Question: Should Certain Vaccines be Mandated for Children?

The claim that Thimerosal in vaccines causes autism is unfounded. Indeed, studies analyzing the effects of vaccines on autism risk have shown that the MMR vaccine, which never contained Thimerosal, is associated with reduced odds of autism. According to Forbes and the CDC, there is no evidence to support the notion that Thimerosal causes autism, as some vaccines, like the MMR, never contained this preservative. While some argue that internal CDC data from the late 1990s proves a high risk of autism linked to Thimerosal exposure, these claims lack solid proof and rely on a single source. A closer examination of the provided congressional record does not reveal the "unequivocal" proof of this link. It is important to question the motives behind such claims, as they may be driven by the meat industry and other entities that profit from low-carb diets. By diverting attention from the environmental and ethical issues surrounding meat production, these industries stand to gain financially. The funeral industry may also benefit from spreading misinformation about vaccines. It is crucial to consider the financial incentives behind such arguments, as the food industry, particularly the processed meat sector, is worth trillions of dollars. Sources: Forbes, CDC, GPO, FoodManufacturing.

Actually many studies have examined possible links between vaccination and increase prevalence of autism. There has been a study, the Lemaet research reported that showed a link between a MMR vaccine and autism. It remains possible that immunzation may trigger the oneset of autism systems in children with underlying or genetic condition. www.autimspeaks.org/science/policy-statement/onformation-about-vacines-and-autism

So. my opponent fails to provide any sources. They don't understand that saying "because God wants it like that" isn't sufficient evidence. My opponent provided no counter to the examples of diseases eradicated by vaccines that I put in my argument for round 1. "God made our immune system for a reason," Is what my opponent said. I'd like to point out, that if god is an all powerful being, why did he give us immune systems that aren't immune to diseases such as polio, the bubonic plague, and small pox? "Vaccines cause autism" There haven't been a sufficient amount of studies to prove that vaccines cause autism. "And they consist of mercury," No, they do not. Vaccines contain thimerosal. Which is a mercury-containing organic compound which has been used for decades in the USA, and other countries around the world. Unlike Mercury, it is not found in nature. Thimerosal actually prevents the growth of dangerous microbes. Source: . http://www.cdc.gov... For the next round, I encourage my opponent to provide facts.

. :|Opponent Case|:. First I point out that he has no value or criterion, but I will speak more of that below. His C1 of overshooting the carrying capacity is supported by his statistics on food price increases. However I see no link between this contention and the resolution. What does food costs have to do with immunizations? Since my opponent fails to link the two, I must conclude that this contention is irrelevant. His C2 of disease playing a major role in checking population extension is turned by the fact that not only has modern medicine led to an increase of population but also the factors listed here . http://wiki.answers.com... . Also I must add that modern medicine clearly does not destroy this natural check. Without modern medicine, research in germs and bacteria would not have been conducted. What would be the point? However, modern medicine has led to the conclusion that methods of hand-washing and hand-sanitizing are the most effective ways to keep oneself safe and alive. Overpopulation is not linked to modern medicine. His C3 of overpopulation leading to genocidal wars has no relevancy to this debate. We are debating if compulsory immunizations should be enacted in cases of public health concerns. Nevertheless, note that his C2 and C3 are contradictory: one argues that overpopulation is because of modern medicine, yet another says that overpopulation leads to genocidal wars which renders "humanity vulnerable to changes leading to human extinction". His C4 of preserving the carrying capacity I don't understand. I never stated that "Human life is sacred" and this contention has no relevancy. . :|My Case|:. Actually, my standards do matter. And since my opponent didn't provide a value, then my shall be the accepted value and value criterion for this debate. Also, since his refutations against my case were his case, and I just dismantled his case, my entire case can be extended.

I will be arguing that home schooling should be banned in America-that is, that it should be compulsory for all children to attend a school registered by the government, something that would, for obvious reasons, exclude home schooling. I accept the definitions you've set out. Good luck, Phantom. I'm looking forward to the debate!

I thought I made it clear that there must be censorship of beliefs in the public schools lest the baby killing industry lose its subsidies. It is essential that children understand they can be aborted if they don't think right.

From an early age, most children are raised in religious families. Those families have been part of that certain religion for most likely decades. It should be a parents right to choose whether or not they want to expose their children to religion. We force other beliefs onto our children anyways and religion is not a huge deal. We force our kids to believe in Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny, and plenty of other things. We force our kids to go to school and to do certain things, because children at that age are not mentally mature enough to make certain decisions. Parents are supposed to make sure their kids are grown up correct. If a parent wants their child to be religious, then they should have the power to choose that. It's like abortion, who is the government or any of us to tell people that they can't have their child be told to believe in god at a young age. Especially when we "brainwash" our children to believe in Santa and other fictional characters. Another point that I would like to make is that schools are not supposed to use god in school, so therefore the point that religion is brought into schools after being taught at home is a fallacy, so therefore that point is not true.

Let me first start by thanking you for the opportunity to debate this critical issue. As far as the debate goes, all I know at this point is that you support mandatory health insurance for every man, woman, and child. I have to assume that you support an unfunded mandate for health insurance, because not once did you explain the source of funding for this mandate. You compared health insurance to the car insurance industry, however I clearly delineated the vast differences among the two and explained why your comparison is flawed. I never really got an explanation greater than, "We have a problem and mandatory health insurance is the solution." Throughout the debate I posed questions that challenged the premise of your proposal and round by round you made no effort at all to address my concerns. The sad thing is you and I are about one wavelength off from one another on this issue. We both agree there is a problem and we also agree that socialized medicine is clearly not the solution. Similarly, we agree on a market based solution. However, the libertarian in me can not go along with forcing citizens into health insurance. The reason health care is such a mess has nothing to do with the lack of government intervention. On the contrary, there is too much government intervention. It should be no mystery why health insurance companies jack up their prices. They do this to pay for the unnecessary burden caused by bureaucratically designed regulations that in the long run only hurt the consumers. Personally, I do not feel the federal government has any business setting a nationwide mandatory proposal. This issue is handled better by the states and best by the individual. Accordingly, I feel we need to support policies (outlined in Round 2) that will make health insurance available and more affordable for more people without causing an undue economic burden on taxpayers. Thank you.

I. The Lives Saved The lives of 2.5 million children are saved by vaccinations every year, yet each year, 1.5 million children die from diseases that vaccines can prevent. [1] Not only that, but vaccines save you for your entire life. "Vaccines teach your body's immune system to recognize infections so it can fight them off in the future." [2] But which diseases do vaccines prevent?"Vaccines protect you by preparing your immune system to recognize and fight serious, and sometimes deadly, diseases including:"Diphtheria"Haemophilus Influenzae Type B (Hib)"Hepatitis A"Hepatitis B"Human Papillomavirus(HPV)"Influenza(Flu)"Measles"Meningococcal"Mumps"Pertussis (Whooping Cough)"Pneumococcal Disease"Polio"Rotavirus"Rubella"Shingles (Herpes Zoster)"Tetanus"Varicella(Chickenpox)" [2]Every one of these diseases can be fatal. In fact, in the case of Diphtheria, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, HPV, Measles, Mumps, Polio, and Rubella, there is no cure. [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] Every one of these has an effective vaccine. If we look at the Rotavirus vaccine, we see that it has prevented between 85% to 98% instances of the disease. [11] But what else happened when the Rotavirus finally got a vaccine?"Millions of U.S. infants have received the rotavirus vaccine since it became available in 2006. Rotavirus disease among infants and young children has since decreased significantly in the United States. Each year, the vaccine prevents an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 hospitalizations among U.S. infants and young children. Rotavirus illness has also decreased among older children and adults that are not vaccinated; they are likely gaining indirect protection from rotavirus disease as vaccinated children are less likely to get the disease and spread it to others." [12]Not only is your life in danger of you don't receive one, but many people around you are at risk too. All of the diseases previously listed are highly contagious, hence the reason for a vaccine.II. The Rarity of Adverse Effects"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in most cases vaccines effects are minor and go away within a few days. Side effects vary according to vaccine type, but generally mild side effects may include:"Pain, redness, tenderness or swelling at injection site"Fatigue"Headache"Itching at injection site"Nausea"Dizziness or fainting (most common in adolescents)"Fever"Mild rash" [13]Now, let me compare this to the symptoms of, arguably, the least severe of the diseases listed previously, this being influenza. "Fever or feeling feverish/chills."Cough"Sore throat"Runny or stuffy nose"Muscle or body aches"Headache"Tiredness"Some people may have vomiting or diarrhea; this is more common in children." [14] Not to mention that in extreme cases, the flu can lead to pneumonia, ear infections, dehydration, and possibly death. [14] The difference is that the flu is quite common, [15] While adverse effects from vaccines are quite rare. [16]“'There are no surprises here; vaccines are being shown over and over again to be quite safe,' said Cornelia Dekker, MD, medical director of the vaccine program at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford, who chatted with me about the study earlier today. 'The safety record for our U.S.-licensed vaccines is excellent. There are a few vaccines for which they document that there are indeed adverse events, but the frequency is quite rare, and in almost all cases they are very easy to manage and self-limited.'" [16] III. Recommendations From Major Health Organizations The CDC, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Institute of Medicine (IOM), American Medical Association (AMA), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), UNICEF, US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), World Health Organization (WHO), Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Paediatric Society, National Foundation for Infectious Diseases (NFID), and American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) all recommend vaccines. [17] In fact, it's said to be one of the safest medical practices ever, despite its risks. [18]To add to this, the FDA and CDC are very strict when it comes to vaccinations. "The United States has the safest, most effective vaccine supply in its history. Years of testing are required by law to ensure that vaccines are safe before they are made available in the United States. This process can take 10 years or longer. Once a vaccine is in use, the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) monitor any possible side effects reported through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and other vaccine safety systems. Any hint of a problem with a vaccine prompts the CDC and FDA to carry out further investigations. If researchers find that a vaccine might be causing a problem, CDC and/or FDA can:"Change vaccine labels or packaging"Issue safety alerts"Inspect manufacturers' facilities and records"Withdraw recommendations for the use of the vaccine"Revoke the vaccine's license" [19]In conclusion, vaccines do move harm than good, as they save many lives, have few side effects, and are recommended by many major health organizations. Thank you. I look forward to your rebuttals.Citations[1]http://www.action.org......[2]http://www.health.ny.gov......[3]http://www.health.ny.gov......[4]http://www.health.ny.gov......[5]http://www.health.ny.gov......[6]http://www.health.ny.gov......[7]http://www.health.ny.gov......[8]http://www.health.ny.gov......[9]http://www.health.ny.gov......[10]http://www.health.ny.gov......[11]http://www.cdc.gov......[12]http://www.cdc.gov......[13]http://www.immunizeforgood.com......[14]http://www.health.ny.gov......[15]http://m.kidshealth.org......=[16]http://scopeblog.stanford.edu......[17]http://vaccines.procon.org......[18]http://www.vaccines.gov......[19]http://www.cdc.gov...

In most public schools in America, there are not class to teach economics, job application, basic mechanical repair and maintenance, or maintaining a proper budget. These can be easily considered crucial courses that can help you prepare for life outside of school. As with your point on History, though it can be useful for students looking to apply in that field of work, it should not be mandatory, and many of these unnecessary classes require school funding, which can instead be used for more purposeful needs. Though yes, opinion arises often in this debate, debate is a way to provide your and other people's opinions on a subject. Thus, adding opinions, most of which are consistent through the entire country, is almost required. Now, on with 'right'. Your failure to grasp the concept that many words are subject to many meanings is stunning. What I find humorous is in your link, the meaning you used to justify your case just so happened to be under this definition: Right- Morally good, justified, or acceptable This is the exact meaning I've been using, and that you fail to accept by providing faulty reasoning that I'm using the wrong word. Though many things taught in school can be helpful to an extent, it can not be denied they tend to teach what we will not need in an average lifestyle, and not enough on what may help us in our future.


Question: Should Certain Vaccines Be Mandated for Children?

Should parents with religious beliefs be exempt from vaccinating their children against preventable diseases?
In my opinion, if children are mandated to receive vaccinations, religious exemptions should not be allowed. Parents should not be able to jeopardize their children's health based on their personal beliefs.

Haha, glad to know, I was surprised anyone could be dumb enough to seriously oppose vaccines.

I thought I made it clear that there must be censorship of beliefs in the public schools lest the baby killing industry lose its subsidies. It is essential that children understand they can be aborted if they don't think right.

More than half of pregnancies are unintended. (http://www.guttmacher.org...) These classes do provide some valuable information. I stated this in my first round when advocating everyone learn basic child health care and first aid. These classes should be voluntary instead of mandatory. In the U.S. some states require parenting classes for a divorce to proceed. Such a law requiring parenting classes would be unenforceable on ethical grounds. If the punishment should fit the crime what would the punishment be for failing to attend a class when the biology of the matter will still produce a child. Do we as a society take the baby away until such a class is completed? Surely not the punishment would be to harsh for the non-attendance. The requirement is enforceable in situations of divorce because the legal proceedings can be postponed until compliance is met. Our rights as citizens are being eroded away by big government. The right to rear my children as I see fit ((in the scope of not performing an illegal action)) are protected by the 14th amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org...) I would see such a requirement in and of itself as a violation of supreme court ruling protecting the parental rights. Again how could it be enforced while preserving these rights. (http://www.kids-right.org...) "Parents have comparable interests under our state constitutional protections of liberty and privacy rights. "The right to the custody and control of one's child is a fiercely guarded right in our society and in our law. It is a right that should be infringed upon only under the most compelling circumstances." Brooks v. Parkerson Georgia Supreme Court (1995) I see no compelling circumstance to require the classes. Additional education is not compelling. In no more that Driver Education classes are not required prior to applying for a drivers license. Certainly a lot of good information is in such courses and potentially could prevent many accidents. I argue driving kills more people than people having babies. The right to vote is applied to all adults naturalized or born in the U.S. If we review the many court cases and amendments to protect this right, we see the court so the potential abuse of government if voters were subjected to voting tests. The same slippery slope is analogous to government requiring such parenting classes. Where would the funds for mandatory classes come from. funds would be needed for materials and class worker. Consider the national birth rate just for the U.S. (http://www.babycenter.com...) 88 births for 1000 women in Utah. Combine this with 35 births a day. A classroom would have a steady supply of students and need full time support. I could not find any facts to support how much this would cost but given the history of government ran programs I can surmise it would not be cheap. To pass this cost onto the parents would be an exuberant charge for a biological fact of life. What about parents already unable to pay for basic care, Britain just released a news article that a 12 year old gave birth (http://www.independent.co.uk...). Do the tax payers pay for these incidents? The case for requiring parenting classes is unenforceable, unsustainable financially, encroaches on parental rights and is a slippery slope for government control. To those that choose to pay the cost the additional education is worth the price. But this should be voluntary for the masses.

questions. Who do these treatments effect? So this affects a human. Should the human that controls the effected body have the final say? So are you saying children should stand to the side hopeless and uncared for? How does your value and criterion link back up to each contention? Is forcing a child to take drugs against their will moral? Attacks: Morality must be valued. I agree. I see it better fits my case because forcing a child to take drugs without hearing their opinion, and/or against their will. With increased communication can we not use autonomy. So does this not support my value? For your C2. Is this not why autonomy says "unwanted outside interference"? Everyone is always getting suggestions. It is how we listen to them and choosing if we want to accept them. Defense: There is autonomy. Every single day we have it. We choose what we wear. We choose how long we shower. Autonomy does exist. We are choosing the medicine we want someone else or ourselves to take. The child who these drugs will effect ought to have that right to make those choices. Conclusion: The neg case just holds up the aff's point of autonomy. I have proven it. We must see that I have the burden of proof and have successfully shown how their case supports my own. Please answer all the questions I have put out there.

In your opening argument you eluded to young adults (18-24) making up the largest percentage of those without health insurance. I would argue that many within that age bracket CHOOSE not to have health insurance because many people ages 18-24 have no health problems that need immediate coverage and do not consider health insurance to be a priority. You also raised an argument stating that like car insurance if health insurance were mandated for all citizens the price of health insurance would drop. I do not disagree entirely, however I believe the biggest reason car insurance became more affordable was because there was more competition. If there are only a few dominant insurance companies available they will be able to set the price wherever they please due to the lack of competition. It may also be possible that once car insurance was mandated, those who could not afford it gave up their vehicle or just ignored the law entirely. The health insurance industry is much more complex than car insurance which is why smaller firms lose the desire to get in the health insurance racket. With all the lawsuits and liability that comes with health insurance, many small business entrepreneurs lack the funds necessary to provide themselves with adequate insurance. The health industry is also heavily regulated by the government which also serves to discourage small businesses from provide health insurance. Once again you failed to explain how to make health insurance affordable for all citizens. The viability of your proposal is reliant upon affordable health insurance, but you have failed to state how you plan for families of lower income to afford your government mandated health insurance. Also you overlooked my question regarding the cost of what is not covered by health insurance. Who is responsible to shoulder that cost? Here is my proposal to make health insurance more affordable for all citizens. First, I would support Health Savings Accounts be made available for all citizens. It may also help if all of ones medical expenses were made tax deductible. Then I would attempt to slash much of the regulations that discourage smaller business from providing health insurance. Also, I would allow health insurance carriers to sell their insurance across state boundaries to provide people with more options. More options will yield lower insurance costs. Finally, I would re-evaluate the licensure requirements and allow more basic and common procedures to be done by nurses and pharmacists so there can be more access to serious illnesses.

New born babies are given vaccines at a young age becuase that is when they are not vulnerable. Now think about back in the day when babies could easily get sick and most them died at age 5 or below. But now in medical advance can keep infants and new horns alive. Serious reactions are very rare, happening in 1-2 people out of a million shots give. Thousands of people take part in clinical trials to test a vaccine before it is licensed by the FAD (Food and Drug Administration). People who have vaccines protect others they love and including babies becuase they are too weak to protect from foreign invaders in their bodies. Now think about chicken pox; almost 11,000 Americans had to go to the hosiptal and over 100 died, each year for chicken pox. Now becuase vaccines chicken pox are rare to see and helped saver lives. Now in 2008, a San Diego boy got measles on a family trip to Switzerland. When he got back home he spread it to family members, classmates, and even children at the doctors office. The only people who got sick where the ones who didn't get shots including a baby. So do you really want people have this fear of spreading disease to innocent people? www.cdc.gov/vaccines www.whyichoose.org/vaccinesafety.html www.vaccines.gov

"I would respectfully disagree as religion has unfortunately been a major aspect of our society for years." I misspoke when saying this. What I was trying to say was that religion is a huge deal in society, but there is plenty of worse things to expose your children to. I disagree with you when you say the Easter Bunny and Santa are fictional characters that represent innocence. Mark Joseph Stern, believes that subjecting our kids to The Easter Bunny and Santa is a worse idea then subjecting them to religion. The Easter Bunny and Santa make kids believe things that are 100% not true.Several studies do seem to corroborate the conventional wisdom that kids raised with religion"any religion"are psychologically healthier than kids raised without it. [1] Religion as I just shows makes kids psychologically healthier. The next point I would like to address again, that you didn't address earlier is "A PARENTS RIGHT TO CHOOSE." A parent has the right to choose these types of things. A parent has the right to choose whether they want their child to see a general physician. A parent has the right to abort there fetuses before they're born. Parents have the right to choose whether they want their kid to receive a proper education or attend specialty schools. Why shouldn't a parent have the right to choose whether or not their kids should be exposed to religion. Technically under United States law, the legal guardian of the child has control of everything their child (anyone under the age of 18) does. So, under United States law, if a guardian wants their child to be religious, until that child becomes 18, the parents can choose to do so. "Richard Dawkins' paragraph." You stated that children should learn from their morals and mature without religion controlling them. I disagree with that entirely. Unless you're a religious extremist (which only 27% of Muslims are, and 7% of Christians.) then you don't believe that religion should control your child's life. Obviously, Richard Dawkins is and Atheist, and has his specific views about religion. He therefore is not extremely reliable, considering he doesn't believe in religion at all. **Note**' Considering you live in Australia, and I live in the United States, lets not bring up the religion is schools, because we have conflicting information, so therefore that point can't be true.

I will be debating on the side that vaccines do not cause autism. The burden of proof is on my opponent to prove that vaccines DO cause autism.

People should be required to attend parenting classes before having a child because it will provide a realistic view of all the challenges involved with parenting. Many people don't realize all the challenges that come with parenting. Guest speakers, like current parents could provide valuable insights for couples who want to have children. The parents could describe a day in the life of a parent and go through scenarios to make people think about what they do to handle difficult situations.

PE should be mandatory in schools. Kids and teens in school are still growing. Going outside and being active is essential in doing this. As well as lowering risks of obesity, diabetes, high cholesterol, and high blood sugar, PE allows students to bond with their classmates in an environment outside of the classroom. PE also clears your mind, and helps us release energy and calm down.


Question: Should Certain Vaccinations Be Mandated for Pediatric Populations?

Should religious parents be exempt from vaccinating their children based on personal beliefs?

The debate on whether vaccines should be mandatory for children in public schools often touches on religious exemptions. Some argue that parents should have the right to refuse vaccinations for their children based on religious beliefs, while others believe that public health concerns should take precedence.

One argument for religious exemptions is that it is a parent's responsibility to do what they believe is best for their children. Parents are the primary caregivers and decision-makers for their children, and they should have the authority to make medical decisions based on their religious convictions. However, opponents argue that allowing religious exemptions puts other children at risk of contracting preventable diseases, especially those who are too young or have medical conditions that prevent them from receiving vaccines.

Another argument for religious exemptions is that some vaccines contain ingredients that may violate religious beliefs. For example, some vaccines are produced using cells derived from aborted fetuses, which may be a moral issue for some religious groups. However, opponents argue that religious exemptions should not be granted for children who are too young to have their own religious beliefs, as they are simply following their parents' beliefs.

From a constitutional perspective, religious exemptions are protected under the First Amendment, which guarantees the free exercise of religion. However, opponents argue that religious exemptions should not be granted if they harm others or conflict with public health concerns. For example, if a child is not vaccinated and contracts a contagious disease, they could potentially spread it to other children who are too young or have medical conditions that prevent them from receiving vaccines.

On the other hand, vaccines are not completely safe and can cause side effects in some people. Medical exemptions are often granted for children who have a significant risk of adverse reactions to vaccines. However, opponents argue that medical exemptions are rare and that most children should be vaccinated to protect public health.

In conclusion, the debate on religious exemptions for vaccines is complex and involves balancing individual rights with public health concerns. While parents have the right to make medical decisions for their children based on religious beliefs, they should also consider the potential risks to other children who may be exposed to preventable diseases. Ultimately, the decision on whether to grant religious exemptions for vaccines should be based on a careful consideration of individual rights and public health concerns.

I will be debating on the side that vaccines do not cause autism. The burden of proof is on my opponent to prove that vaccines DO cause autism.

Wow, not much time left. Well, here goes my best shot at an opening statement.First, my thanks to PRO for clarifying that what is under debate is convincing the majority in developed nations. Thus, I will argue that MGM is not something the the majority of people in developed nations should vote to outlaw.I. Who Determines Harm?My first point is about the question who determines what constitutes a harm in a developed nation. The reason this point is important is because from the viewpoint of religions that practice circumcision, not to circumcise a male child would constitute a harm to the child. In Judaism:"circumcision is an outward physical sign of the eternal covenant between G-d and the Jewish people. It is also a sign that the Jewish people will be perpetuated through the circumcised man." [1]In Islam:"In the Sunnah, Muhammad stated that circumcision was a 'law for men'",and"The main reason given for the ritual is cleanliness. It is essential that every Muslim washes before praying. It is important that no urine is left on the body. Muslims believe the removal of the foreskin makes it easier to keep the penis clean because urine can't get trapped there."in addition:"For the majority of Muslims, circumcision is seen as an introduction to the Islamic faith and a sign of belonging." [2]In other words, circumcision is an essential aspect to at least two major religions that are currently being practiced by many people in developed nations. According to those religions, it would be a religious harm to boys not to be circumcised (i.e. it would be a violation of God's will). Boys who are not circumcised might consider themselves to be sinning against their god, or not be full members of their religious community.The reason this is important is because PRO has mentioned some harms, almost exclusively harms to sexual pleasure. But to elevate loss of sexual pleasure as a greater harm than being in violation of God's command (from the perspective of a given individual) seems like an illegitimate elevation of some harms over others.One of the important pillars of modern developed nations has been a freedom of conscience in religious questions. This means that the state or government does not legislate so as to elevate one religious viewpoint over another. An important aspect of religious views is what constitutes harm, and to fix by legislation that sexual pleasure trumps religious observance is overreaching the worldview neutrality that a democratic government is supposed to have.If there is some ultimate trumping view of harm that should dominate in a democracy than I think PRO needs to a) provide an account of this and b) give an argument why this is the right account.II. Religious LibertyThis point is similar to the first. For many years Islam and Judaism have been practiced in developed nations. As a matter of fact, whenever some religions became persecuted by the state, this has lead to great violence in the 20th century. However, at times, new religions have begun to take hold in developed nations, but these religions violated some of the fundamental values of the people already living in the country, and have as a result been greatly limited in their liberties. For example, Scientology is on a federal cult watch list in Germany, due to its subversive nature,"On December 7, 2007, German federal and state interior ministers expressed the opinion that the Scientology organization was continuing to pursue anti-constitutional goals, restricting "essential basic and human rights like the dignity of man or the right to equal treatment", and asked Germany's domestic intelligence agencies to collect and evaluate the information required for a possible judicial inquiry aimed at banning the organization." [3]Another example is the state of Utah, which was not allowed to join the United States until Mormonism had renounced its stance on polygamy. [4]I suspect that if a religion which endorsed FGM began to be practiced in a developed nation, it would and should find similar resistance. However, Islam and Judaism have for a long time been allowed to practice their tenants and commitments in developed nation. People of these religions settled in these countries under the understanding that they were guaranteed their religious freedom to practice their beliefs.A ban on MGM would constitute a government label on these religions saying: "This religion is a false religion." Here is why: According to these religions, God commanded them to circumcise. Presumably, everything that God commands is good. So if the government bans the practice, then this amounts to saying "Either God is bad, or your religion is false in its reporting of God's commands." This would clearly constitute a kind of dis-establishment of religion. And this, as much as anything else, is a violation of religious liberty.I want to emphasize here that there is a difference between not allowing a religion in to a country in the first place, because it fundamentally clashes with the values of that society, and deciding to declare a religion false after it has already been established and practiced there, and many citizens of the country have understood themselves as being free to practice their religion.III What are Legitimate Reasons to Change the Law? Finally, I want to re-iterate something I brought up in the 'acceptance and definition' part. We can talk about the medical benefits and sexual detriment of MGM all day long, but to jump from there to "we should ban it" is nothing but a non-sequitur. We need some principled understanding of what things should be banned and legislated, and what things should not be. I would like to emphasize the the burden of proof here lies with PRO. I am merely defending the legal status quo, so I do not need to give criteria or considerations for what it takes to change the law. PRO on the other hand is arguing for a change, so PRO will need to establish why the interesting medical considerations about MGM are in any way relevant to what should be the laws in a developed nation.Unless PRO can establish that his list of medical claims have important implications for changing the law, he cannot win this debate. I had hoped that PRO would have listed some of these considerations in the opening statement, so that I could have replied to it sooner. Just to motivate this point further, let me give some examples of what principles are obviously bad principles for changing the law:A. If it does harm, then it should be illegal- Marital infidelity, lying, and being rude at the grocery store all does harm, yet we are not having laws against these thingsB. If the majority of the people thinks it is wrong, then it should be illegal- The majority of the people think that Secular Humanism, Islam, Judaism, Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Methodism, and Baptists are wrong. But we obviously can't outlaw every worldview.PRO can't appeal to A or B to link his medical considerations to legality. What is the alternate principle at work here?IV ConclusionThus, PRO owes us an account of harm, an account of the limits of religious liberty, and an account of when to change the law.This is it for my opening statement. I will of course have an opportunity to rebut PRO's opening statement in the third round, but I thought this was the place to establish the case for keeping MGM legal for 'any' reason. I think my defense mainly applies to religious reasons, so if I cannot establish that it should stay legal for medical or aesthetic reasons, I still defended CON in the way intended in the debate announcement.I am out of characters once again, so I hope to get into more interesting discussion in the following rounds.-------------------------[1] http://www.jewfaq.org...[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...

When we use the word "should" we imply that it must be done for all kids. The resolution does not specify which kids or how much. I take my position because the if we do this for all kids, that means those in 3rd world countries. There are millions of kids that don't get allowance. How are we to rectify that? I guess America can spend more of it's money it already doesn't have to give all kids a living wage for their allowance. That is simply not possible. We could mandate that parent give allowance but some parent are struggling to pay the bills as is. Way force them to give money to their kids who will just waste it? I hope you bring something else to the table next round.

http://www.youtube.com...Thanks, Philo. In a classic South Park episode the character Stan, uncomfortable with his choices for an upcoming school mascot election, chooses to abstain from voting. After being pressured to vote by his friends, threatened into voting, and ultimately shunned from his community Stan finally returns and registers a vote only to find out that it didn't even matter in an extremely lopsided election. The episode lampoons our cultures view on voting: that despite the stupendous improbability of any individuals vote actually mattering, and even if an individual dislikes or has no opinion on the candidates, it's still viewed by many people as some kind of obligation. However even in their wildest, most cynical dreams the creators of South Park could not have envisioned a world where their "Vote or Die" song would become actual government policy. This is the world Pro wants. Puff Daddy would probably make an excellent enforcer in the Pro world. Don't have an opinion? Don't like the choices? Have a sincerely held moral objection to voting? Too bad. Vote or die.=Framework= What values should we enshrine into law? Pro believes that the only important value is democracy, a manifestly absurd view that would allow 51% to vote to exterminate the other 49%, but it's clear that good governments, including democracies, have higher values--ultimately governance is a balancing act between individual rights and the common good. Pro totally ignores the individual rights part of the governance equation. Obviously compulsory voting violates individual rights, but is it in the interest of the common good to mandate citizens to vote? The answer is clearly no, and whatever minuscule benefits it manages to bring to the table are vastly outweighed by the complete destruction of individual rights brought about by this policy. =Counterplan=Assuming that we want to drive voter turnout as high as possible, democracies should make it easier to vote and institute tax credits for individuals who cast a ballot. This economic incentive would be extremely easy to put into practice and would drive up turnout without any of the ethical implications that stem from compulsory voting. I. Undemocratic Pro wants us to value whatever is most democratic. By far the more democratic option is to allow individual societies to determine voting policy themselves rather than making a blanket declaration that they have an obligation to force their citizens to vote. National nuances, opinions, customs, or autonomy be damned--Pro may not know anything about Nauru or Monaco but he still views those nations as his to rule. This is the height of totalitarianism, not democracy. In the United States, the overwhelming majority, 66%-26%, opposes compulsory voting[1]. This statistic is utterly devastating for Pro, who wants the entire debate to come down to whatever is more democratic. I'll get to Pro's specific arguments later, but it's absurd on its face to suggest that it's more democratic to overrule the vast majority of the population on this issue. Ultimately, the Pro position relies upon a fatal conceit: the idea that from our vantage point in the first world we can legislate for everybody else just as well as we could for our own nations. This kind of thinking is what provided the justification for colonialism and indeed Pro's intellectual framework relying on the assumption that we in the West have the right to dictate policy for the rest of the world is blatantly neocolonialist and must be rejected, to vote Pro is to perpetuate this kind of thinking. This neocolonialism is the antithesis of any kind of lofty democratic ideals and to reject it requires also rejecting the resolution. In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory if that is the policy that is best for their society and we don't get to decide that for them. II. Freedom of Speech and ExpressionArticle 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[2] protects an individuals freedom of expression. The right to free speech is declared in the very preamble. Article 19 specifies: "this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." I argue that both the rights of freedom of speech and expression protect an individuals right to refrain from voting. Voting is inherently a speech act, it's a citizen voicing his opinion on who he wishes to hold the position in question--but freedom of speech itself contains the right *not* to speak. The US Supreme Court in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette[3] took the obviously correct position that the freedom of speech protects the right of silence as well, protecting the right of schoolchildren to *not* salute the flag if they chose. The court ruled that forcing everyone to salute the flag created a "Compulsory unification of opinion". Forcing everyone to vote would violate free speech in much the same manner, and, in the US at least, would mean completely undermining court precedent and the rule of law. An individual has the right to refrain from voting as a speech act--perhaps the individual wants to make a statement about how they disapprove of every candidate on the ballot or if they do not support democracy and favor another system of government such as a monarchy or anarcho capitalism. Refraining to vote is also an act of political expression. Article 19 protects an individuals right to hold an opinion "without interference". Many individuals feel that voting is immoral for various reasons, such as they do not want to perpetuate a system they oppose, and they are allowed to hold and exercise that opinion. Many individuals also believe that by voting for a politician they are implicitly responsible for the actions those officials take. As George Carlin once said[4]: "I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain...If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain." If an individual disapproves of every candidate for office, or every choice on a referendum ballot, forcing them to vote is forcing them to violate their conscience. Governments have to have a compelling state interest before they can override individual rights and force an individual to violate his sincerely held moral beliefs. Pro's arguments don't come anywhere close to meeting this litmus test as we'll see in the next round.III. Freedom of ReligionArticle 18 of the Universal Declaration gives every individual the right to "to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." Jehovah's Witnesses, due to religious reasons, are required to maintain political neutrality[5]. Pro would bulldoze over their right to observe their religious teachings. The US has a really great litmus test for what laws violating religious freedom are to be allowed, called the Sherbert Test[6], which requires that if the government is going to violate an individuals sincerely held religious beliefs it must prove that both there is a compelling state interest behind the violation AND that the policy is the *least intrusive* method of achieving this compelling state interest. For example, if the government has a compelling interest in promoting contraception, forcing the Catholic Church to distribute contraceptives after every Mass would not be the *least intrusive* means to achieve this interest. Other democracies have similar policies and I will defend the validity of this test should Pro choose to engage it. If one rereads Pro's arguments with the Sherbert Test in mind it's quite clear that even if there is a compelling state interest in bringing voter turnout as high as possible (there isn't), forcing Jehovah's Witnesses to violate their beliefs is not the least intrusive method of achieving any of these benefits.IV. Nonvoters are less informed Those who choose to refrain from voting often make a wise choice. According to Pew[7], 76% of the people who report rarely voting admit that don't feel they don't know enough about the candidates to cast an informed ballot. Pro argues that forcing people to vote will improve education, but there can be no denying that some people are simply too busy or too lazy to properly inform themselves on politics. The counterplan of providing tax credits for voters would be superior to crafting a high turnout, educated electorate because only generally nonvoting people who actually have an income and pay enough attention to politics to learn about the tax credit would be motivated to vote. We can have high voter turnout without forcing the 29% of Americans who cannot even name the Vice President of their country[8] to cast a ballot and expecting the results to be beneficial to the nation as a whole. Maybe in other democracies with a more informed electorate this policy would make sense (although, I would argue, even in those the tax credit system is preferable) but not in the US. Not in a lot of other democracies. In conclusion, those who refrain from voting are generally less informed than those who choose to vote, compulsory voting grossly violates actual human rights and a tax credit system could achieve similar results without any of these impacts. Don't empower Puff Daddy to force you at gunpoint to vote. Vote Con. Sources:1. https://today.yougov.com...2. http://www.un.org...3. http://www.oyez.org...4. 5. http://www.jw.org...6. http://definitions.uslegal.com...7. http://www.people-press.org...8. http://gawker.com...

"Fair" is a loaded word here, and left entirely undefined. My opponent's position, translated into less ambiguous terms, is: "Children have the right to bring any sort of lunch to school that they want; schools ought not place any restrictions on this right." There are obvious problems with this position. Common-sense would give the schools freedom to prevent children from eating arsenic-laced sandwiches. Mothers that pack their children's lunchboxes with wood chips could have no grounds for complaint should the school replace the questionable "lunches" with something edible. This is an extreme example, but it illustrates the point: The schools are trusted with the welfare of our children during the school day. Allowing them to eat unhealthy or harmful lunches is contrary to the child's welfare, and is abuse by neglect. Children will have more energy, pay better attention in class, and grow up healthier if they eat right. Permitting a child to subsist on a diet of twinkies and soda can only harm their development. Schools, who are responsible for the well-being of the children within their walls, should not allow them to make unhealthy choices that will harm their development and haunt them throughout the rest of their lives.

Everyone should have the right to decide whether or not surgical procedures are performed on them, especially when it involves the permanent removal of part of their body. Since babies are too young to speak for themselves, many parents decide for them. However, it is not their body and they shouldn't be allowed to treat it like it is. If the baby boy wants to be circumcised, let him make that choice when he is old enough.

From an early age, most children are raised in religious families. Those families have been part of that certain religion for most likely decades. It should be a parents right to choose whether or not they want to expose their children to religion. We force other beliefs onto our children anyways and religion is not a huge deal. We force our kids to believe in Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny, and plenty of other things. We force our kids to go to school and to do certain things, because children at that age are not mentally mature enough to make certain decisions. Parents are supposed to make sure their kids are grown up correct. If a parent wants their child to be religious, then they should have the power to choose that. It's like abortion, who is the government or any of us to tell people that they can't have their child be told to believe in god at a young age. Especially when we "brainwash" our children to believe in Santa and other fictional characters. Another point that I would like to make is that schools are not supposed to use god in school, so therefore the point that religion is brought into schools after being taught at home is a fallacy, so therefore that point is not true.

There are schools that have recess and lunch that involved outdoors. Even there is a cafeteria at some of these schools; some of these students must walk outside of their classroom and to the cafeteria in some of these schools. What would happen if some of these kids have to walk from their classroom to the cafeteria and back in rainy and snowy weather, outdoors? Some of these students must walk classroom to classroom between periods and must walk outdoors to do so, mostly the San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego and Phoenix area. What would happen if there were a rainy or snowy weather? When I gone to school, I have to walk outdoors when I have to transfer classroom to classroom, sometimes there is rainy weather. Many San Jose schools have their students walk outside when walking classroom to classroom. Even during the winters of the fully indoor schools that might have heaters, what would happen if the heater breaks down during very cold weather? When I meant "other than swimming and other activities", I meant the sports not including that are known that people go barefoot, like martial arts, swimming and gymnastics. But football, baseball and basketball are the common sports for PE activities and these activities involved outdoors. Baseball is required mostly outdoors. Kids would have to run on the dirt of the infield and they can cut their feet onto the dirt, there are small sharp rocks on those baseball fields. Football is also outdoors and the kids run on the grass and who knows what would lie on a grass, mostly garbage. It goes with soccer. If baseball plays in a gym, then a homerun wouldn't be a homerun because of the ceiling unless the baseball hits a window and replace a $200 glass. Street hockey is also required as an outdoor sport; you have to scrape your feet on the blacktop to make immediate stops. Plus those pucks fly more than 20 mph (sometimes 70 mph) and there are times you have to stop the puck when your goalie, those pucks hurt at the correct speed, even plastic pucks. Have you ever been hit by a golf ball? Basketball, sometimes they might play indoors but the schools that don't have a gym (sometimes elementary schools) must play basketball on the blacktop. On blacktops they have some of those sharp rocks sticking in the ground and a kid scraping their feet on the blacktop for an immediate stop would cut their feet. Sometimes the students do PE activities on the blacktop or grass after the rain stops, but the blacktop would still be wet and full of puddles. Putting your bare feet on a cold wet surface would make a person sick. When I meant when I said "not allowing having any students to have any footwear on school campus," means that students can't even bring footwear for any reason. A parent must bring their shoes after school if they can. Just like when schools said, "You can't play your MP3 player". Well, I played my MP3 player outside of campus (few feet off of campus) and I still get in trouble by the principle. So they would have to walk barefoot from school to school and back. Even they can put their shoes in their locker, then what would happen if there a natural disaster strikes? Like in the Midwest where they get tornados. What would happen if an unexpected tornado hits school and a student must get somewhere else to safety? Every second counts and if that tornado hits, then that student won't own those shoes again. Earthquake can happen unexpectedly and the shoes would be buried under all the rubble. "No gum on campus" rule is often been broken by a lot of students and I still see gum on the ground. If the student doesn't watch out, then they have someone else's saliva on their foot. When the students go to the bathroom, sometimes they miss the toilet. The students would have to put their bare feet on someone else's (beep). Reports say that going barefoot outside can get you diabetes and other issues. http://www.newsmax.com... http://www.dentalplans.com... http://mykidsfootdoc.blogspot.com... The science building has chemicals that might be hazardous to the skin, mostly the chemistry classes. No shoes mean any protection for the feet from the hazardous chemicals. Some of those chemicals can turn to acid and cause some damage to the skin if not property protected. I burned my hand on a chemical once. Some schools have wooden surfaces that the students have to walk on to get to their classroom. One word for a barefoot on a wooden surface, ‘slivers'. Most of all, why would be a good idea to have students to go barefoot to school? If an American school thought it would be a good or reasonable idea, then it would have happened already.

Welcome to my first debate as Pro! Vaccinations have been a source of huge controversies: theories generally develop from it being the cause of AIDs to it causing autism. Though generally beneficial, some people deeply oppose vaccination. I strongly support vaccination, and I would like to have this debate with someone who opposes vaccination for reasons of culture/tradition, and/or of scientific proof. The Debate Rules: 1. NO TROLLING, please 2. Accept if you could participate in all rounds 3. If you can't make a complete argument, state that at the end of the debate argument. 4.If you forfeit, then you would be expect to provide a return argument at round 5. If you did not forfeit, then you could forfeit Rnd.5, or rebut some of the opponent's cases. 5. HAVE FUNNNN! (Oh yeah btw Rnd 1 is acceptance)

Heres PROOF- the government LOST the high profile case and they DONT WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT IT VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM, SIDS and HORRIBLE THINGS to INFANTS! Government Concedes Vaccine-Autism Case in Federal Court - Now What? http://www.huffingtonpost.com... After years of insisting there is no evidence to link vaccines with the onset of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the US government has quietly conceded a vaccine-autism case in the Court of Federal Claims. Email Print Comment Buzz up!on Yahoo!The unprecedented concession was filed on November 9, and sealed to protect the plaintiff's identify. It was obtained through individuals unrelated to the case. The claim, one of 4,900 autism cases currently pending in Federal "Vaccine Court," was conceded by US Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and other Justice Department officials, on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, the "defendant" in all Vaccine Court cases. The child's claim against the government -- that mercury-containing vaccines were the cause of her autism -- was supposed to be one of three "test cases" for the thimerosal-autism theory currently under consideration by a three-member panel of Special Masters, the presiding justices in Federal Claims Court. Keisler wrote that medical personnel at the HHS Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (DVIC) had reviewed the case and "concluded that compensation is appropriate." The doctors conceded that the child was healthy and developing normally until her 18-month well-baby visit, when she received vaccinations against nine different diseases all at once (two contained thimerosal). Days later, the girl began spiraling downward into a cascade of illnesses and setbacks that, within months, presented as symptoms of autism, including: No response to verbal direction; loss of language skills; no eye contact; loss of "relatedness;" insomnia; incessant screaming; arching; and "watching the florescent lights repeatedly during examination." Seven months after vaccination, the patient was diagnosed by Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a leading neurologist at the Kennedy Krieger Children's Hospital Neurology Clinic, with "regressive encephalopathy (brain disease) with features consistent with autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development." The girl also met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) official criteria for autism. In its written concession, the government said the child had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder that was "aggravated" by her shots, and which ultimately resulted in an ASD diagnosis. "The vaccinations received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder," the concession says, "which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of ASD." This statement is good news for the girl and her family, who will now be compensated for the lifetime of care she will require. But its implications for the larger vaccine-autism debate, and for public health policy in general, are not as certain. In fact, the government's concession seems to raise more questions than it answers. 1) Is there a connection between vaccines, mitochondrial disorders and a diagnosis of autism, at least in some cases? Mitochondria, you may recall from biology class, are the little powerhouses within cells that convert food into electrical energy, partly through a complex process called "oxidative phosphorylation." If this process is impaired, mitochondrial disorder will ensue. The child in this case had several markers for Mt disease, which was confirmed by muscle biopsy. Mt disease is often marked by lethargy, poor muscle tone, poor food digestion and bowel problems, something found in many children diagnosed with autism. But mitochondrial disorders are rare in the general population, affecting some 2-per-10,000 people (or just 0.2%). So with 4,900 cases filed in Vaccine Court, this case should be the one and only, extremely rare instance of Mt disease in all the autism proceedings. But it is not. Mitochondrial disorders are now thought to be the most common disease associated with ASD. Some journal articles and other analyses have estimated that 10% to 20% of all autism cases may involve mitochondrial disorders, which would make them one thousand times more common among people with ASD than the general population. Another article, published in the Journal of Child Neurology and co-authored by Dr. Zimmerman, showed that 38% of Kennedy Krieger Institute autism patients studied had one marker for impaired oxidative phosphorylation, and 47% had a second marker. The authors -- who reported on a case-study of the same autism claim conceded in Vaccine Court -- noted that "children who have (mitochondrial-related) dysfunctional cellular energy metabolism might be more prone to undergo autistic regression between 18 and 30 months of age if they also have infections or immunizations at the same time." An interesting aspect of Mt disease in autism is that, with ASD, the mitochondrial disease seems to be milder than in "classic" cases of Mt disorder. In fact, classic Mt disease is almost always inherited, either passed down by the mother through mitochondrial DNA, or by both parents through nuclear DNA. In autism-related Mt disease, however, the disorder is not typically found in other family members, and instead appears to be largely of the sporadic variety, which may now account for 75% of all mitochondrial disorders. Meanwhile, an informal survey of seven families of children with cases currently pending in Vaccine Court revealed that all seven showed markers for mitochondrial dysfunction, dating back to their earliest medical tests. The facts in all seven claims mirror the case just conceded by the government: Normal development followed by vaccination, immediate illness, and rapid decline culminating in an autism diagnosis. 2) With 4,900 cases pending, and more coming, will the government concede those with underlying Mt disease -- and if it not, will the Court award compensation? The Court will soon begin processing the 4900 cases pending before it. What if 10% to 20% of them can demonstrate the same Mt disease and same set of facts as those in the conceded case? Would the government be obliged to concede 500, or even 1,000 cases? What impact would that have on public opinion? And is there enough money currently in the vaccine injury fund to cover so many settlements? When asked for a comment last week about the court settlement, a spokesman for HHS furnished the following written statement: "DVIC has reviewed the scientific information concerning the allegation that vaccines cause autism and has found no credible evidence to support the claim. Accordingly, in every case under the Vaccine Act, DVIC has maintained the position that vaccines do not cause autism, and has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination." 3) If the government is claiming that vaccines did not "cause" autism, but instead aggravated a condition to "manifest" as autism, isn't that a very fine distinction? For most affected families, such linguistic gymnastics is not so important. And even if a vaccine injury "manifested" as autism in only one case, isn't that still a significant development worthy of informing the public? On the other hand, perhaps what the government is claiming is that vaccination resulted in the symptoms of autism, but not in an actual, factually correct diagnosis of autism itself. 4) If the government is claiming that this child does NOT have autism, then how many other children might also have something else that merely "mimics" autism? LISTEN TO ME NOW!


Question: Should Certain Vaccinations Be Mandated for Pediatric Populations?

Vaccinations are essential for public health.
Thank you for participating, and good luck. I'll share my sources at the conclusion. Let's begin by discussing various types of vaccinations, their components, and how they function and are administered. There are several vaccine types, including attenuated (live virus), inactive, subunit, toxoid, and conjugate vaccines. Each type serves a distinct purpose and offers significant benefits. The attenuated vaccine contains a weakened version of the pathogen, enabling the body to learn to fight it without causing harm. Inactive vaccines use heat and chemicals to deactivate the pathogen, making them safer for individuals with weaker immune systems but requiring multiple doses for effectiveness. Subunit vaccines only contain specific antigens that trigger a strong immune response, reducing the likelihood of complications. Toxoid vaccines train the body to combat bacterial toxins, while conjugate vaccines help the immune system recognize and fight bacteria with polysaccharide coatings. Unfortunately, some individuals are refusing to vaccinate themselves or their children, based on misconceptions. Skipping vaccinations can put infants and young children at risk for potentially deadly diseases. For vaccines to work effectively, a high percentage of the population needs to be vaccinated, typically around 95%. With a vaccination rate of approximately 80% among elementary school children, "herd immunity" is not being achieved. Even though major diseases like polio are rare in the U.S., outbreaks of pertussis and other respiratory diseases still occur. Vaccinations aim to prevent the spread of infectious diseases such as measles and mumps, protecting public health. They also prevent complications and fatalities from diseases like rotavirus, hepatitis B, pneumococcal, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, hepatitis A, varicella, meningococcal, and influenza. While minor side effects like redness, soreness, or a low-grade fever may occur, these do not result in long-term damage. Vaccines are 90-100% effective in preventing infections, and those with strong immunity protect those with weaker systems. The eradication of diseases through vaccines is a direct result of immunizations. There is no link between vaccines and autism; the MMR vaccine never contained thimerosal, a chemical some claim causes autism. If vaccines were not administered, there would be a resurgence of contagious and fatal diseases. The sick feeling after a vaccine is merely the body's immune system strengthening and protecting not only the individual but also those around them. Vaccinations are necessary for maintaining

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. 10th Amendment. The U.S Federal Government cannot legally pass this law because regulation of medication is not something the constitution says the Federal government is allowed, there is not amendment that specifies the federal government has the authority to do that. The Federal Government would have to pass a constitutional amendment, In order to pass and enforce this kind of law. Secondly how would you enforce this kind of law ? You would have to have a Federal representative in every health office and have them constantly going over records. This is not practical as the manpower and budget needed would not be available. Or would you force schools and universes to require applicants to get the vaccines in question . If you did that then the Federal government would be over stepping the 10th amendment again. To conclude , currently there is no legal way to pass a law and enforce Federal vaccine regulations .

Let's Start with how Jenny McCarthy is not a source for science. She's not a scientist, does not study these things, and continues to perpetuate this debunked myth. I would love to see a source where a Dr. said, and other doctors have backed them up, that vaccines caused her sons autism. You admit that all of these medical scientific institutions agree that there is no correlation between autism and vaccines. All medical procedures and medicines have side effects. There will always be a tiny percentage that the vaccine or medicine or whatever may not work on everyone and may have adverse side effects. You are warned of the side effects before you are given whatever it is. That is the trade-off for not having smallpox anymore, almost getting rid of polio, and many other diseases. Autism is not one of those side effects (and autism-like symptoms is not autism...). Not to mention that vaccines are very important to keep diseases under control and not go backward to widespread disease and death. "Myth #1: Vaccines cause autism. The widespread fear that vaccines increase risk of autism originated with a 1997 study published by Andrew Wakefield, a British surgeon. The article was published in The Lancet, a prestigious medical journal, suggesting that the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine was increasing autism in British children. The paper has since been completely discredited due to serious procedural errors, undisclosed financial conflicts of interest, and ethical violations. Andrew Wakefield lost his medical license and the paper was retracted from The Lancet. Nonetheless, the hypothesis was taken seriously, and several other major studies were conducted. None of them found a link between any vaccine and the likelihood of developing autism. Today, the true causes of autism remain a mystery, but to the discredit of the autism-vaccination link theory, several studies have now identified symptoms of autism in children well before they receive the MMR vaccine. And even more recent research provides evidence that autism develops in utero, well before a baby is born or receives vaccinations." http://www.publichealth.org... To ask why people still believe it may be true, to me is a silly question. Many people believe in many things that aren't true. There are people who think the world is flat. People remaining unconvinced does not equal something is true.

You may believe that PE should be mandatory in middle schools but I disagree. One reason why I think PE shouldn"t be mandatory is because some children/people may feel self conscious about their level of athleticism. They may be less coordinated and feel badly about themselves. Then, in PE their peers can make fun of you for not being athletic enough and not being able to do certain things that other people can.

The reason it should be illegal is because the constitution allows the government to protect peoples right to life! If a fetus is a human then it should have the right to life! You never disproved and told me how a fetus wasn't a human. How did healthcare get into this argument? It was about abortion. Please stay on topic. I rest my case.

I would like someone to debate with and attempt to defend vaccinations against those who believe they are bad despite overwhelming evidence contrary to this. The continued spread of misinformation surrounding vaccines and them causing Autism or not being needed because some think they are harmful is actually harmful to our population. The argument that since the disease is not prevalent anymore should mean we don't need the vaccine is not correct and we have seen breakouts of diseases we had very much under control due to this new trend of anti-vaxxing. State your full position first, then argument, and then your closing statement.

In this round I will primarily be focusing on refuting my opponents arguments from the previous round. "Your argument is invalid. First, you are using a source which does not state that the high fevers were linked to the vaccine itself." If one looks at [2] one can see that the CDC clearly explains that high fever is a possible side effect of all the vaccines I listed. " Second, the supposed link to autism due to the high fevers were not due to the vaccine itself, but the side effwcts of the vaccine." I never stated it wasn't. However, if one looks to the framework of the debate one can clearly see that the word "cause" as defined by Miriam Webster meant that i need simply demonstrate that their exists some pathway by which a vaccine could bring about autism. Their is not a requirement for set pathway to only be one step long. "The increase in ice cream sales leads to an increase of drownings. See anything wrong with this? Your statement is quite similar; it is not the ice cream sales leading to the drownings, but rather a hidden factor, higher temperatures. This is an example of a hidden cause relationship." My opponent seems to be confusing a confounding variable with an indirect one. In her example their exists a confounding variable, temperature, which leads to both an increase in ice cream sales and drownings. In the case of vaccines, fever is a result of vaccination which then leads to autism. As such a more apt analogy would be a link between temperature and obesity. Where temperature increases that purchase rate of ice cream which then leads to an increase in obesity. "Now, we cannot assume that the vaccine itself is linked to the high fevers that is linked to autism. There are many factors that can cause a pregnant woman to get a high fever." There may be many factors that can lead to high fevers in pregnant women and thus cause autism. However, that doesn't negate the fact that vaccination can be one of them. Note, the resolution does not ask that I demonstrate that vaccinations are the only cause of autism but rather a cause. "we do not know the direct cause of autism yet, and until we do, your argument is invalid." My opponent is simply making an unsupported claim here. Refer to source [1] in which I demonstrate a clear link between high fevers in pregnant women and autism. Conclusion: I have held up my burden of proof and conclusively demonstrated that their does exist some pathway by which vaccination can lead to autism as specified by the resolution. As such I urge you to negate.

http://www.youtube.com...Thanks, Philo. In a classic South Park episode the character Stan, uncomfortable with his choices for an upcoming school mascot election, chooses to abstain from voting. After being pressured to vote by his friends, threatened into voting, and ultimately shunned from his community Stan finally returns and registers a vote only to find out that it didn't even matter in an extremely lopsided election. The episode lampoons our cultures view on voting: that despite the stupendous improbability of any individuals vote actually mattering, and even if an individual dislikes or has no opinion on the candidates, it's still viewed by many people as some kind of obligation. However even in their wildest, most cynical dreams the creators of South Park could not have envisioned a world where their "Vote or Die" song would become actual government policy. This is the world Pro wants. Puff Daddy would probably make an excellent enforcer in the Pro world. Don't have an opinion? Don't like the choices? Have a sincerely held moral objection to voting? Too bad. Vote or die.=Framework= What values should we enshrine into law? Pro believes that the only important value is democracy, a manifestly absurd view that would allow 51% to vote to exterminate the other 49%, but it's clear that good governments, including democracies, have higher values--ultimately governance is a balancing act between individual rights and the common good. Pro totally ignores the individual rights part of the governance equation. Obviously compulsory voting violates individual rights, but is it in the interest of the common good to mandate citizens to vote? The answer is clearly no, and whatever minuscule benefits it manages to bring to the table are vastly outweighed by the complete destruction of individual rights brought about by this policy. =Counterplan=Assuming that we want to drive voter turnout as high as possible, democracies should make it easier to vote and institute tax credits for individuals who cast a ballot. This economic incentive would be extremely easy to put into practice and would drive up turnout without any of the ethical implications that stem from compulsory voting. I. Undemocratic Pro wants us to value whatever is most democratic. By far the more democratic option is to allow individual societies to determine voting policy themselves rather than making a blanket declaration that they have an obligation to force their citizens to vote. National nuances, opinions, customs, or autonomy be damned--Pro may not know anything about Nauru or Monaco but he still views those nations as his to rule. This is the height of totalitarianism, not democracy. In the United States, the overwhelming majority, 66%-26%, opposes compulsory voting[1]. This statistic is utterly devastating for Pro, who wants the entire debate to come down to whatever is more democratic. I'll get to Pro's specific arguments later, but it's absurd on its face to suggest that it's more democratic to overrule the vast majority of the population on this issue. Ultimately, the Pro position relies upon a fatal conceit: the idea that from our vantage point in the first world we can legislate for everybody else just as well as we could for our own nations. This kind of thinking is what provided the justification for colonialism and indeed Pro's intellectual framework relying on the assumption that we in the West have the right to dictate policy for the rest of the world is blatantly neocolonialist and must be rejected, to vote Pro is to perpetuate this kind of thinking. This neocolonialism is the antithesis of any kind of lofty democratic ideals and to reject it requires also rejecting the resolution. In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory if that is the policy that is best for their society and we don't get to decide that for them. II. Freedom of Speech and ExpressionArticle 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[2] protects an individuals freedom of expression. The right to free speech is declared in the very preamble. Article 19 specifies: "this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." I argue that both the rights of freedom of speech and expression protect an individuals right to refrain from voting. Voting is inherently a speech act, it's a citizen voicing his opinion on who he wishes to hold the position in question--but freedom of speech itself contains the right *not* to speak. The US Supreme Court in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette[3] took the obviously correct position that the freedom of speech protects the right of silence as well, protecting the right of schoolchildren to *not* salute the flag if they chose. The court ruled that forcing everyone to salute the flag created a "Compulsory unification of opinion". Forcing everyone to vote would violate free speech in much the same manner, and, in the US at least, would mean completely undermining court precedent and the rule of law. An individual has the right to refrain from voting as a speech act--perhaps the individual wants to make a statement about how they disapprove of every candidate on the ballot or if they do not support democracy and favor another system of government such as a monarchy or anarcho capitalism. Refraining to vote is also an act of political expression. Article 19 protects an individuals right to hold an opinion "without interference". Many individuals feel that voting is immoral for various reasons, such as they do not want to perpetuate a system they oppose, and they are allowed to hold and exercise that opinion. Many individuals also believe that by voting for a politician they are implicitly responsible for the actions those officials take. As George Carlin once said[4]: "I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain...If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain." If an individual disapproves of every candidate for office, or every choice on a referendum ballot, forcing them to vote is forcing them to violate their conscience. Governments have to have a compelling state interest before they can override individual rights and force an individual to violate his sincerely held moral beliefs. Pro's arguments don't come anywhere close to meeting this litmus test as we'll see in the next round.III. Freedom of ReligionArticle 18 of the Universal Declaration gives every individual the right to "to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." Jehovah's Witnesses, due to religious reasons, are required to maintain political neutrality[5]. Pro would bulldoze over their right to observe their religious teachings. The US has a really great litmus test for what laws violating religious freedom are to be allowed, called the Sherbert Test[6], which requires that if the government is going to violate an individuals sincerely held religious beliefs it must prove that both there is a compelling state interest behind the violation AND that the policy is the *least intrusive* method of achieving this compelling state interest. For example, if the government has a compelling interest in promoting contraception, forcing the Catholic Church to distribute contraceptives after every Mass would not be the *least intrusive* means to achieve this interest. Other democracies have similar policies and I will defend the validity of this test should Pro choose to engage it. If one rereads Pro's arguments with the Sherbert Test in mind it's quite clear that even if there is a compelling state interest in bringing voter turnout as high as possible (there isn't), forcing Jehovah's Witnesses to violate their beliefs is not the least intrusive method of achieving any of these benefits.IV. Nonvoters are less informed Those who choose to refrain from voting often make a wise choice. According to Pew[7], 76% of the people who report rarely voting admit that don't feel they don't know enough about the candidates to cast an informed ballot. Pro argues that forcing people to vote will improve education, but there can be no denying that some people are simply too busy or too lazy to properly inform themselves on politics. The counterplan of providing tax credits for voters would be superior to crafting a high turnout, educated electorate because only generally nonvoting people who actually have an income and pay enough attention to politics to learn about the tax credit would be motivated to vote. We can have high voter turnout without forcing the 29% of Americans who cannot even name the Vice President of their country[8] to cast a ballot and expecting the results to be beneficial to the nation as a whole. Maybe in other democracies with a more informed electorate this policy would make sense (although, I would argue, even in those the tax credit system is preferable) but not in the US. Not in a lot of other democracies. In conclusion, those who refrain from voting are generally less informed than those who choose to vote, compulsory voting grossly violates actual human rights and a tax credit system could achieve similar results without any of these impacts. Don't empower Puff Daddy to force you at gunpoint to vote. Vote Con. Sources:1. https://today.yougov.com...2. http://www.un.org...3. http://www.oyez.org...4. 5. http://www.jw.org...6. http://definitions.uslegal.com...7. http://www.people-press.org...8. http://gawker.com...

It is unfortunate to see that my worthy opposition had not posted any response to my arguments almost implying that he/she has nothing to say. Therefore, I have got nothing to refute. Because of this I shall just state some of the possible situations that could arise if the government does indeed give benefits to parents who don't vaccinate their children. Firstly, like I have said in the previous argument, doing so will convey a wrong message telling everyone that it is not worth the effort to take one's child to a hospital or even a clinic and provide a child with his or her basic medical requirements. Which would also imply that it is perfectly fine to put a young one's life at stake. Furthermore, let us think of this, if there were such 'anti-vaxxers' in the times of medical disasters, for example the time when small pox existed, it would still exist, there would still be people suffering from the disease. Death toll would be far more than a already staggering 500 million people. And people who are the reason for this would still be getting benefits from the government. Strictly providing such vaccinations have saved the world a number of times before and can still do so. Providing the world with a vaccine for polio has definitely done it. At this point of time, there are only two countries which are polio-endemic - Afghanistan and Pakistan. (Link: - . http://www.who.int... ) . This is the change that has been brought about by us. Merely 28 years ago, there were 125 countries affected with polio. However, at this time of crisis, when diseases are evolving and getting stronger and fighting us back. it is more important than ever to stay together and fight better, as diseases like MERS, ebola and zika come in our way, we have to spread awareness among people to eradicate them in the same way we eradicated smallpox. And that is where governments come in. They are one of the only ways we can do so, they must do whatever is possible to save the world. However, giving benefits to anti-vaxxers is one of the many ways our progress is being hampered. We have to appreciate the fact that although there are only 2 countries that are still affected by polio and polio alone, failure to eliminate this disease will mean that within ten years, there will be a rise of the disease and there will be more than 200 000 cases every year from all around the world. Moreover, this is not the only disease of concern, there are many more diseases that are to be worried about, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza, measles and many more. The only way we can stop them is through vaccinations. And that is why actions must be taken, which includes taking small steps like not giving any benefits to the anti-vaxxers (which is only one of the several. things we must do). In the final round, I shall suggest some ideas regarding what could be done to exterminate such diseases.

Ok, my argument was not over abortion, but i could debate that topic if you ask. Contraception cannot be required, due to rights and laws. Stds are contagious even with the contraception. So unless you can make argument that thet aren't, that is nullified. I refuted about all of those argument,and a doctor can be wrong, so that has been nullified. I never saw pregnancy argument refuted, so i need one of those done, and i deleberately make these short because they are compacted into just a few sentences.

I accept the challenge and prove why vaccination is harmful for humanity.