Question: Should Certain Vaccines be Mandated for Children?

Vaccination should be compulsory for all children.
I firmly believe that vaccinations should be required for all children, as they have proven to be a vital tool in safeguarding public health. Since their inception, vaccines have significantly reduced the incidence of numerous infectious diseases and even eradicated some, such as smallpox in 1979 and rinderpest, a viral disease that affected cattle. Without vaccines, a significant portion of the population would suffer from preventable illnesses or even die unnecessarily. Your argument that vaccines are not 100% effective is not a valid reason to avoid them. Even if a vaccine offers only 50% protection, it is still better than no protection at all. This is akin to choosing to walk rather than drive because the car might not guarantee a punctual arrival. Regarding your concern about vaccines containing mercury, it is important to note that they contain thimerosal, a mercury-based compound that prevents microbial growth and has been safely used since 1930 without any evidence of harm. Your claim that vaccines can cause severe allergic reactions or have side effects leading to death is also unfounded. Even if a small percentage of people, say 5 out of 100, experience adverse reactions, removing vaccines would result in a much higher death toll. Moreover, the evidence linking these reactions to vaccines is inconclusive. Refusing vaccines not only puts your own health at risk but also endangers the health of the community by allowing diseases to spread and evolve. This is not just a personal decision but a public health issue. Examples of misguided beliefs that have hindered vaccination efforts include the now-debunked theory that vaccines cause autism and the Taliban's baseless claim that vaccines are a Western plot to harm them, which has impeded efforts to eradicate polio. In my view, there is no rational reason to refuse a vaccine, as doing so only exposes oneself and others to preventable diseases.

I'd like to define vaccine. [All definitions are from oxford dictionaries]VaccineA substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseasesThroughout history, vaccines have been the best method against preventing disease. There are many diseases that were rampant in the past, but they have been erradicated or are close to erradication thanks to vaccination. These diseases include - Polio Smallpox Measles Tetanus These diseases, had they still been common, would've been killing hundreds of thousands of people today. Many people believe that vaccines cause autism. This belief was strengthened after a scientific paper released in 1998 by former medical researcher, Andrew Wakefield. This paper was published in the medical journal The Lancet. It was later revealed that Wakefield had manipulated evidence, and had many conflicts of interest. In 2004, this paper was partially retracted, and was fully retracted in 2010. The Lancet's editor-in-chief called it "utterly false. " Wakefield was found guilty of professional misconduct, and he is no longer allowed to practice medicine. The scientific community agrees that no evidence links autism and vaccination. Research has gone into what causes autism, and a few interesting things have been found. Autism has a genetic component, but there is more. In siblings that both have autism, the genetic risk factors aren't the same. There hasn't even been any real evidence to fully explain why autism occurs, so it's senseless to suddenly blame it on vaccines. Sources: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.bmj.com... . http://www.healthline.com... . http://www.unicef.org... . http://www.dailyrx.com... . http://www.nature.com... . http://www.healthline.com...

Thank you. Nice to be debating you too! Opening Arguments Only!!!!! Whether you home school your kids or put them in a government provided (public) school is an option you as a parent may decide as one of our precious freedoms that we as Americans have. How do you decide on which environment is better for your children to grow up in? Here are some interesting facts I have found when researching home school.•Children who are home schooled "... may be more socially mature and have better leadership skills than other children ..." - Richard G. Medlin, Ph.D. (NHERI)•Recent studies demonstrate that 98% of home taught children are involved in two or more social/community beyond the home each week, including such things as 4-H, Bible Clubs, Scouts, Ballet Classes, Music Lessons, Sports, Field Trips and Sunday School.•The Galloway-Sutton Study, which examines five success indicators, showed home schooled children (with the exception of the psychomotor) excelling above other students in the academic, cognitive, spiritual and affective-social categories.•On average, home school students, grades 1–4, perform one grade level above their public and private school counterparts. The achievement gap grows in grade 5; by 8th grade the average home school student performs four grades higher than the national average. (SADC)•Students who have been home schooled their entire academic lives have the highest scholastic achievement. The difference is more pronounced during the higher grades; students who home school throughout high school continue to flourish while in that environment. (SADC)•Kate Grossman, Chicago Sun-Times reported noted, "The number of homeschoolers receiving National Merit Scholarships has increased more than 500 percent: from 21 in 1995 to 129 in 2003." (HSLDA)Not only does home school help a child succeed socially and academically but it also provides them with a secure stable educational environment and does not force them to face peer pressure, sex, drugs, bullies, and all other immoral things the secular world has to often. Although they may face it in the future, It is proved that if faced with these these things while the child is still ageing, they are almost 6 times as likely to give in as if they were faced with it as an adult.Home school gives parents more say in how their children grow up, and what kinds of things they are exposed to. It also gives more Religious Freedom. Many families feel their religious and spiritual beliefs are an important part of who they are. Home schooling provides the opportunity for parents to incorporate their beliefs into their daily lives.Well-Rested Kids. As more and more studies are illustrating, sleep is vital to the emotional and physical well-being of kids, especially teens and preteens. The effects of early morning classes can be devastating to many children, especially those who are not morning people. After realizing that lack of sleep and hours of busywork often left her boy in a zombie-like stupor, Haya has decided to try home schooling: "My oldest (age 13), is up at 6:30 in order to catch the bus at 7:15 and start school at 7:30. He comes home at 3:00 and does homework — sometimes until midnight. He's often exhausted. I'm hoping that when we home school next year, the dark circles under his eyes will disappear and his real personality will emerge again."This also provides parents with a better schedule as they don't have to work around the public school schedule and are free to go on vacation or go to public places during the week where otherwise it would be prohibited or discouraged.Hopefully, in my argument I have disproved the false theories that home schooled children lack academic and social skills and home schooling is far fetched for the average family.I am interested in Cons point of view. Remember this round is only for opening arguments. You may rebuttal in the next round. Thank You!!!!

For consistency, I've responded to his argument in the comments in the same place. On Standards: 1. Considering my opponent's response #4, you can ignore everything else he said about his value and/or criterion outweighing or subsuming mine, since he concedes that we are both essentially trying to achieve the same things, but just labeling them with different but philosophically synonymous terms. 2. What exactly a natural right is will become the crux of this debate, I believe. If the point of government in the first place is to protect its society as well as its individuals, there must be a balance between government intervention and individual freedom. The metric for this balance is explained in my first contention. Lest my opponent can prove that it is justified to take one's life involuntarily in order to respect the religious whims of another, you will prefer my interpretation of natural rights and vote affirmative. Bottom line: not every right outlined in a given governmental document, even the UN Declaration of Human Rights (DHR), is to be respected equally. My mechanism provides the most justice (as outlined on both sides of the debate), as it saves the most lives without totally eliminating other rights. My opponent can claim a perfect respect for religious or philosophical freedom, but kills millions in the process. Hence, natural rights should be only those that are most important to ensure a just existence. As outlined in Article 3 of the DHR, those are life, liberty, and security of person. Religious and ideological freedom, while important, are not irreducible at all times. Aff Case: His First Response to Aff 1: 1. Speaking of hyperbolic, let's throw the suicide capsule in that pile. My opponent has yet to even link his unrelated China card to vaccinations at all. Look to my contention 2 for proof of widespread safety and the benefits of vaccinations. 2. This is a straw man. One who objects to vaccines for any reason other than medical violates the principle of liberty, just like any person driving a car violates that principle if they choose to run a red light and put others in danger. 3. My opponent presents the alternative of "staying home sick". .. is that supposed to present enough solvency to answer the harms in my case? His Second Response to Aff 1: 1. My opponent gives a single example, ignores what I've said repeatedly about the danger of vaccines being extremely rare, and then states that doctors and nurses will be dying from vaccines at such an intense rate that none shall be left to treat all of us when we fall ill. Turn? Not so much. 2. Extend the impacts coming out of this entire contention, as my opponent has yet to say anything that will outweigh or counter my Parks card or the analysis in my sub C. Because pandemics spread rapidly and across countries, irrational vaccine fear costs millions of lives. 3. My opponent also effectively drops my sub B, which details why any exemption besides medical is unjust and a violation of other's natural rights. When he concedes this, he highlights his inability to achieve the standards set out for this debate. His Response to Aff 2, Sub A & B: 1. My opponent misses the boat with his argument about general populations and how I do, in fact, end up killing people at the end of the day. I will remind you of my traffic control device analogy. Every single measure of protection that a government can instill can cause the death of human beings. That does not automatically unjustify them. The negative is holding me to a totally unfair burden at this point. Since I prove clearly that I save far more people than the negative can, I am still winning the standards. Even if I can't protect every single life in the world with compulsory immunization, I still protect life way more than the negative does. If we are only affirming or negating based on who saves EVERY human life, then we've both lost this debate already. Neg Case: Neg 1 Tag: His Response to My 1: The right to practice one's religion, as I stated previously, is curtailed when it violates someone's right to life or safety of person. One cannot practice ritual human sacrifice, even if it is entailed in their religious doctrine, because it takes away the natural right to life. His Response to Auxiliary Rights: As I stated in a text message to my opponent, "auxiliary rights" is a descriptive term that I made up to encapsulate those rights which can be curtailed when they come into conflict with the outweighing rights I describe throughout. The term does not represent an offensive argument. Extend the cross-application, however, as that went unaddressed. His Response to My 3: This is a slippery slope argument disguised. My opponent assumes that all freedom of choice will go away with this particular choice eliminated. Not only is slippery slope a logical fallacy, but it is unwarranted entirely. Compulsory immunization programs exist in multiple countries already, including the U. S. for schoolchildren, and no such harms have been witnessed. Sub A: His Response to My 1: My analogy, being an example of autonomy compromised for the safety and health of the general public, is in direct correlation to our debate. Notice that my opponent calls compulsory immunizations arbitrary, but never defends that claim. On the contrary, they are just as arbitrary, according to my case, as traffic laws (which is to say that they are not arbitrary). If we maximize autonomy as my opponent suggests, than all laws which seek to protect the right to life or security of person should be abolished, as all of them compromise autonomy in some way. His Response to My 2: First of all, I can't make new arguments the first time that I respond to your case. Hence, it isn't even slightly new. Second of all, static and non-static rights are, again, descriptive terms for concepts I've already forwarded in my case. As to the actual argument made by my opponent, there must be a brightline if just governments are to exist. Practicing one's religion is not entirely compromised by requiring vaccines. Said government is never saying: "abandon your entire religion. " That government is saying that religious practices which hurt others cannot be practiced. Sub B: His Response to My 1/2: I did give reasons. Religions cannot practice doctrine which harms others. The metric is provided clearly in my case (with reference to all that stuff I said about the principle of liberty). The decision is made by this metric, which my opponent has yet to prove is unjust. Also, liberty has nothing to do with discriminatory practices against ethnicities. His Response to My 3: My opponent again assumes that all rights deserve equal and immutable protection, which they do not. If he feels this way, then he must object to all public health projects, as fundamentalist religious groups tend to object at different times and in different ways to every single one of them. Sub C: His Response to My 1: There's still no link to compulsory vaccinations provided. I get that societal upheaval can increase suicide rates, but there's no evidence to suggest that compulsory vaccinations will cause this upheaval. His Response to My 2: Again, no warrant here. My turn is more evidenced via the vast amounts of panic and media coverage that were given to the SARS outbreak in Asia, which would lead to societal stress and to the harms he outlines in his case. The idea of dying from a mystery disease tends to do that to people. On the other hand, that slippery slope argument is buried in here again, at which point you can cross-apply what I already said about them.

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...

Yes, sure they are trying to protect us- but really once you get to middle school you should be allowed to choose for yourself. Yes, mothers want us to be healthy but having some junk food for lunch at school isn't all that bad. It's not like its ALL the kids will ONLY be eating junk food all day. And with that I conclude, Students should be allowed to eat junk food at school to boost moral, make them more responsible, and learn to be independent.

So what do you ha e to say about people who take showers everyday and still get sick because they ddin't take vaccine. Hygiene has played a little role in our health because when we revive a vaccine our bodies knows how to fight it and then out next generation becomes even healthier and even stronger than we did in the 1090s and the 1800s. Vaccines helped us stay healthy for over 50 years. And now think what medical science can do for us in the future to our generations. www.health.ny.gov www.medicalhealth.org/vaccines/safety

I affirm the resolution that: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. To clarify, I tender the following definitions and observations. Public health concerns: "matters relating to the overall health of a population in a general sense." (Interviews with public health professors and professionals, Yale School of Public Health, Yale University, 5-10 October 2009.) Justify: to show to be just, right, or reasonable Merriam-Webster Dictionary Compulsory: Mandatory Merriam-Webster Dictionary Immunization: The process of inducing immunity through inoculation or vaccination. Web-MD Observation One: My advocacy The resolution does not specify an actor. It doesn't say who decides when immunization is mandatory. Rather than giving this power to individual, potentially corrupt, governments, I advocate that the decision should come down to the World Health Organization as it is the current leading entity in the global field of vaccination. Observation Two: Compulsory does not mean complete. Compulsory immunization does not necessarily mean that 100% of people will be vaccinated. It does not mean that exceptions cannot be made for those whose allergies or medical conditions would jeopardize their safety if they were vaccinated. Medical professionals still have the ability to withhold immunization in cases where it would do more harm than good, however, individuals can no longer exempt, i.e. the immunizations are still compulsory because they are mandatory. === The Value is morality, or the judgment of right and wrong, because the term 'justify' asks us the question of right and wrong. The Criterion is reduction of human suffering. This is the standard for 3 reasons. (1) One, this is implicit in the resolution. The goal of maintaining public health is to reduce human suffering. The purpose of immunization is to prevent disease, because disease causes suffering. Thus, both the terms 'public health concerns' and 'compulsory immunization' dictate that we are debating reduction of suffering. (2) Two, morality and increasing suffering are mutually exclusive. One can never simultaneously make both the claims that they are acting morally and they are allowing humans to suffer. (3) Three, Ends-based evaluation is the only accurate assessment of morality, because it is the only way to give humans equal protection of rights. There is no morally relevant distinction between persons because everyone is equally human, and thus equally deserving of protection. Martha Nussbaum contends: The accident of where one is born is just that, an accident. Recognizing this, we should not allow differences of nationality or class or even gender to erect barriers between us and our fellow human beings. We should recognize humanity wherever it occurs and give all equal respect. We should give our first allegiance to no mere form of government, no temporal power, but to the moral community made up by the humanity of all human beings. One should always behave so as to treat with equal respect the dignity of reason and moral choice in every human being. Martha Nussbaum [Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism,The Boston Review 1994 http://www.soci.niu.edu...] Thus, the affirmative's burden is to prove that affirming the resolution would lead to less human suffering than negating. In so far as I meet this burden, I win the round. === Contention One: Compulsory immunization maintains the herd immunity threshold. According to the CDC, the herd immunity threshold, or HIT, is the proportion of individuals in the population above which a disease may no longer persist, and so long as we maintain an immunization rate above the HIT for a particular disease, it becomes virtually impossible for that disease to spread. The CDC has accurately determined the HIT for almost all of the most dangerous diseases. It varies by disease based on the virulence of that particular disease, as well as the effectiveness of the vaccine. For example, the herd immunity threshold is 94% immunization for Measles and Pertussis, 86% for Polio, and 85% for Diphtheria and Smallpox. The Michigan Law Review argues: In the past decade, personal belief exemptions have increased [by 200%] nationally, This trend is troubling—even a small increase in the use of exemptions translates to a higher percentage of unvaccinated individuals, which threatens "herd immunity." Consequently, recent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease throughout the country have been directly attributed to the use of personal belief exemptions. For example, according to the CDC, cases of measles have reached a ten-year high; with over half of the cases involving children whose parents refused to immunize their children. There is a strong public health argument in favor of strengthening existing measures to obtain the highest vaccination coverage rates to ensure community protection. Alexandra M. Stewart, Commentary, Challenging Personal Belief Immunization Exceptions: Considering Legal Responses, 107 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 105 (2009), http://www.michiganlawreview.org.... As long as we maintain appropriate levels of immunization, outbreaks of dangerous disease do not spread, because they are confined by the natural boundaries that heard immunity sets. When levels of immunization dip below the herd immunity threshold, there is no longer sufficient protection to stop the disease from spreading; this can turn minor outbreaks in small communities into cross-country pandemics. === Contention Two: Voluntary immunization ostracizes the poor. Harvard Professor and Chairman of the Department of Global Health and Population, David Bloom, explains: "The World Health Organization, for example, has estimated that polio eradication will save governments $1.5 billion per year in vaccine, treatment, and rehabilitation costs. Estimates are that the $100 million invested in eradicating [smallpox] in the ten years after 1967 "saved the world about $1.35 billion a year". And the US Institute of Medicine reports that for every dollar spent on the MMR vaccine, $21 is saved." Bloom, David (2004): "Eradication versus control: the economics of global infectious disease policies", Bulletin of the World Health Organization, September 2004; 82: 683–8. However, despite the clear economic benefit, these vaccines are not being implemented in the indigent, third world countries that need them most, because the citizens are too poor to afford the vaccinations themselves. This means that the governments and pharmaceutical companies foot the bill. Bloom continues: The profitability deficit for developing-world vaccines is huge. The developing-world vaccine market is estimated at just 10-15 per cent of the world total. The total volume of all vaccine doses acquired by UNICEF for distribution in the developing world is 100 times greater than the number of doses delivered in the US, but brings in less than half the revenue. Governments in poor countries are more concerned with cost. Products have therefore begun to diverge, even when they tackle the same illness, and the new vaccines that respond to developed-world demands are often too expensive for poor countries… Pharmaceutical companies have found it difficult to persuade shareholders of the value of continuing to develop vaccines for poor countries. The pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, for example, reported in 2001 that it was planning to allocate its freeze-drying capacity to the influenzae B vaccine rather than the less profitable meningitis A/C vaccine. Moreover, doses of the DTwP vaccine offered to UNICEF declined from 600 million in 1998 to 150 million two years later. In the Status quo, the poorest, most disease-ridden countries are being given the least protection. This only exacerbates the suffering in those who are already suffering most. ===

My opponent hasn't refuted any of my arguments for the past 2 rounds. And instead used this whole round for sources, so I will examine them for this round. The greater good, even though my opponent says is a neutral film, is a biased anti-vaxxer production. It claims there is a link between autism and vaccines, and uses examples as well. Normally there has to be a strong correlation to establish a link between two things like this, but the Greater Good uses a grand total of 3 examples. Individual side effects happen, they happen with every medical treatment, but that doesn't mean there is a real and urgent link between that type of medical practice and whichever side effect happens. Health impact news is also a biased source. It's motto is "news that impacts your health that other media sources won't tell you. " On the front page I found an article suggesting that "essential oils" are more effective and less dangerous than approved drugs. They say this, and they say a "rapidly growing body of research" supports this idea. But they only provide a link to a news article in "the atlantic," which is just your general news website, and the author has very limited qualifications.

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.

Wow. You really just did that. 1: Vaccines save millions of lives every year, Over 26 million in the US alone. 2: They are proven safe. 3:Autism is not caused by vaccines. Proven by 35 World Health Organization papers. Only one RETRACTED paper said vaccines cause autism. 4: Vaccines do not cause allergies. 5: Vaccines have almost no side effects. They are 1 to 1, 000. 6: They are cheap and super effective. Pharma does not make money from vaccines


Question: Should Certain Vaccinations Be Mandated for Children?

The compulsory vaccination of children
Vaccines have the potential to cause fatal (life-threatening) side effects in some children, as detailed here: http://www.uptodate.com... Moreover, the wastage of valuable biogenetic material for the sole purpose of vaccinating children is a significant concern. For instance, typhoid is virtually non-existent in the USA, Canada, Australia, and most of Europe and Russia (including its Asian part), as shown here: http://tinyurl.com... So, why should we mandate a vaccine for typhoid if the family has no plans to travel with their child to Africa or Asia? Additionally, hepatitis B is seldom found in the USA, as shown here: http://tinyurl.com... It should be the parents' decision regarding the health risks their child may face, rather than a blanket mandate for all children.

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.

I'll first be going over standards, then neg, followed finally by aff. Standards: As far as Values go... 1.) First and foremost, my proposed value of justice is really what's being weighed in this debate, per the resolution. Is compulsory immunization JUSTIFIED (implying the value of justice). 2.) Second, my value of Justice pretty much subsumes the value of Natural Rights, as the right to life, liberty, property, and safety of person are all elements of a just society. Furthermore, natural rights is my CRITERION, the mechanism in which I achieve justice! 3.) For clarification as to our natural rights... they are all rights guaranteed by the UN Declaration of Human Rights... how is that unclear? For convenience, I will provide a link to the actual document to prevent further confusion: http://www.un.org... I refrained from listing all of them originally because there are over 50, well over my character allotment :) 4.) As my opponent states... "Since I am arguing that what is "due" to people is their natural rights, we are both essentially striving for the same end goal in our standards. Hence, whoever can preserve those natural rights the best will win this round." I will accept this as fair. But by natural rights, I expect my opponent to uphold all natural rights, as all natural rights are due to people, not just the few listed by my opponent. On the Criterion side of things: Seeing as I can achieve both my opponent's value and my own, my criterion of the protection of natural individual rights is clearly the preferred. There is no way I can possibly achieve herd immunity, and therefor my opponent's criterion is also abusive. Aff Contention 1: 1.) Basically what my opponent is saying is that anyone who is sick is automatically violating the principles of liberty! This is absurd and hyp. Not only are there alternatives to vaccination (like "staying home sick", or basically separating yourself from others until you get better), but hyperbolic. In addition, cross-apply subpoint A of Contention 1 (on neg), which explains how taking away the right to practice one's own religion undermines liberty. More importantly, cross apply my second contention. When an individual is forced by his/her superior to essentially take a suicide capsule to the arm, the superior (or in other words, the government) is threatening the rights of the individual-the right to life! This is effectively a turn, in which the government is not upholding the principle of liberty, and therefor compulsory immunization undermines the principle of liberty. 2.) When medical doctors and nurses are killed as a result of forced inoculation (as in example one), there is no one left to treat citizens with the disease, therefore violating the 3rd article of the UNDHR which grants all the right to life. This is effectively a turn as well. Cross apply the aforementioned rebuttals to subpoints A, B, and C, as the responses are all relevant. Aff Contention 2: Subpoint A and B: GENERAL populations is the key here. As my opponent does not deny that people HAVE indeed died from getting vaccinated, this statement in no way supports her value of Natural Rights, or mine of Justice. Just by killing one person from a vaccine, you are taking away their natural right to life- one of the main rights my opponent is trying to PROTECT! Contention 1 tag: Even if compulsory immunization could prevent an epi/pandemic, this is only protecting the majority of life, not EVERY life. The government, by not enforcing compulsory immunization, is not killing any individual. However, by enforcing compulsory immunization with no guarantee of epi/pandemic prevention, the government is actively killing people. Onto the Negation... Contention 1: My opponents first response to contention 1 tagline really doesn't address the fundamental issue! She is advocating upholding natural human rights, but a huge natural right- probably the most conflicted in history- is the right to practice religion. By not upholding this natural right, you are not upholding natural rights as a whole. Feel free to link this back to (4.) ) on the value standards debate ;) Unfortunately, I can find no definition for "auxiliary rights" so cannot answer adequately. Auxiliary, most commonly defined as "assisting", makes very little sense in this context so I must ask my opponent to specify to avoid confusion and allow for an accurate response. On her third rebuttal, my opponent forgets that those infected can easily choose for themselves to get vaccinated and therefor protect human life. Freedom of choice allows us to make this decision. Freedom of choice also allows us to practice religion. As you can see, without freedom of choice much of whats good in life no longer has meaning. Contention 1:A: My opponent completely misinterprets my contention! Traffic laws are not arbitrary in the least, and for obvious reasons. Allow me to clarify for you. I simply mean that, keeping the philosophic framework of my value and criterion in mind, the more autonomous a society, the more legitimate the system of government. By affirming compulsory immunization, you are decreasing the autonomy of society, because, as proved in contention 1 and 2, compulsory immunization is illogical. Autonomy, by definition, is immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority. I do not contend that traffic laws are arbitrary :) Cross apply all my responses to my opponent's contention 1, as she is essentially saying the same thing as her contention. I shall not bore you by restating my arguments. In response to her slightly new response of static vs non-static rights, what makes religious freedom any less important, or non-static, than any other right? If you care to note, many people have sacrificed their lives to protect this freedom. Obviously, these people valued the right to freely practice their religion as important or even more important to the right to life. Furthermore, people also devote their entire lives to the practice of religion, and denying them of this right (the right to religion), you are essentially denying them of their lives. Contention 1, B: My opponent's first response is logically flawed. Religion does have a right to practice all of its doctrine in the first place. Who says which religious practices are okay and which aren't? Provide some reasons to support your argument please, as I can simply state that you're wrong and we will still be on the same level (providing a conclusion with no warranted premises). Again, I wish to ask, should the major body of religious persons more important than the minority? Are Caucasians more important than African Americans or Asians, for example? Yes, you are correct, I AM saying that forcing people to be vaccinated when they religiously object is wrong. Thanks for paying attention. BUT, my opponent has this vain idea that by my logic I'm also objecting to health and well being project around the world. However, my opponent conveniently leaves out the fact that you are harming people through compulsory immunization, whether religiously or physically! If these "well-being" projects end up harming people, or violating their natural rights, then yes, I do not support them. 1, C: The upheaval within society is the result of constant revolution. The constant revolution has led to pressure economically and educationally. This excessive economic/educational pressure, while benefiting the country as a whole, has also adversely resulted in increased suicide rates. Regarding her second response, keep in mind that disease is not the cause of societal upheaval in this example, but oppressive government control and reform. Meaning another mandate from the government would empirically lead to more societal upheaval, and in turn increased suicide rates.

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.

I affirm the resolution that: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. To clarify, I tender the following definitions and observations. Public health concerns: "matters relating to the overall health of a population in a general sense." (Interviews with public health professors and professionals, Yale School of Public Health, Yale University, 5-10 October 2009.) Justify: to show to be just, right, or reasonable Merriam-Webster Dictionary Compulsory: Mandatory Merriam-Webster Dictionary Immunization: The process of inducing immunity through inoculation or vaccination. Web-MD Observation One: My advocacy The resolution does not specify an actor. It doesn't say who decides when immunization is mandatory. Rather than giving this power to individual, potentially corrupt, governments, I advocate that the decision should come down to the World Health Organization as it is the current leading entity in the global field of vaccination. Observation Two: Compulsory does not mean complete. Compulsory immunization does not necessarily mean that 100% of people will be vaccinated. It does not mean that exceptions cannot be made for those whose allergies or medical conditions would jeopardize their safety if they were vaccinated. Medical professionals still have the ability to withhold immunization in cases where it would do more harm than good, however, individuals can no longer exempt, i.e. the immunizations are still compulsory because they are mandatory. === The Value is morality, or the judgment of right and wrong, because the term 'justify' asks us the question of right and wrong. The Criterion is reduction of human suffering. This is the standard for 3 reasons. (1) One, this is implicit in the resolution. The goal of maintaining public health is to reduce human suffering. The purpose of immunization is to prevent disease, because disease causes suffering. Thus, both the terms 'public health concerns' and 'compulsory immunization' dictate that we are debating reduction of suffering. (2) Two, morality and increasing suffering are mutually exclusive. One can never simultaneously make both the claims that they are acting morally and they are allowing humans to suffer. (3) Three, Ends-based evaluation is the only accurate assessment of morality, because it is the only way to give humans equal protection of rights. There is no morally relevant distinction between persons because everyone is equally human, and thus equally deserving of protection. Martha Nussbaum contends: The accident of where one is born is just that, an accident. Recognizing this, we should not allow differences of nationality or class or even gender to erect barriers between us and our fellow human beings. We should recognize humanity wherever it occurs and give all equal respect. We should give our first allegiance to no mere form of government, no temporal power, but to the moral community made up by the humanity of all human beings. One should always behave so as to treat with equal respect the dignity of reason and moral choice in every human being. Martha Nussbaum [Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism,The Boston Review 1994 http://www.soci.niu.edu...] Thus, the affirmative's burden is to prove that affirming the resolution would lead to less human suffering than negating. In so far as I meet this burden, I win the round. === Contention One: Compulsory immunization maintains the herd immunity threshold. According to the CDC, the herd immunity threshold, or HIT, is the proportion of individuals in the population above which a disease may no longer persist, and so long as we maintain an immunization rate above the HIT for a particular disease, it becomes virtually impossible for that disease to spread. The CDC has accurately determined the HIT for almost all of the most dangerous diseases. It varies by disease based on the virulence of that particular disease, as well as the effectiveness of the vaccine. For example, the herd immunity threshold is 94% immunization for Measles and Pertussis, 86% for Polio, and 85% for Diphtheria and Smallpox. The Michigan Law Review argues: In the past decade, personal belief exemptions have increased [by 200%] nationally, This trend is troubling—even a small increase in the use of exemptions translates to a higher percentage of unvaccinated individuals, which threatens "herd immunity." Consequently, recent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease throughout the country have been directly attributed to the use of personal belief exemptions. For example, according to the CDC, cases of measles have reached a ten-year high; with over half of the cases involving children whose parents refused to immunize their children. There is a strong public health argument in favor of strengthening existing measures to obtain the highest vaccination coverage rates to ensure community protection. Alexandra M. Stewart, Commentary, Challenging Personal Belief Immunization Exceptions: Considering Legal Responses, 107 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 105 (2009), http://www.michiganlawreview.org.... As long as we maintain appropriate levels of immunization, outbreaks of dangerous disease do not spread, because they are confined by the natural boundaries that heard immunity sets. When levels of immunization dip below the herd immunity threshold, there is no longer sufficient protection to stop the disease from spreading; this can turn minor outbreaks in small communities into cross-country pandemics. === Contention Two: Voluntary immunization ostracizes the poor. Harvard Professor and Chairman of the Department of Global Health and Population, David Bloom, explains: "The World Health Organization, for example, has estimated that polio eradication will save governments $1.5 billion per year in vaccine, treatment, and rehabilitation costs. Estimates are that the $100 million invested in eradicating [smallpox] in the ten years after 1967 "saved the world about $1.35 billion a year". And the US Institute of Medicine reports that for every dollar spent on the MMR vaccine, $21 is saved." Bloom, David (2004): "Eradication versus control: the economics of global infectious disease policies", Bulletin of the World Health Organization, September 2004; 82: 683–8. However, despite the clear economic benefit, these vaccines are not being implemented in the indigent, third world countries that need them most, because the citizens are too poor to afford the vaccinations themselves. This means that the governments and pharmaceutical companies foot the bill. Bloom continues: The profitability deficit for developing-world vaccines is huge. The developing-world vaccine market is estimated at just 10-15 per cent of the world total. The total volume of all vaccine doses acquired by UNICEF for distribution in the developing world is 100 times greater than the number of doses delivered in the US, but brings in less than half the revenue. Governments in poor countries are more concerned with cost. Products have therefore begun to diverge, even when they tackle the same illness, and the new vaccines that respond to developed-world demands are often too expensive for poor countries… Pharmaceutical companies have found it difficult to persuade shareholders of the value of continuing to develop vaccines for poor countries. The pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, for example, reported in 2001 that it was planning to allocate its freeze-drying capacity to the influenzae B vaccine rather than the less profitable meningitis A/C vaccine. Moreover, doses of the DTwP vaccine offered to UNICEF declined from 600 million in 1998 to 150 million two years later. In the Status quo, the poorest, most disease-ridden countries are being given the least protection. This only exacerbates the suffering in those who are already suffering most. ===

Im sure you all know how rarely it is that I do a serious rather than a troll debate. But now, I have decided to do a good one. As you see, the topic is whether or not voting should be compulsory. I will be Pro and you will be Con. So here are the rules and the round structure. Rules: 1. No trolling 2. No Kritik 3. No Semantics 4. No plagiarism (obviously, surprising I need to say this) 5. Forfeiture means loss Round Structure: Round 1: Pro gives guidelines, rules. Con says "I accept" Round 2: Pro gives arguments/Con gives arguments Round 3: Refutations by both sides Round 4: Counter Refutation Round 5: Summary and Final Words In order to accept topic, you must comment in comments section and I will choose my opponent form that pool <3

Thanks for clearing up the religion isn"t a huge deal statement, I understand what you were trying to say. I agree we will drop the school point as there are obvious differences between Australia and the US on this matter, however that also means we should not go comparing our laws either. In terms of Mark Joseph Stern, could you provide some evidence or a quote regarding his feelings on Santa? Yes, by subjecting kids to the Easter Bunny and Santa, you are subjecting them to something that is not true. But is religion true? Is teaching kids that (in Catholicism for example) the world was created in 6 days, and that there is a God listening to their prayers true, when there is no evidence to support such claims? As I said, Santa is completely different to religion; it is a childhood legend which kids cease to believe in once they reach a certain age. You say there several studies showing kids raised with religion are psychologically healthier. Again could you provide a link please? To respond to your next argument, "a parents right to choose". Firstly you state that "a parent has the right to abort their foetuses before they are born", however I noticed on your profile page that you are con on the topic of abortion. Yes parents do have the right to choose or control certain aspects of their child"s life. But let"s look at the things you listed: "General physician " this is a living breathing person unlike God. He can help a child recover from illness with SCIENTIFIC knowledge, which is much more reliable than being taught to pray in my personal opinion. "Abortion " again this is an issue with a living organism, and I have already pointed out that your profile already contradicts your pro-choice argument. "Education " a real, not hypothetical concept in which kids learn crucial skills, such as maths, language, science and history etc. These things unlike religion have evidence to back them up and are crucial to a child"s development. The difference between these concepts and religion is that yes, parents should have the right to choose doctors and education for their children because they will actual help them. If you believe that children need to be raised with religion to have good morals and become psychologically healthier, are you then implying that people without religion are not moral people? On the topic of Richard Dawkins, yes he is an atheist, but is well informed on the issue and has more knowledge about religion that you or me combined, which of course he needs to criticize it. I wouldn't"t call him an unreliable source at all. So to summarise my main argument, shoving religion down children"s throats from an early age is brainwashing, as it removes their ability to think critically and analytically on a spiritual level. Religion stagnates our ability to think freely as it has become a part of peoples identity from such an early age. As you brought up fundamentalism, the 27% of Muslims and 7% of Christians who are extremists have these views because from an early age, they have been taught into thinking that their religion is superior to everyone else"s. Is it a majority, no, but out of all Muslims and Christians, for 34% to be extremists is a huge number of people. Sometimes it only takes one however to cause violence, as we have seen on multiple instances throughout the last 15 years. Compared to the other aspects that parents should control that you listed, religion is HYPOTHETICAL. You are exposing children to something that is based on faith rather than reason. To me that contradicts what education is about.

>>It is also such an important right that it is not to be given to the parents. Just wondering, but since when was the government more qualified to make a decision for children than the children's own parents? You would think that the parents would know the child better and be able to determine what is best for them, not the government, right? >>For nowadays you no longer need just a high school diploma…it is essential that you have a college degree and just to get into a decent college you need to be on the cutting edge in your class. And therefore the government should force little children into spending 8 hours a day learning about things they will often not have any interest in or need. For instance, grammar is a subject that is not often liked. Why should children spend 8 hours a day learning about conjunctions when they would most likely never use that knowledge when they exit high school? Also, what if the child does not want to get a college degree? You do not have to have a college degree to get a job. If you think that you do, then you should ask people who work, and see if they have a college degree? Chances are, some of the people you ask will say no. >>So if the parent's would rather have their child do something else such as working for there living than that would be horrible considering the fact that education is a catalyst for development. Again, because the parent might not want their child to go to school and might want to teach them something other than algebra, the government should take this right out of the parent's hands and force children to go to school? >>That is why it is so key to offer education to third-world countries—if it weren't, than why would we be constantly wasting our time? This is an irrelevant argument because this debate is about the USA, which is not a third world country. >>Thus, it isn't fair for a child who might yearn for the power of knowledge yet denied it because of their parent. Knowledge is not defined by how well you know your ABCs. There are many things that you learn outside of school. True, there are some things that you would most likely not learn without going to school, but going to school does not guarantee knowledge. >>It's the child's right to have the same stepping-stone that most of their peers will have. If a parent objects to the way the school system is run than they have a choice of home-schooling their child but if they are too lazy to do even that…then they don't care about their child and obviously incapable of making such a decision on whether or not their child should even have an education. In today's world, there are many different ways to attain knowledge. You do not always have to have someone teach you for you to learn. An education does not have to be attained in a classroom. It can be attained on the computer, through books, etc. There are many different media for information to be transfered. >>A parent has a right to make adaptations to their child's education—share their beliefs, take an active part, choose the school, and the choice…but to deny it altogether is a risk for the future. It is like food—the child has a right to eat but the parent chooses what mainly goes in it. The child has a right to education but the parent may choose what mainly goes in it. I am in no way saying that parents should force their children to not have an education in a classroom. I am saying that parents should have the right to not take their children to school, not that they should have the duty to pull them out and not teach them. Also, a lot of the time when the parents volunteer, they do what the school wants them to do, not what the parent wants to do. I am done refuting all of your arguments, and now I will move on to my own argument. Like I said earlier in my first post, education should not be something forced upon children. If the child would like to go to school, it should be up the indivudual child. Not the government. The crux of my argument is that it should not be the government's job to make sure that children go to school. It should be up to the individual child and his/her parents. You don't force people to learn. Anyone who has taught children knows that you don't just throw information at children and hope that they can figure out what you are saying. That is ineffective and frustrating for the child when they do not understand, and it is frustrating for the teacher when they find out that they are not teaching the child effectivley. Likewise, the government should not force children to go to an environment where they may not be comfortable. It is not the government's job to do so. It is either the child's or the parent's job. Thank you

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!

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!

Pro has reminded me that our debate is on whether vaccinations are beneficial for humanity, not vaccination is humanity's only saviour. Pro forgets that in Round 2 he himself claimed that "Vaccination is humanity's only hope of surviving in the future". Therefore Con requests Pro to read the topic of the debate properly and to think carefully before arguing. Copied from TIME Health dated 29/11/2012: "Protection from Whooping Cough Vaccine Wanes Over Time" "Vaccines are by far the best defense against pertussis, or whooping cough. But protection among kids dwindles with every year since the last dose of vaccine, a new CDC study finds" "Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) report in the Journal of the American Medical Association that while vaccines do work well in protecting against childhood infection with the pertussis bacterium, or whooping cough, that the strongest immunization occurred among kids in the year after their last shot than among those who finished their full immunization series more than five years ago. This is the first-ever study to test the long-term effectiveness of current pertussis vaccines, which contain snippets of the pertussis bacterium and were introduced in the 1990s. The newer shots trigger fewer adverse reactions than previous versions, which contained whole pertussis bacterial cells, but public health officials had been concerned that the effectiveness of the shots weakened over time. The findings are significant in light of the major pertussis outbreaks in the U.S. over the past few years, which have caused illness in tens of thousands nationwide. Earlier this year, the CDC recommended that adults over age 19 also receive another dose of the older, whole cell pertussis vaccine to maintain immunity against the bacterium. Pertussis is highly contagious and sometimes fatal; symptoms including violent, uncontrollable coughing that can lead to breathing problems, pneumonia and convulsions" Therefore it is right to say to say that the immunity provided by the whooping cough vaccine is not 'total' and does fade away with time. Con wishes to say that vaccinations can be beneficial in some cases, without any doubt , but it not enough to label all vaccines as safe. In your given example of polio, it is evident from the graph that polio rates had already dropped sharply before vaccines were created. The fall in polio rates can be attributed more to better hygiene, nutrition and sanitation than the polio vaccines. If these vaccines do not actually work then how can we possibly say that they are beneficial for humanity? If there is no evidence that it has attributed to the elimination of epidemics, then how can one possibly claim that vaccines are good for us? Vaccines also contain a lot of toxins. Metals like mercury and aluminium are commonplace in vaccines. Plus drugs like Formaldehyde and 2-phenoxyethanol are known to have adverse effects on children like the depression of the nerve system and dehydration. The insert for the DPT vaccine from Sanofi Pasteur warns that, "A review by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) found evidence for a causal relation between tetanus toxoid and both brachial neuritis and Guillain-Barr" syndrome [pain and loss of nerve and motor function]." Are we really willing to take that gamble with human life? Are we willing to give our children these harmful vaccines thinking that its benefits are going to be worth it? Are we going to pretend that we are doing something for the greater good? There is clear cut evidence that vaccines contain toxins and everytime we vaccinate a child, we are making him a potential victim of the effects of these toxins. We should all stop for a moment and think "Is this all necessary?". Is putting a child through all this danger really necessary? No it is not. And how can we say that children need these vaccines when ,in many cases, they have been proven not to work? Are we not doing this all for nothing? Risking a child's life for medication that does not even work. We all really need to think about this once. Citations: http://thepeopleschemist.com... http://healthland.time.com...


Question: Should Certain Vaccinations Be Mandated for Minors?

Vaccinations
Yes, adverse reactions can occur, and they can be severe, but one must consider the individual's needs versus the population's welfare. Evaluate the risks of receiving vaccinations versus not getting them. Refusing vaccination significantly increases the likelihood of infections, which can spread rapidly from one person to another, potentially leading to an epidemic. Mandating vaccinations is also a wise decision; what if someone from another country enters ours and is a carrier of a disease? If vaccinations are compulsory, that immigrant carrying a disease can be treated and cured before it escalates into a major issue. For more information, visit www.healthychildren.com.

Firstly I must admit this is a widely debated issue. This issue becomes more clear once it is looked at in depth and with reason. There are numerous categories that fall under abortion -to terminate a pregnancy that will be detrimental to a mothers health/life (medical abortion) -to terminate an unwanted pregnancy (medical abortion) -a biologically driven miscarriage (voluntary/involuntary) (spontaneous abortion) -car accident (involuntary), throwing self down the stairs (voluntary) (non-medical; non-biological spontaneous abortion) I will proceed with the assumption that PRO is referring to medical abortions (permission for a car accident or a miscarriage is a silly thing to request and not always necessary). Before I overview PRO's arguments lets consider why medical abortions are carried out. Medical abortions are carried out by physicians, in order to preserve a mother's life, or to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. PRO states that "Children are not capable of making any decisions for themselves without the input of their parents." Where should I begin. Children can decide if they want to tie their left shoe or right shoe first. They can decide without anyone's help if they want to drink a glass of milk or laser-shooting-bees on fire. However I understand you may be referring to the maturity level of children in regards to an unfamiliar situation and that the decision might not be at their level and so the parents make the decision. HOWEVER this is only one side of the story. Physicians assess the maturity of minors requesting an abortion. The process is normal in every physician-patient encounter and involves the physician assessing the patient's "capacity, and decision making potential". They will talk to the minor and analyze if she can understand the consequences of her action and decisions. This process determines if the patient has the POTENTIAL to make her own decisions or not (whether it is for/against abortion). If the physician determines that the patient has the capacity to make a decision then the physician may respect the patient's decision over that of the parents (because the patient is the patient, the physician is responsible to the patient first). But in most cases the physician will try and accept a decision that will benefit the patient the most. The physicians also recognize patient-physician confidentiality clauses. (in U.S.A these vary from state-to-state regarding abortion for minors). Thus for a patient who has decision making capacity regarding abortion, it may not be required for the physician to inform the parents, yet alone get their permission. Parents have legal rights over their children to some limited/reasonable extent. However if their decisions/actions (not respecting the daughter's own decision) will result in harm to their daughter (ie not wanting to abort a pregnancy that may kill their daughter), then the physician can take legal action against the parents and child services agencies and the court will also get involved in the decision making. Im confident about my sources that I will not cite any, however I will cite them once you challenge them.

I will take your point into consideration. The entire controversy begain in 1998 when Andrew Wakefield created a fraudulant paper stating that the MMR vaccine causes autism. This paper is severely flawed in a number of ways: Wakefield only used 12 children in his study, claimed that 9 of them got autism after the vaccine, credited people who did not even take part in his study, and created a new syndrome called "Autism and Bowel Disease". The paper is proven discredited, and Wakefield lost his license. Moving that out of the way, I will present my argument.Anti-vaxxers have a tendency to believe that somehow, vaccines contain harmful substances in them such as mercury, formaldehyde, and aluminum that is linked to autism. Although it is true that these substances are used, the amount is negligible compared to the amount that naturally occurs in our bodies. For example, a newborn baby has 50-70X more formaldehyde than ALL of the vaccines you will get in your entire life. These substances are only used to boost immune efficiency or prevent infections from occurring. Also, all 9 studies done by the CDC show no evidence linking any of these substances or the MMR vaccine to autism. Furthermore, studies have been shown saying that autism is developed in the utero BEFORE vaccines are introduced.I will look forward to you finding one person who got autism due to a vaccine.Works citedhttp://www2.aap.org...http://www.publichealth.org...http://www.fda.gov...

When young kids go to church they do not care.I will admit I agree with you that religion shouldn't be forced on young children I just challenged myself to this debate. I will point out that legally parents have that right.

Yes, sure they are trying to protect us- but really once you get to middle school you should be allowed to choose for yourself. Yes, mothers want us to be healthy but having some junk food for lunch at school isn't all that bad. It's not like its ALL the kids will ONLY be eating junk food all day. And with that I conclude, Students should be allowed to eat junk food at school to boost moral, make them more responsible, and learn to be independent.

I understand your side, and I agree that girls should be able to talk to their parents about obtaining birth control. However, in cases where a parent would not let his or her child obtain birth control, I believe a young woman should be able to receive it herself. If a young woman is interested in obtaining birth control, then chances are she has been or will be sexually active soon, with or without her parents' consent. If she is allowed to get birth control, then the risk of becoming pregnant is decreased significantly, a conclusion that I believe should be a young woman's own right. If you believe that someone needs parental consent, what age do they no longer need it, 18?

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

I do believe that a minor should need consent for an abortion. Although it is the child's body, I believe that support from a parent is needed. Some children, young adults, and teenagers tend to be immature when they are pregnant and tend to make immature and irresponsible decisions. With a consent of a parent or consent from a guardian the child is being advice from an adult before they continue with taking someone's life. Some people may not understand what an abortion is until it is done. The fact to have someone tell you what you would be doing can make a life changing decision.

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.

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.

Amnesity international is a global group that fights to protect people against violated justice, freedom, and human dignity. They also claim we have the rights to our body without fear of coercion. It is for this reason and the following points I stand in the firm affirmation of the resolution that states "Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices. My value for this debate will be that of autonomy and the value criterion I shall use will be that of hedonism. Autonomy: Immanuel Kant defines it as the right to govern oneself without unwanted outside interference Hedonism: the oxford english dictionary defines it as the ethical theory that pleasure is the highest good and proper aim of human life Adolescents: Merriam Webster defines it as a young person who is becoming an adult Rights: Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy defines it as rights to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done Ought: The philosopher Hume defines it as "should we" instead of "can we" Contention 1: Past violations. USnews.com published a story on 1/22/2015. It states, "Only months before turning 18, a Connecticut girl has been told by her state's supreme court that she must undergo chemotherapy against her wishes. This court case was decided on January 8th. The girl was identified on court papers only as Cassandra C." I want to emphasis on the words against her wishes. This goes against her autonomy and this does not give Cassandra pleasure. This is why we need my value and criterion. Contention 2: Teens should control the medicine they take. Kidshealth.com is a website I recently visited. It is a website with a group of expert doctors and physicians. They try to help people of all ages with their problems and here is what they have to say. "Time flies. Before you know it, your 13 year old is driving with you 16 year old off to college. With adulthood just around the corner there is no time like the present to begin encouraging teens to take on the leadership roles in all aspects of everyday life." Contention 3: Who this affects. Teens. The University of Washington School of Medicine has a few things to say. I will keep it brief. Basically if a child disagrees with a parent they should take things seriously. The child is the main focus here. In conclusion I leave you with this. "A man is born alone and dies alone; he experiences the good and bad karma of his consequences alone; and he alone goes to hell or the supreme adobe." -Chenyaka