552 deaths resulted. After the introduction of new vaccines, the number of cases dropped to fewer than 150 per year (median of 56). In early 2008, there were 64 suspected cases of measles. Fifty-four of those infections were associated with importation from another country, although only 13% were actually acquired outside the United States; 63 of the 64 individuals either had never been vaccinated against measles or were uncertain whether they had been vaccinated." [1]"[I]mmunization currently averts more than 2.5 million deaths every year in all age groups from [diseases like] diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), and measles." [2] By failing to immunize individuals in disease-prone areas, 2.1 million innocent people die every year from otherwise preventable ailments. Requiring immunizations will drastically reduce that staggering number. [2] Past experience confirms that vaccinations have reduced the amount of serious illnesses. Tetanus was reduced by 98.5% by using vaccines, Pertussis 92.1%, and the same with Diphtheria at 99.9%, and HIB 98.8%, as well as Polio with 100% eradication. [2] “[I]f countries could raise vaccine coverage to a global average of 90%, by 2015 an additional two million deaths a year could be prevented among children under five years old. This would have a major impact on meeting the global goal to reduce child deaths by two-thirds between 1990 and 2015. It would also greatly reduce the burden of illness and disability from vaccine-preventable diseases, and contribute to improving child health and welfare, as well as reducing hospitalization costs.” [3] “With the exception of safe water, no other modality [treatment], not even antibiotics, has had such a major effect on mortality reduction.” [3]In fact, a lack of immunization has led to outbreaks here in the U.S., which lacks the kind of unsanitary conditions of many developing countries. What this shows is that when you control for things like hygiene or even in environments are clean and otherwise healthy, vaccinations are still key components of warding off disease. "California’s worst episode of whooping cough, or pertussis, in 2010, likely spread among unvaccinated children to infect 9,210 youngsters...[N]ew research published in the journal Pediatrics reports that the high number of children who were intentionally unvaccinated also contributed to the rapid spread of the infection...The researchers of the Pediatrics study compared the number of intentionally unvaccinated children who entered kindergarten from 2005 to 2010 to the onset of the whooping cough outbreak in 2010. They were able to identify 39 regional clusters of kids with non-medical reasons for being unvaccinated, and two clusters that were significantly related to rapid spread of whooping cough. Children who are intentionally not vaccinated and become infected with diseases like measles or pertussis, can pass the illness on to those who can’t be immunized, such as babies under six months and those with compromised immune systems, such as cancer patients." [4]Another example of this kind of contagion caused through failure to vaccinate can be found in Texas. "In August, the Texas megachurch Eagle Mountain International Church made headlines after 21 members of its congregation contracted measles...The church...advocated abstaining from vaccinations over fears that they can cause autism. The outbreak was traced back to a church member who had traveled abroad on a mission trip and then spread measles among the unvaccinated congregation." [5]Therefore, it is clear the vaccinating children is in their best interest, to not only prevent a society where disease resistance is low, but to immunize the child against disease-carriers even in a largely vaccinated society such as the U.S. It is a simple, common sense precaution that parents are clearly obliged to undertake.SOURCES1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - http://www.who.int...3 - http://www.vaccine-safety-training.org...4 - http://healthland.time.com...5 - http://www.healthline.com...

Title: Compulsory Immunizations are necessary to protect the right's of others. Content: If the majority of the people get the vaccination then the disease could almost completely be eliminated from the society. Then why in the world do we need compulsory immunization? Since most of the people are smart enough to get immunization, why does every one need to get it? There is no reason to that therefore this "Yes" argunment is just plain dumb. Also, by herding everyone into one group, you are regarding the human race as one giant population of animals, stupid and brainless. On the contrary, we are quite intelligent and most of us do posses a brain. Therefore, we must also remember to protect the rights of each individual to freedom of thought and to choices. We already have a brain, so why shouldn't we be allowed to use it and make the smart decisions for ourselves? The only answer I can think of is that you want the human race to turn into giant vegetables that cannot think for themselves. That does not sound pleasant at all to me. So, protect the individual right to choose our own courses in life, because I do not want to become a vegetable.

Title: Public Health Concerns Justify Compulsory Immunization Content: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE I. INTRODUCTION: I concur with the stated resolution. In my presentation I will demonstrate that compulsory immunizations not are not only justified, but are also necessary as deemed by respected medical professionals. II. STATEMENT OF RESOLUTION: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations. III. DEFINITIONS: I respectfully request that my opponent stipulate the terms: vaccination, immunization, and innoculation are synonymous. PUBLIC HEALTH - Public health: The approach to medicine that is concerned with the health of the community as a whole. (source: www.medterms.com) CONCERNS - 3 : to be a care, trouble, or distress to (source: www.merriam-webster.com) JUSTIFY - 1 a : to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable (source: www.merriam-webster.com) COMPULSORY - 1 : mandatory, enforced (source: www.merriam-webster.com) IMMUNIZATIONS - : Vaccination. Immunizations work by stimulating the immune system, the natural disease-fighting system of the body. The healthy immune system is able to recognize invading bacteria and viruses and produce substances (antibodies) to destroy or disable them. Immunizations prepare the immune system to ward off a disease. To immunize against viral diseases, the virus used in the vaccine has been weakened or killed. To immunize against bacterial diseases, it is generally possible to use only a small portion of the dead bacteria to stimulate the formation of antibodies against the whole bacteria. In addition to the initial immunization process, it has been found that the effectiveness of immunizations can be improved by periodic repeat injections or "boosters." (source: www.medterms.com) IV. VALUE PREMISE: Sensibility V. VALUE CRITERION: The expert opinion of medical professionals is often sought not only in matters relating to health, but also to testify in legal matters. Therefore, it is sensible to value the expert opinions of medical professionals in this discussion. VI. CONTENTIONS: CONTENTION ONE: Three of the most respected "go-to" professional organizations not only endorse, but also encourage immunizations. A. The Center for Disease Control states: "Vaccine-preventable disease levels are at or near record lows. However, we cannot take high immunization coverage levels for granted. To continue to protect America's children and adults, we must obtain maximum immunization coverage in all populations, establish effective partnerships, conduct reliable scientific research, implement immunization systems, and ensure vaccine safety". (source: www.cdc.gov) B. The American Medical Association states: "Immunization has been one of the most successful public health advances of the century". "The physician's role in providing education and advocacy on important issues regarding vaccination is critical". (source: www.ama-assn.org) C. The World Health Organization states: "Immunization is a proven tool for controlling and eliminating life-threatening infectious diseases and is estimated to avert over 2 million deaths each year". (source: www.who.int) CONTENTION TWO: It is quite sensible to prevent illness and disease by the the most cost effective measure available. It is clear that when a person is healthy, they are much more capable, in regard to physical ability, to work. When people are ill, they are either forced to miss work, or work at an often reduced capacity. Further, it stands to reason that the same illness could potentionally be passed on to other people, causing further illness and reduced productivity. Visits to physicians and pharmacies incur costs to insurance companies, people, or both. While it is somewhat beneficial to the GDP, it is both reasonable and sensible to avoid or prevent illness when possible. To immunize simply passes the common sense test. A. The World Health Organization states: "It (vaccination) is one of the most cost-effective health investments, with proven strategies that make it accessible to even the most hard-to-reach and vulnerable populations". (source: www.who.int) B. To quote respected statesman Benjamin Franklin, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". (source: www.ushistory.org) CONTENTION THREE: Despite claims to the contrary, vaccinations are virtually safe. With anything comes a certain degree of risk, yet where the rubber meets the road immunizations are worth the risk. By definition, vaccinations are certainly reasonable, right, and just. If there is a virtually safe way to protect against many illnesses, it is in fact just. Further, those who are able, cannot justify failing to receive immunization. False alarms issued by uniformed people cause undue panic and doubt. This is where the compulsory piece fits into the equation. Due to misinformation, people may elect to not get immunized. This should not be a choice, but a duty as a member of the human race. A. The Center for Disease Control states: "Vaccines are held to the highest standard of safety. The United States currently has the safest, most effective vaccine supply in history. Years of testing are required by law before a vaccine can be licensed. Once in use, vaccines are continually monitored for safety and efficacy". (source: www.cdc.gov) B. The Center for Disease Control states: "Evaluating Information on the Web Is the vaccine info found on the web accurate? Is there any regulation or standardization of info on web? Sources Are you confused by the amount of information on immunizations on the Internet? Concerned about the rumors linking vaccines and diseases like diabetes and autism? Below are some tips to help you navigate your way through all of the information available and determine its accuracy. Is the vaccine info found on the web accurate? Consider the source of information. A good health Web site will display who is responsible for the site. Also, there will be a way to contact the information provider or Webmaster. Information should not be slanted in favor of a Web site's sponsor or source of funding. Health information should be accurate and unbiased". (source: www.cdc.gov) CONCLUSION: I have demonstrated that getting immunized makes sense from a variety of viewpoints. I have quoted from the some of the most respected medical authorities. If people will not choose to make the right, justifiable, and sensible choice to get vaccinated, then the choice will be made for them. Thank you.

Title: THW make vaccines mandatory Content: All around the world, human lives are being lost due to preventable diseases whose spread could be slowed through immunization. As such, I am proud to, as Pro, support legislation that would make immunization mandatory. Model For this debate, “this house” refers to first world nations such as the United States or Canada, where the infrastructure necessary for creating and distributing vaccines is already present and well-maintained; this means that issues such as the economical burden vaccination places on health care systems will not be discussed in much detail. I believe that all people should be legally obligated to be vaccinated, except for those who can have severe allergic reactions to vaccines. The possible consequences of refusing vaccination include fines and forced vaccination. Signpost For this round, I will be making three points: firstly, that vaccines are safe and effective, and secondly, that the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens—even if it may result in less opportunities for people to choose personally, and finally, that vaccination should not be a choice since herd immunity means that one’s decision not to vaccinate can affect others as well. Safety and effectiveness of vaccines Scientific research has shown vaccines to be safe and effective. As this debate has limited space, I will not list all of the vaccines that exist, and talk about the effectiveness of each one; instead, I will provide examples of safe and effective vaccines. Flu vaccines are an example of an effective vaccine. In a 1998 study involving children published by the New England Journal of Medicine showed that the intranasal flu vaccine increased antibodies in the bodies of its recipients, and decreased the likelihood of flu. Results showed that the vaccine was more effective than placebo. (1) A 2012 study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases showed that flu vaccines “was associated with a three-quarters reduction in the risk of life-threatening influenza illness in children.” (2)For older adults, however, flu vaccines may have a lower efficacy—but they still prevent 61.2% of flu hospitalizations. (3) At the same time, the flu vaccine is safe. Side effects are usually mild and short-lasting; they are generally limited to mild, flu-like symptoms, and may involve mild pain around the injection site. Severe reactions may, however, rarely occur. (4) MMR vaccines are also safe and effective. It has an efficacy of around 85-95% with one dose and 100% with two. In addition, the risk of getting hurt by the vaccine is low: there is a 0.65 to 1.8/1000000 chance of getting anaphylaxis from a shot.(6)(7)(8) Compare this to the dangers of the actual diseases: measles has a 2000/1000000 chance of causing death, and the rubella virus—but not the vaccine—has a chance of causing autism. (8) As you can see from above, scientific evidence has shown vaccines to be safe and effective in preventing diseases; as such, they provide a net benefit to society as a whole. Governmental responsibility One way someone can object to mandatory vaccinations is freedom of choice: people have the right to choose what they’d like to do with their bodies, don’t they? However, this objection falls apart as soon as one considers the issue of governmental responsibility. The government has the responsibility to keep us safe; this is why they us the law to require seat belts to be worn, and why we aren’t allowed to drink and drive. Since vaccines keep us safe, the government ought to make them mandatory, just like how seat belts are mandatory. Why Vaccination should not be a choice When you drive without a seatbelt on, you are only compromising your own safety. However, when you refuse to be vaccinated, you are also harming those around you. Vaccines help protect us from disease, but that can only be the case if enough people get vaccinated; this is called herd immunity. With the MMR vaccine, for instance, 95% of a population needs to be vaccinated for it to have any effect. (5) Since one should not legally get the right to choose when one’s choices can harm others, and choosing not to be vaccinated harms others, vaccination ought to be legally obligated. ConclusionIn this debate, I have shown that firstly, vaccines are safe and effective, that secondly, the government has the right to protect people from themselves, and vaccines do just that; and finally, that the government has the right to protect people from eachother, and vaccines do that also. As such, I have shown that we ought to make vaccination mandatory. Thank you. References http://www.nejm.org... http://jid.oxfordjournals.org... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.livescience.com... http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://rationalwiki.org...

Title: It's time to put pompous parents in their place Content: One of the big issues being discussed at middle-class, 30-something house parties today is the matter of the combined MMR jab. (1) There is a suggestion that this vaccination of children should be made compulsory. It is a suggestion that I happen to agree with and I said so at a dinner party last night. On hearing this, one of the guests (who I know has a couple of young children) turned round to me and asked in a very aggressive tone "Do you have kids?" To which I replied "Well, no..." But before I could continue he very rudely interrupted me and said "Right! Well you don't know what you are talking about then." This is a phrase I hear time and again, and not just in relation to childcare issues. Recently, some friends and I were discussing the role gravity plays in sub-atomic particle physics and I suggested that, being a relatively weak force, gravity's influence on the interaction of nuclei, protons and electrons was so slight as to be considered insignificant. At this point a yummy mummy piped up and told me that her young Timmy had to be rushed to hospital after having an accident at an adventure playground. "Gravity 'a weak force'?" she scoffed, "If your son fell off a climbing frame and cracked his head open you wouldn't think so. But of course, you don't have kids so you don't know what you're talking about." Was she right or was she being pompous? I think the latter which is why, if I am curious about scientific matters, I tend not not approach mental retards such as Karen Matthews (2) for their expert opinion. But perhaps I should. After all, by the yummy mummy's reasoning, being childless* I am must be a blithering idiot. On the other hand Karen Matthews, with an IQ of 74 and the mother of seven children by six different fathers, must a be a veritable fountain of knowledge. However, I think not. In conclusion, being a parent doesn't make that person in any way intellectually superior to those individuals who decide to delay having kids until they are older. Thank you. (1) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk... (2) http://www.timesonline.co.uk... * Don't worry ladies, it's by choice and only until I meet the right girl!

Title: Vaccinating your Child Content: I personally believe that vaccinating children is a normal and highly beneficial procedure, however in recent years the subject of the safety of vaccines has become controversial. I challenge anybody who disagrees with my view to debate with me on the topic.

Title: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations Content: I will address my opponent's rebuttals to my case, move on to my opponent's case, and finally move on to voting issues. Observation: My opponent claims that compulsory immunizations are needed to eradicate diseases. However, he fails to note that polio was eradicated through voluntary immunizations. My opponent also claims that people value a good quality of life, and therefore wouldn't object to voluntary immunizations. Just because people value a good quality of life doesn't mean that people aren't going to remain true to their religious beliefs and personal values. Value Premise: My opponent claims that when voluntary immunizations are issued, you are not giving other their due quality of life, and states that voluntary immunizations do not reach herd immunity. However, he gives no examples or evidence to prove this and fails to address the fact that when you do not allow people to honor their own religion, you are not acting justly. Furthermore, wouldn't a good quality of life be the pursuit of happiness? If one wants to worship their own religion, they have that right. Value Criterion: My opponents claims that, by not issuing compulsory immunizations, one is infringing upon other people's right to safety. He then gives the example of small pox being eradicated through compulsory immunizations. However, voluntary immunization rates regularly achieve the Herd Immunity Threshold. This has been proven through the eradication of polio. Contention 1: My opponent claims that disease is so rare, and that you can get an exemption if you have an underlying health condition. This does not explain why everyone got sick and three people died when the people in the nursing home were vaccinated, according to my Jordan card (quote). When my opponent tries to explain my Jordan card, he claims that it wasn't the flu shots themselves. He says "only a couple people would take the flu shots". This is completely incorrect. If you look at the quote, it says "other years, no shots", so no shots were issued to the people in the facility. My opponent also contradicts him/herself here. S/he claims that the people who died from the shots had an underlying medical condition. However, according to my opponent, they should've gotten an exemption. Now, I ask my opponent: Why didn't they? Contention 2: My opponent claims that, because compulsory immunizations allow for exemptions, you can disregard my second contention. This is untrue. The examples I discussed in my second contention were compulsory immunizations programs that allowed for exemptions, and yet these things still happened. Therefore, you can extend my subpoint b in my second contention that compulsory immunizations can cause violence and lower the immunization rate. Because my opponent did not respond to this, we hold this true for the round. This is really important, because my opponent is admitting that compulsory immunizations do not achieve justice (violence is unjust) or quality of life (violence and the lowering of immunization rates leads to a poor quality of life). So, no matter whose value premise you look to, you must negate because compulsory immunizations do not achieve either value premise. Rebuttal Value Premise: My opponent claims that compulsory immunizations prevent deadly diseases from out breaking. However, so do voluntary immunizations, as I've shown with my polio example. Value Criterion: My opponent states three reasons why his criterion is preferable over mine, I will rebut them in the same order. First - ‘Protecting individual rights' includes the right to life. So if a deadly disease breaks out, the government would protect the citizens' right to life. Second – Governments can protect their citizens right to life by issuing voluntary immunizations, which it has done in the past with the outbreak of polio. Third – I don't really understand what he's trying to say here. "and cannot herd immunity" doesn't really make a coherent statement. Not trying to be mean, but I actually don't know what he's trying to say. C1: I've agreed to the fact that vaccines don't cause autism. I've also already responded to my opponent's defense of this. Look above, under "contention 1" C2: My opponent claims that voluntary immunizations are expensive. While vaccines can be relatively expensive in first-world countries where people actually have the money to afford them, this is not the case in third-world countries. What kind of businessman would try to sell $20 vaccines to people who don't have $20? The businessman wouldn't make any money. So, while vaccines can be $20 in the United States, vaccines in third-world countries cost roughly 40 cents. http://wow.gm... <- an article proving my claim that vaccines in third-world countries cost 40 cents. My opponent also asks me to warrant my claim that compulsory immunizations do not reach illegal immigrants. First, they can't reach illegal immigrants because the government does not have any records of them. Therefore, they won't be issued any vaccines. Second, I have another article that proves my claim that voluntary immunizations DO reach illegal immigrants. http://www.alipac.us... Example: My opponent now shows an example of voluntary immunizations not reaching the herd immunity threshold. I could put up a bunch of examples of voluntary immunizations achieving the herd immunity threshold (Finland, Colorado, Sweden, just to name a few), but it doesn't really matter. My opponent and I can trade examples back and forth all day long. However, my opponent AGREED that compulsory immunizations lower immunization rates. So you must look to voluntary immunizations in this debate. =========== Voting Issues =========== 1) My first voting issue is my second contention, which I extended. Because, my opponent failed to respond to this, we must hold the following true for the round: a. compulsory immunizations lower immunization rates b. compulsory immunizations cause violence Neither of these achieve justice or quality of life; nor do they protect human rights or ‘human beings from themselves'. Therefore, no matter whose value premise or value criterion you look to, you must negate. 2) My second voting issue is that voluntary immunizations do regularly achieve the herd immunity threshold, without the controversy and the injustice of compulsory immunizations. By achieving the herd immunity threshold, voluntary immunizations preserve a good ‘quality of life' and ‘protect human beings'. By allowing people to practice their own religion, and giving people a choice, voluntary immunizations also achieve justice and protect human rights. Therefore, no matter whose value premise or value criterion you look to, you must negate. ======== Conclusion: ======== 1)My opponent, with his argument for compulsory immunizations, doesn't achieve ANY of the value premises or value criterions in this debate (voting issue #1) 2)I, with my argument for voluntary immunizations, achieve ALL the value premises and value criterions in this debate (voting issue #2) Because of this you must negate. Thank you.

Title: Resolved: Vaccination is, on balance, both safe and effective Content: You mentioned that not vaccinating your children is a criminal act, however vaccinating children that our too young can be incredibly dangerous for there health. In 1975, Japan raised its minimum vaccination age to 2 years old, The country"s infant mortality subsequently plummeted to such low levels that Japan now enjoys one of the lowest level in the Western world (#3 at last look). In comparison, the United States" infant mortality rate is #33. This shows that vaccinations pose a problem for babies in particular. If you mention that vaccinations are safe and effective then this contradicts your argument making me right. Consequently there are always things going wrong with vaccinations and for many vaccines are unethical. Moreover before vaccines are made they are tested on innocent animals who usually suffer prolonged amounts of pain. Consequently vaccines are irreversible and usually half the time made to look urgent by cheating pharmaceutical companies when they are actually unsecured. Moreover vaccines are also excessively used. Bacteria start to grow immune to vaccines, because vaccines are in many cases overused and the bacteria mutates and changes its pathogen. When this happens people can get affected from the same disease twice. My final point is that vaccines are also overloaded with many unneccasary chemicals and although I do acknowledge the fact that vaccines in some cases are very useful and can save lives, they can also do the contrary and kill people due to all the damaging ingredients that our used.

Title: Vaccinations (mandatory/disbursement) Content: It is also in the constitution that we have a right to bear arms, but there are laws placed on who and at what age a person is allowed to carry one. Making vaccinations mandatory for those children in school would just be like placing a law on gun carry. Heath.harvard.edu stated that an individual that is vaccinated is less contagious to others, if they were to get sick. So by definition if the majority was to get vaccinated then there would be no worry about getting infected. This is also called community immunity. By not having a child get vaccinated they are now risking the heath of not only those near them, but also the rest of the community.

Title: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization Content: I affirm, Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. I would like to offer the following definitions to clarify the topic. Justify: to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable. The Value for today's round must be: Maximization of the Principle of Safety of Person. Safety of Person is the freedom from a risk, a risk can be an infected person with a disease that will infect you with the disease at some time. The Criterion for today's round must be: Achieving Herd Immunity. Herd immunity is the epidemiological principle that the more people we immunize against a disease, the better protected an entire society is. However, by having up to 95% immunized, we not only protect individual citizens against epidemics, but the world community. Contention 1 The principle of safety of person, which is a requirement of all just states, requires compulsory immunization. Sub point A Safety of person is the guiding principle behind compulsory immunizations, as well as a wide variety of other public concern legislation. Since those that I come into contact with are immediately put into danger if I am a carrier of disease, as well as the exponential number of people exposed after initial contact, I am violating the principle of safety of person. Sub point B Violations of the principle of safety of person with regards to immunization lead to unnecessary loss of human life. Alice Park details an outbreak of polio in Nigeria that occurred in 2001. The disastrous effects of the outbreak were caused directly by the violation of this principle of safety of person and entirely preventable. She states: "That's what happened in the current measles outbreaks in the western U.S., and that's what happened in Nigeria in 2001, when religious and political leaders convinced parents that polio vaccines were dangerous and their kids should not receive them. Over the next six years, not only did Nigerian infection rates increase 30- fold, but the disease also broke free and ranged out to 10 other countries, many of which had previously been polio-free." Contention 2 Compulsory immunizations save more lives than it puts at risk. Based on the latest World health organization estimates for 2008, trends related to Global vaccination coverage continue to be positive, Compulsory immunization currently averts an estimated 2.5 million deaths every year in all age groups from many different diseases. More children than ever before are being reached with immunization. In 2008, an estimated 106 million children under the age of one were vaccinated with three doses of DTP3 vaccine and the estimated number of deaths that year of kids less than 1 due to DTP3 was roughly 150,000 children. Due to this amazing result in 2008 more nations have been making more vaccinations compulsory. Three regions the Americas, Europe and Western Pacific maintained over 90% immunization coverage. Number of countries reaching 90% or more immunization coverage with DTP3 vaccine in 2009: 120 countries compared to 117 in 2008. Number of countries reaching over 80% DTP3 coverage in 2009: 151 countries in 2009 compared to 150 in 2008. Contention 3 Immunizations are both medically sound and empirically beneficial. Sub point A Vaccines' benefits to both the individual and society clearly outweigh any harm, real or perceived. As Dr.Pazos stated previously, the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the minor risks. Besides the individual protection that vaccines provide, the real impact of vaccines was discussed previously by Alice Parks and her analysis of the Nigeria polio outbreak. Dr. Pazos continues, discussing the concept of herd immunity: "...vaccines are broadly administered in order to establish what is referred to as "herd immunity." Most infectious diseases require a ready supply of healthy hosts in order to continue spreading. So, if enough people get vaccinated, entire illnesses can go from serious public health threats to occasional isolated incidents. This way the young, the elderly, the sick, and even those who are unsuccessfully vaccinated are protected by the majority. Vaccination rates necessary to establish herd immunity vary by the pathogen, but they can be as high as 95 percent—very little room is left for those who voluntarily choose not to get vaccinated, which is why mandatory vaccinations are widely instituted." If we review the principle of liberty, and consider the populations of people who medically cannot be vaccinated, then herd immunity is a necessary state that we must achieve to maximize the protection of all citizens. Hence, with vaccines presenting no general medical dangers and with people's lives resting on whether herd immunity can be achieved, the only just action is compulsory immunization. For these reasons I urge you to affirm, I now stand for cross examination.

Title: It eliminates diseases and prevents them from returning Content: In countries where there is compulsory vaccination of children, the argument presented by governments is that the mass vaccination of children from birth will help to eradicate and prevent various diseases from existing in the country. There is certainly strong evidence from the United States to suggest that compulsory immunization is justified, and is perhaps better demonstrated by looking at several examples of how diseases have been significantly reduced as a result of compulsory immunization. Firstly, prior to a vaccine for polio, between 13,000 and 20,000 cases were reported in the USA annually. In 1988, the World Health Organisation decided to try and eradicate polio worldwide, and as of today the disease has been removed from the USA, Western Pacific and Europe. Only four countries (Afghanistan, Nigeria, India and Pakistan) are endemic, and there are just 2000 cases reported worldwide annually as of 2009. But by stopping vaccination before the disease is widely eradicated leaves countries susceptible to future unexpected outbreaks. Another common disease – measles, affected nearly everyone in the United States prior to the vaccination being introduced. Between 1953 and 1963, there were 450 deaths each year from the disease. Currently in the US, three of every 1000 people who contract measles will die, whilst in the developing world, one in 100 will die. It is estimated that 90% of people who are exposed to the virus will get infected if not vaccinated against it. In 1999 according to the WHO, there were 900,000 measles related deaths worldwide. Measles can spread rapidly amongst unvaccinated populations, and if vaccinations were stopped, the WHO estimate there could be 2.7 million measles related deaths worldwide annually. Type B meningitis was prior to the vaccine the most common form of bacterial meningitis in US infants, with 20,000 annual cases, with one in 600 proving either fatal or leaving the child with some form of disability. Since the vaccine became available in1987, the number of cases has reduced by 98%, with fewer than ten fatalities a year. These are just a few examples of how vaccines can prevent and eradicate diseases that have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths throughout the past century. Although some may argue that with diseases such as Polio wiped out in most of the world a vaccine is not necessary. However any reduction in the number of people vaccinated against the disease would leave a window of opportunity for the disease to rear its head up once again. In many ways vaccinations have become victims of their own success. People under estimate the dangers of disease as they have not experienced the effects.

Title: Vaccinations are necessary Content: I would first like to apologize for any misspellings in the previous round. I am typing on an older laptop and my keys keep sticking so please bear with me. As my opponent has forfeited the previous round I would like to restate that vaccinations are 100% necessary to make sure disease like polio do not see a comeback. No matter how healthy a person is, no matter how much they take care of themselves they cannot change the strength of disease. They cannot prevent measles by eating salad, or run from hepatitis. It's the disease that decides who lives and who dies, who's sick and who's well. Do you think that every life that was taken by small pox didn't take care of themselves? Do you think that everyone who died of influenza was already sick or weak? No. Do you think that everyone who doesn't get the flu now takes care of themselves? Do you think everyone who has never been in contact with the chicken pox is healthy? No. They aren't sick because we have a vaccinations. What you may see as pointless is one of the most world changing discoveries in history. As you have forfeited the last round I would like to say I hope everything is well and you just forgot. I sincerely hope everything is well and if not I would like to say I hope it gets better. Goodnight:)