Question: Should Certain Vaccinations Be Mandated for Minors?

Should physicians be allowed to administer vaccines without restrictions?

Medical exemptions permit children with specific health conditions or allergies that could make vaccination hazardous to avoid receiving certain vaccines. All 50 states recognize medical exemptions for school entry, which require a physician's note to validate the medical necessity of the exemption. Religious exemptions are available in 48 out of 50 states, allowing parents to opt-out of immunizations if they conflict with their religious beliefs. Philosophical exemptions, based on non-religious but deeply held convictions, are recognized in 20 states, permitting parents to refuse vaccines for their children.

In some instances, exemptions may be challenged by the state, particularly in situations where the child is at an elevated risk of disease or where public health is jeopardized, such as during an epidemic. In certain states, if an unvaccinated child transmits a vaccine-preventable disease to another individual, the parents may face civil liability.

Vaccines are essential for safeguarding children against serious diseases that can lead to liver damage, liver cancer, suffocation, meningitis, pneumonia, paralysis, lockjaw, seizures, brain damage, deafness, blindness, mental retardation, learning disabilities, birth defects, encephalitis, or death. They undergo rigorous safety testing before being recommended for children and are continuously monitored post-recommendation. Vaccines are subject to the highest safety standards due to their administration to healthy individuals.

Vaccines are often viewed as a civic responsibility because they promote "herd immunity," which protects the community from diseases when a large percentage of the population is vaccinated. This is crucial for protecting individuals who are too young, too weak, or have medical reasons that prevent them from receiving vaccines.

Unvaccinated children can harm others in four ways: by transmitting preventable diseases to other unvaccinated individuals, by increasing the risk for vaccinated individuals whose immunity has waned, by endangering those who cannot receive vaccines for medical reasons, and by imposing additional medical costs on families who contract vaccine-preventable diseases from unvaccinated individuals.

Requirements and recommendations are not synonymous. Recommendations by the CDC are based on health and safety considerations, while requirements are state laws dictating which vaccines children must receive before attending school. Even if a vaccine is not required, it may still be the best health choice. Consult your doctor about available vaccines and their importance for you or your loved ones.

The information provided with a vaccine, known as the package insert, may differ from commonly available information. The package insert must list

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.

. :|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.

To be honest, your points are not seeming very logical. I will expand mine to show this. Governments are no more intelligent then anyone else. The government, therefore, cannot make decisions for anyone else. What makes you so certain, that the minds of the politicians and staff in a group in power, are superior enough that they can make decisions for everyone else? Why do they get to decide weather a decrepit house is bad for me? Because it is obvious? What if, in my mind, under my circumstances and in my POV, it is obvious that living in such is the best option? Why should anyone stop me then? If people should be able to, like you say, should they also be allowed to decide if an abortion is bad for me, because it 'obviously is'? Or maybe, if I should be forced to vote, because it's 'obviously the best thing to do'? Shall I be threatened into selling my hard-worked on products for a set price as well, because it is 'obviously morally right'? Back when the constitution was created, people knew that the government was no smarter then the people. Yet, people knew it still had the strength to control them. This is why people wrote the constitution. This is why it was written not to protect the governments right to control people, but protect the people from that control. Why do you think it begins with 'We the People', and not 'We the Authorities'? In fact, beliefs that people in control are superior then everyone else were common in many parts of our history, resulting in catastrophe at many times. One of the most disturbing times in our past, in fact, the Dark Ages, were caused by a direct result of people giving their control of thought to someone else. During the time, almost every part of everyones lives were given to the church, mostly because they thought that the pope and the priests were better then them, and had a closer connection to 'god'. I can list some of the results of this below: -People were being led often into utterly illogical wars for 'religion' (Although the rich religious rulers normally had other motives). These were called crusades. -The Black Death was spread rapidly, and nobody had incentive to work or try to find a cure, as the people of the world were made to believe that death was irrelevant, because 'heaven' would welcome them with open arms. In addition, because so much control was given to the churches, 'god' was overly praised, overly credited, and used as an explanation for everything. So, people just thought 'god' would take care of the plague. -The richest people in the world, as well as the most powerful, were people that were supposed to be selfless, such as bishops, the pope, and priests. They could also, because of the status that people gave to them, get away with almost anything. *Sources for above in comments* I know what I have written may seem like a few extreme examples, but I decided to go to this extreme for a reason. Clearly, if a large unnecessary amount of control was given to authority figures in the past with disaster resulting, a small amount of unnecessary control would do nothing positive either. Earlier, I responded to something in the third round, by questioning weather I really keep my individuality if the government starts to decide whats right for me, and if its really a democracy still if parts of my life are not allowed to be in my control anymore. Considering it's still not clear why control or force is needed in anyone's life unless they are affecting someone elses, I would like you to address these points. I hope my example of the dark ages will give you the kick you need to do this. To address your naive argument about these theoretical people likely having theoretical mental illness, I will merely restate the fact that it's impossible to know the circumstances of a theoretical person, and it's impossible to test them for mental illness, like you could with an actually existent hoarder.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the CDC, the World Health Organization, and the Institute of Medicine all agree that there's probably no relationship between autism and vaccines. But if the case is that solid, why do so many people remain unconvinced, from actress Jenny McCarthy, who went on Oprah to say she believes that a vaccination caused her son's autism and wrote a book about it, to Sen. John McCain, who, at a campaign event earlier this year, said he thought there was "pretty strong evidence" that some vaccines cause autism. Their beliefs may have been validated in March when federal officials said that a Georgia girl was entitled to compensation because vaccines may have aggravated an underlying condition, causing autism-like symptoms. And researchers at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) said in March that they are still taking a careful look into parent concerns that vaccines are tied to the disorder. related content SLIDESHOW Top 10 Vaccine-Preventable Diseases Start "I think there's a lot of emotion around the issue of autism now. It engenders a lot of fear in parents and clinicians alike," Lee Sanders, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, tells WebMD. Sanders knows that emotion firsthand, as the father of two young girls. "Until they turned 2 or 3, that was probably the thing I feared most," Sanders says, referring to autism. Sanders strongly supports vaccines, saying their benefits far outweigh their risks. But he understands where the concern about vaccines and autism comes from. That concern is difficult to suppress for a number of reasons. Parents are bombarded with information that can take a life of its own online. The concepts around scientific testing are difficult to understand, making it tough to separate good science from bad. Until scientists can prove exactly what causes autism, it's difficult to definitively disprove anything. "In the absence of any answers from the scientific community, any scintilla of suggestion is going to get magnified by the social process of talking it out," Sanders says. "All you need is one individual's story and it will expand." And when something bad happens to a child, people demand to know what or whom is to blame. "Parents are clamoring for a cause," says David Tayloe, MD, a pediatrician in Greensboro, N.C., and president-elect of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). "It's a terrible condition. It upsets families, and it upsets me." But all the fear and anger about vaccines is misplaced, he says. "There's just nothing there." http://www.webmd.com...

Because Ought implies moral obligation and a right is something morally and legally owed to you, I value morality. Prefer morality as a whole to just autonomy argument since morality covers autonomy and more, so it's more inclusive of all rights. You can't say that autonomy isn't more important than, say, equality - only the neg values all rights so prefer morality to just autonomy. The Standard is preserving rights. The Counterplan Text: The aff adolescents will consult with pediatric psychologists before determining whether particular children will be able to make autonomous medical choices. The recommendations of those psychologists will be strictly followed. Since we're following what the pediatrician says, there is no autonomy, so the CP is inherently different from the aff. C1: Consultation leads to more specific decisions and increased family communication. http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org... There are unique roles for pediatric psychologists in the process of determining children's involvement in medical decision making. First, pediatric psychologists can provide knowledge regarding child and adolescent development, as well as quality of life issues, for their medical colleagues (e.g., Kent, 1994). Similarly, they can assess developmental and clinical issues for the determination of children's level of involvement. Third, pediatric psychologists can make specific recommendations regarding particular children's level of involvement. Finally, pediatric psychologists can facilitate doctor-parent-child communication. Specifically, they can help parents and physicians understand children's concerns; help physicians understand parents' uncertainty and anxiety; and help parents understand physicians' goals. And, family communication is crucial during adolescence because the adolescent's mind is still forming and needs a stable life to operate. C2: When Adolescents Make Their Own Choices, They Act Impulsively http://www.ncsl.org... The MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice has conducted psychosocial and developmental research that has corroborated the neurobiological research on adolescent brains; the research has yielded the conclusion that decision-making capabilities are diminished in adolescents. Although the MacArthur Research Network"s study shows that basic cognitive abilities and intellectual maturity mirror adults" by the time adolescents reach age 16, advanced cognition and psychosocial development continue into the 20s. With diminished advanced cognition, including the ability to reason and to understand, adolescents are more vulnerable to psychosocial and emotional influences. Coupled with their lack of experience and inefficiency in processing information, adolescents are less capable than adults of making decisions. The MacArthur Research Network"s social science and developmental psychology research identifies psychosocial and developmental factors unique to adolescents that inhibit their decision-making capabilities. First, adolescents are more receptive and responsive to the influences and opinions of their peers than those of adults, although this varies by age group within the general juvenile population. (...) Developmentally, adolescents also tend to be more impulsive and emotional"they are more inclined to make impulsive decisions, engage in impulsive behavior, and act recklessly compared to adults. Harvard Medical School"s Dr. Deborah Yurgelun Todd explains that adolescents tend to act and react more impulsively because they rely more on the area of the brain that generates emotional gut reactions, rather than trying to thoroughly analyze and rationalize. So Adolescents will engage in risks and make bad decisions, which is reasons they should not choose for themselves. If rights are important and the adolescents will make bad decisions and restrict their own freedom, you have to vote neg. Plus, the Impacts can be disastrous. http://divorcescience.org...- divorce/ Mary Julia Moore and Cheryl Buehler studied a group of middle school children over a 4-year period through early adolescence to examine the ways in which their behavior influenced the behavior of their parents. In particular, they were interested in the ways that problem behaviors may influence their parents" likelihood of divorce. The scientists were interested in testing the pathway through which troublesome adolescent behavior may undermine the parents" marriage. They hypothesize that when teenagers have trouble, this undermines parents" feelings of effectiveness in parenting which may influence mothers or fathers to be less supportive to each other in trying to deal with the problem behavior. This hypothesis makes sense based on other scientific evidence and it all makes commonsense. If a parents feels like they are not getting their partner"s support in dealing with their teen challenging behavior, this seems likely to trigger feelings of resentment and overall distress. All of which might lead to questions about one"s marriage. The scientist measured adolescents" problem behavior when they were in the 6th grade. They measured both antisocial and hostile behaviors as well as behaviors such as depression. Both mothers and fathers were asked questions about whether they had thought about divorce and other questions to get a sense of their divorce proneness and questions about their sense of effectiveness as a parent. The analyses examined whether adolescent behaviors predicted parents" divorce proneness 4 years later. The sample in this study was primarily White and had some college education. Some caution should be noted that these findings may not apply to all types of families. As the scientists had expected, adolescents" problem behaviors had a significant effect on the couple"s divorce proneness. This effect appears to be primarily through damage to mothers" and fathers" feelings about their parenting abilities. This is especially true for fathers; fathers who have difficulty managing their teen"s behavior feel badly and may give up trying to be a parent. The scientists also found that mothers and fathers" feelings of effectiveness as parents influenced each other as well; when one parent was feeling less effective, the other, more effective parent begin thinking about divorce. It seems like when one parent gives up on trying to help manage the difficult behavior, the other parent perceives this as a lack of support. This lack of support seems to damage the marital relationship. These findings remind us of the complexity of family relationships. All members of the family have an influence on each other. This can run in a positive direction or in a negative direction. Bad decisions by the kids damage marital relations, which is bad for everyone involved. For all these reasons, you are going to be voting negative. Thank you.

I only responded to relevant points. All of the scientific evidence presented described typical circumstances, and I happily concede them as fact. But they don't address individual varience, which is the entire thrust of my argument, and they presume a requirement for minimum development that, at the very least, obviously varies from one proposed activity to the next (how much development is truly needed for that job tying strings at a factory?). Therefore, there's nothing in there that actually advances the argument that a catch-all line in the sand is appropriate for a free, civilized society.Direct quote of my opponent:My opponent claims that I am taking his premises to an extreme by citing absurd hypothetical examples.My opponent seems to forget that he said that senior citizens should be allowed to marry a 5 year old, based on a "merit based" case-by-base system.My opponent, conversely, seems to forget that this is yet another "absurd hypothetical" initiated by themself, not me. I will reiterate the point, not rebutted in the last response, that there is a world of difference between advocating something and stating that there should be different reasons for disallowing it. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still wrong. My opponent asks: Does my opponent think that a newborn infant, fresh out of the womb, should be afforded the opportunity to be the POTUS speech writer?Again, an absurdist example. And again, I ask my opponent to explain to me under what circumstances a newborn infant who somehow miraculously beats out all the competition for that job should still be denied it, despite somehow managing that impossible feat. They say that this human can be be dismissed by age, "among other factors". I say that simply looking at those other factors alone should be sufficient. Other than saving two minutes of someone's time, where's the benefit of considering age? And are those two minutes really worth all the harm I described in my last round, all those border cases - cases that my opponent conceded to be imprecise? As a reminder, we're talking about potentially millions of people either unjustly oppressed by being denied the right to do things they're more than capable of doing, or else inadequately protected by being granted the right to do things that they really are NOT ready for - all solely on the basis of how long they've been breathing air. I think it fair to say that the burden of proof is no longer on me at this point. I've already proven that age-based assumptions cause harm. My opponent's only hope of victory is to prove that the benefits of age-based assumptions outweigh that harm somehow - a case that they have not even attempted to make, much less make compellingly.

You make an astounding argument about the girls and the procedures and I cannot argue about that, but I beg to differ about its legality and the standards involved. Right now, as legal as it is, we have doctors both qualified and unqualified who perform these operations with no regard to whether if botched, they would be responsible. If it were made illegal, these doctors would rarely risk to perform them in unsafe environments nor be caught at it, the health of the patients and these operations would be far in between and not as frequent as they are now. Some abortions are induced abortions and even though are a hazard to the women, they are done all the same with or without consent. A debate for another day. http://en.wikipedia.org... As for having the females make their own choice, Statistics show that 35% choose to have the operation," a decision that indicate there is problem not only with the promiscuity of the teens but with the decision to keep or remove the pregnancy" as stated by Choice Pregnancy Care center. http://www.choicespregnancy.org.... Lets us make the decision for our children, let us protect them and let us make Abortion illegal.

No I do not believe that such a mistake should not be avoided. However if you were a parent, wouldn't you want to know if your child was going on prescription medication? I understand that parents should have trust in their children and trust in themselves that they raised them to have good character. So I believe that if a parent uncovered their child sneaking around and intentionally hiding medication and such an important decision from them, the parent would feel their rights are compromised. Until the child turns eighteen, the parents still withholds all rights regarding their child and their life. No matter the maturity level of the child involved, a parent should be notified for the sole reason that their child is going on prescription medication.

Con states, baselessly, that parents shouldn't be allowed to vaccinate their children because "they lead to autism." He provides zero evidence for this assertion. Note that he has the burden of proof. Moreover, he has dropped every single point I raised in the past round. Extend all of those points.

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.


Question: Should Certain Vaccines be Mandated for Pediatric Immunization?

Vaccines are not the cause of autism.
I would like to extend my gratitude to my opponent for this engaging debate. While it may not have gone as he anticipated, it has been an enlightening experience. Putting aside the pleasantries, my opponent has challenged my argument from various angles in the final round, and I will endeavor to address each point comprehensively.
Rebuttals:
Although it is tempting to dismiss arguments one cannot refute as irrelevant, my examples in this case are entirely pertinent because they reveal where the burden of proof lies. Disregarding the presumptuous nature of this initial statement, my opponent appears to have overlooked the fundamental rules of debate. Proponents carry the burden of proof unless the debate is explicitly set up under different conditions. This debate was not structured with those conditions, so my opponent must assume the burden of proof.
Once again, irrespective of how absurd it may seem to place the burden of proof on the person making the claim, the principle remains unchanged. Moreover, my opponent has presented a logically flawed argument on two fronts. First, the absence of an observed connection does not preclude the existence of such a connection. "In common parlance, existence is the world of which we are aware through our senses and persists independently without them." [1] The classic illustration of my opponent's flawed logic is the lack of knowledge regarding the harms and dangers of smoking. For decades, the adverse effects of smoking were not understood or recognized. It was only through further investigation that a connection was established. Second, my opponent's attempt to link vaccination side effects to invisible unicorns and other such examples is an equivocation because they are not comparable, making the initial examples non-topical.
Shifting away from the more technical aspects of debate to the substance of the debate, my opponent presented three studies regarding the lack of observable link between vaccination and autism. While they are informative reports, my opponent's argument is far from convincing on several fronts. First, my opponent's studies only address the MMR vaccination, highlighting the scarcity of information on the subject. Due to this lack of information, no definitive conclusions can be drawn from the available data, rendering my opponent's arguments immaterial. Second, assumptions are the greatest weakness in any sound argument. "... it should be assumed that this link does not exist." Until it is scientifically proven that no link exists between vaccination and autism, it cannot and should not be assumed that there is no possible connection. Third, two of my opponent's sources are far from conclusive, even by their

you are a government lying hack or simply a young foolish idiot who thinks hes smart because hes taken a couple years of pre-med. proof I will simply quote your profile first Joined: January 17, 2008 Online: Right Now City: Mong Kok (lie) State: ---Miscellaneous--- (lie) Country: Hong Kong Gender: male (true) Age: 118 Years (lie) Sign: Virgo (?) Education: Some College (prob true) Ethnicity: Asian Salary: Less Than $25,000 Orientation: Heterosexual Profession: Student Faith: Agnostic Now lets look at your lies in the arguments 1. "First and foremost, I hereby nullify my opponent's first round in its entirety because the amount of thimerosal used as a preservative has not only been reduced over the past 70 years, it has been foregone entirely." "I repeat: There is no more thimerosal in vaccines for childhood viruses." the Truth : Thimerosal, a mercury containing preservative has NOT been completely removed. it is still present, along with many other DANGEROUS preservatives, many of which are NOT regualted and approved by the FDA, in vaccines More importantly , the ISSUE IS NOT VACCINES! the issue at hand is the INJECTING OF VERY YOUNG INFANTS WITH TONS OF FOREIGN DNA AND OVERHWLEMING THE IMMUNE SYSTEM. This commonly causes severe reactions , including encephalthic reactions, swwlling , irritation and seizures. most of the time these are NOT BLAMED onthe vaccinations the government is LYING AND COVERING UP this information this is for two reasons (1) they are do gooders from hell - and will continue to err even after contrary evidence comes forth (2) profits- Vaccines are a $ 15 BILLION dollar a year industry- and they are trying to introdcuce tons more! YOUR NEXT LIE my quote "the Autism rates are up about 10000% in just two generations- the rates are about 1000 times higher in vaccinated vs unvaccinates" your quote "Yes, but they fell ever since the mercury compound was removed." http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...... So this doesn't help your point that we should stop vaccinating our children. The vaccines may have been dangerous before, but they're fine now. ANSWER : you are repeating the government HACK lies question: why did the government just SETTLE the FIRST of 4900 + CASES ? AND try and keep it HUSH HUSH QUIET HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM? YOUR NEXT LIE "SIDS is unknown everywhere. A British study showed that vaccinations may have helped to PREVENT SIDS though. And the chance of your kid dying from SIDS is lower than the chance of your kid dying from diseases that vaccines defend against" THIS IS A BOLD FACED LIE SIDS IS CAUSED BY THE POOR BABY BEING OVERWHELMED BY THE FOREIGN DNA, GOING INTO SHOCK AND DYING THE LYING BASTARDS FROM HELL IN THE GOVERNMENT HAVE SAID FOR YEARS "WE DONT KNOW WHAT CAUSES SIDS (AND AUTISM AND ITP) YOUR NEXT LIE i SAID "there are 1000s of cases of children coming down with illness or being permanently retarded from massive vaccinations at a young age" YOU SAID Actually, there is no direct correlation. And even if it were so, my argument still stands. Vaccines are safe today. OH REALLY? SAYS YOU ??????? WHAT KIND OF EXPERT ARE YOU MR 118 YEAR OLD LIAR? I DONT TRUST YOU AS FAR AS I CAN SPIT YOUR NEXT LIE i SAID "If youre such a medical expert (you are a LIAR just by your tag line and age) why dont you explain to me what ITP is and the causes and cures" In order for me to be a liar, I would first have to tell a lie, wouldn't I? YOU HAVE TOLD MANY , AS EVIDENCED HERE I never said I was a medical expert Solarman. I'm just a pharmacy student with a pretty good grasp of Biochemistry. But I think this is what you meant SO HOW CAN YOU BE 118 THEN, LIAR? SO NOW YOU ARE JUST A KID WITH SOME BACKGROUND AND YOU ARE GOING TO WEIGH IN AS AN EXPERT ON THESE SUBJECTS WITH YOU OPINION? YOUR NEXT LIE You're not a superhero. And I know who you are, you don't have to sign your name to look cool. YOU DONT KNOW ME AT ALL AND I AM A SUPERHERO Not that this matters, but the government doesn't make any money off vaccines. PRIVATE CORPORATIONS MAKE BILLIONS They lose money off vaccines. BOLD FACED LIE Why would they want to defend it? The compensation money doesn't come from deep pockets, they come from our taxes. They won't care about covering this up. There are plenty of other things the government covers up, with good purpose. Vaccine related illnesses aren't one of them. THE GOVERNMENT FORCES THE ISSUE AND CONVINCES ALL NEW PARENTS TO FALL IN LINE IT IS PURE EVIL FROM THE DO GOODERS FROM HELL YOUR FINAL STATEMENT "Besides, you still have yet to show that vaccines are still dangerous today. The data shows that the mercuric compound was removed, and the autism rates are dropping." Here are plenty of references http://www.know-vaccines.org... http://www.nap.edu... U.S. Government Concedes Vaccines Cause Autism Monday, March 3, 2008 9:36 AM http://www.newsmax.com... The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the federal agency that oversees the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), recently conceded the first vaccine-autism case. This case was filed in the no-fault National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program as part of the Autism Omnibus proceedings in the U.S. Federal Court of Claims. It was one of the first three cases chosen that alleged Thimerosal in childhood vaccines significantly contributed to a child developing autism. Clifford Shoemaker, of Shoemaker and Associates of Vienna, Virginia, is the attorney of record in the Hanna Poling v. Secretary of HHS (case: 02-1466V). Experts filing on behalf of the petitioner, Hanna Poling, included pediatric neurologist, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman of Johns Hopkins University, and Maryland geneticist and epidemiologist, Dr. Mark Geier of the Genetic Centers of America. This concession shows the dishonesty of the continual media spin coming from public health officials and others who maintain there is no evidence that Thimerosal, or any other part of any vaccine, has ever caused autism or, for that matter, has harmed anyone in any way. The facts are that the Vaccine Compensation Act has already compensated over 2,000 individuals who proved that they were harmed by vaccines, resulting in settlements of nearly two billion dollars. Additionally, hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific/medical articles from some the world's best universities have long implicated Thimerosal in vaccines as a causal factor in neurodevelopmental disorders including autism. Furthermore, in 2003, the U.S. House of Representatives' Government Reform Committee, after a 3.5-year investigation, concluded that Thimerosal caused the autism epidemic and that the FDA and health authorities were guilty of "institutional malfeasance" in covering it up. Evidence supporting the connection between mercury and autism include: 1. Published studies from the US and France showing that urinary porphyrins, a biomarker for body-burden of mercury, are elevated in patients diagnosed with autistic disorders (http://www.mercury-freedrugs.org...). 2. A published study by researchers at Harvard University that found twice as much mercury and oxidative stress in the brains of those with an autism diagnosis as found in the brains of those who were normal. 3. A study from the US showing a significant relationship between increasing blood mercury levels and an increased risk of a diagnosis of an autistic disorder. 4. Numerous papers by independent researchers showing a link between increasing mercury exposure from childhood vaccines

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...

Sorry but that is hardly a valid argument. Religion is a part of discipline? By that statement are you saying children need to be disciplined? Instead of treating them as people, you are suggesting they are treated like dogs, forced into submission with fear and promises of an afterlife. These are children we're talking about. If a parent fails to raise their child, they should turn to religion and fear? I do not agree. People deserve choice and open-mindedness, something religion often takes away.

Logical Fallacies will not be permitted The United States was formed on the basis of the philosophy of the likes of John Locke, William Blackstone, And Adam Smith. Namely, That the people and the Individual is far more intelligent and important than the greater whole of society and its contract. This is especially true in the case of the management of familial and community units. However, These ideas are falling by the wayside. Nowhere is this more felt than in our public school system. Every human being has a right to an education. The government has seen fit to interpret this as meaning that every human MUST be forced to get a government provided education. There have been few tragedies that fly as directly into the face of our principles as this abomination. First, The government is abusing a system meant to help those with fewer resources. The public school system was never meant to be the main source of education in America. It was meant to supply poor families with a more affordable option. The rest of the schools were built and operated privately, By those wishing to progress the human race. However, Over time, The government began to create and enforce more regulations upon the curriculum of these schools, And the schools that were accepting public funds (which should never have happened in the first place) became dependent on the funds provided by the government, Which then dictated what could or could not be taught by these schools. This has lead to a population of government worshippers who believe that every problem the United States has faced has been solved by government, From slavery and racism to the great depression. This could not be less true, And is leading us down a very dark path of big government movements like the Socialist state dreams of Ocasio-Cortez and other campus radicals who have been brainwashed into believing the trash spouted by the government about such matters as the role of our Founding Fathers, Of Racism, And of the New Deal. One wonders why the products of our government run school system are supporting the growth of our government. They have been turned into Alinsky"s useful idiots, Serving the system they were trained to blindly follow and strengthen. Secondly, This leads to the death of choice. Now, Every single American citizen is forced by law under penalty of fines and the Social Services to attend an educational course for "between 175 and 180 days of school and/or between 900 and 1, 000 hours of instructional time per year, Depending on the grade level (Center For Public Education). " This is one of the most obvious examples of subjugation that has ever been present in the United States. With these mandates, The government is implying that they, As the "ruling body, " know what is best for the population and that they should therefore be able to force their ideas upon us. It"s disgusting, And is an obvious violation of the underlying and fundamental principles of the United States of America. There should certainly be trust in the ability of parents to choose what is best for their children, But this idea is being ridiculed and destroyed by the government. Why? Because, As said by Brutus in the Anti-federalist number one, "it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, That every man, And every body of men, Invested with power, Are ever disposed to increase it, And to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way. " This is also backed up by Abigail Adams in her assertion that "Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could, " in her Braintree letter to John Adams on March 31, 1776. The most well known statement of this type is "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, " which was written by lord Acton. There is an obvious solution to this problem. The Common Core government program must be overturned and replaced by independent and privatised schools. We must have faith that there will always be Individuals such as Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln, Who adhere to the principle of scholar empowered learning. Anyone who refuses to attend a school should have that choice, As those people exist now and are simply a drain on resources and serve as distractions to those scholars who are willing to learn. A choice based system would eliminate the need for internal the discipline issues of today"s school systems. This would also free Individuals from large taxes going toward indoctrination programs and drains such as those mentioned above. This system would force schools to compete for attendance like businesses, Ensuring that only the best would thrive, As the Free Market was meant to do. Of course, This will lead to more uneducated members of society who refused to take the initiative of education. Those people exist now, Though. They go through the Public School System refusing to retain knowledge and acting as a drain on resources, Tax dollars, And time. A choice system would only make these people easier to notice. One might also object that people would not be able to learn the difference between right and wrong, As is taught in Kindergarten and Elementary schools. However, With a choice system, Parents would still have the prerogative to teach right and wrong, Which would also be reinforced by church and normal social interactions. The parents who would not have that prerogative would be the same ones who don"t know either, Which would make no difference. In the end, The only downsides are negated by the fact that they are also the pitfalls facing us now, Whereas the merits of this proposed system are self evident: increased freedom, Better education, And a sense of independence from the government which is healthy in a Free Society. Works Cited Gatto, John. "How Public Education Cripples Our Kids, And Why. " The Natural Child Project. Https://www. Naturalchild. Org/articles/guest/john_gatto2. Html. Accessed 15 October 2018. "What is School Choice? " ed Choice. Https://www. Edchoice. Org/school-choice/what-is-school-choice/. Accessed 15 October 2018. Hull, Jim. "Time in school: How does the U. S. Compare? " Center for Public Education. Http://www. Centerforpubliceducation. Org/research/time-school-how-does-us-compare. Accessed 15 October 2018. Adams, Abigail. Letter to John Adams, Braintree March 31, 1776. Brutus. Anti-Federalist Brutus I, October 18, 1787. Lord Acton. Letter to Bishop Creighton, 1887.

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...

I accept. I will be debating the side that vaccines do cause autism (as well as other problems). Thanks for debating with me!.

Thank you for your argument, and for a great debate. I would first like to rebut some of my opponents points, and then I will end with a conclusion. Why is it morally wrong to teach a child to accept one religion? How is it wrong for you to not accept all religions. I accept all religions but I only FOLLOW Christianity. It should not be morally wrong to accept one religion nor to follow or practice one. Even when children are told not to touch a hot stove, they often do. This demonstrates that children are not even as close to dumb as you think they are, and are more then able to think for themselves to a certain extent. Since this blind trust is, as I have proved, not there then you cannot manipulate a child based on blind trust. One example of this is my friend, brought up a Catholic and sent to catholic school, who is now an atheist. Even though she was forced and only taught one religion she still turned out as an Aethiest, so this just shows that you can follow whatever religion you like, even though you were only taught one. Now I agree that the decision to follow a certain religion is individualistic, but it is not the RIGHT nor the RESPONSIBILITY for the parents to take their child to all places of worship, in order for my 6 year old son, to think he knows about all religions, so that he can go to the mousque while I go to my church, and have one of us take him. NO! He will go to church with me, until he is no longer in my house. (This is a hypothetical situation, I am a student) If young children cannot make this decision, why should it not be made for them until they can decide for themselves. Contracts are like this. Is religion not a little like a contract? ! As long as it is not harmful and deemed for the minors benefit, church and religion is a good thing! I would like to point out, due to the new T. V. Shows and other things on television and that we see in society, it is not the greatest way to gain a morale code. I would now like to unprofessionally scream at your last point. "Decisions regarding how a child should be raised should not flow from the judgement of the parent". SAY WHAT NOW! ? So now, I cannot raise my child the way I want him to be raised, because why? Not really a reason, just people think that I am not fit to raise my own child. That nobody is fit to raise their child. If nobody raises the child then does the child not get raised? Will we have 50 year old babies as the population of the world, with no religion, and no thought? I say NAY! I should teach my hypothetical child any religion and morale code I like, as his/her upbringing is left for me to decide! In conclusion, I as side con must firmly state that I would encourage a con winning vote because every parent should have the right and responsibility to freely bring up their child in any way they like, allowing them to practice the religion with the parent, until they can practice what they wish!

I will be presenting the argument that vaccines do not cause autism. There is a lot of controversy pertaining to this topic, but I will be explaining why Wakefield's paper in 1998 was a fraud.

Vaccines can cause death among citizens, including students. Vaccines cause brain inflammation which can lead to death or permanent brain damage and disorders. Now imagine your best friend goes into the doctor and gets a vaccine, then they don't return because they died from that vaccine. Studies of infants whose deaths were recorded as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) show a temporal relationship with the DPT vaccination. If you had a child would you risk them dying by a vaccine? Now about 30,00 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990 with 13% classified as life threatening illness or even worse death.www.vaccine.procon.org

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 Minors?

Should children receive mandatory vaccinations?
Should vaccinations be compulsory for school-going children? Absolutely! If children are not vaccinated, they risk falling ill and missing out on their education. Would you want your child to miss out on a good education? Vaccinations should be made mandatory to ensure the safety and well-being of all children.

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.

Definition Physical education- instruction in the care and development of the body(1) Context- we are talking about physical education in terms of physical exercise that is to be done student for a stimulated amount of time up to a particular level to move up to next grade Model- the model con proposes is a persuasive model i.e. rather than making the subject mandatory, we persuade students to join in. Persuasion would be done by educating students about the benefits of physical education and the s same would be facilitated for the interested students, in terms of equipments, trainer(s) etc. Moving on to arguments Limits student"s freedom The problem with making anything mandatory is that we are risking free will i.e. the essence of any healthy functioning democracy, similar is the case with making physical education mandatory, when you talk about making it mandatory, you are simultaneously talking about further restricting(already restricted student freedom). Effectiveness When we are talking about making physical education mandatory, we are actually exposing everything that is limiting our education system and these limitations are two fold 1- It goes against basic principles of psychology i.e. a) persuasion works better than compulsion b) reward works better than punishment a) persuasion works better than compulsion- it is a well established psychological fact that persuasion works better than compulsion, but still, somehow, our education system is based around compulsion rather than persuasion , the psychology of persuasion and compulsion helps us make a clear deduction, that in education, whatever is achieved through compulsion, more can be achieved through persuasion. Applying the above analysis in case of physical education, we can understand that if we want kids to actively take part in physical activities, then we should persuade them to do so(as explained in the model) rather than compel.(2) b) reward works better than punishment " It is another well established psychological analysis that reward works better than punishment, apply this analysis in case of physical education(or any useful subject) as a subject and you will be able to see how the more effective way to go around would be to reward students for joining the course rather than punishing them(failing them) for not doing so.(3) 2- Treat student like robots Another problem with education system today is the "one size fits all" mentality, which is exactly what is being tried to be achieved by making physical education a mandatory subject. The one size fits all mentality is such that one curriculum is sufficient of each and every kid,as if the same are robots. The one size fits all mentality ignores the human element present in students, students are not like programmed robots in a lab, who all function same and respond to same commands, human beings(students) are diverse and have different needs and requirement and trying to fit them all into a one size fits all outfit is bound to result in over/under sizing issues, which is exactly what making P.E. mandatory would result in. much more to come in second round, best of luck, pro :) (1)https://www.merriam-webster.com... (2)http://www.americanthinker.com... (3)https://www.psychologytoday.com...

"Everyone should have the right to decide what they want to do with their life regardless of their age." Exactly. Individuals have a right to their own bodies. Therefore, there should be no restrictions.

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...

You make an astounding argument about the girls and the procedures and I cannot argue about that, but I beg to differ about its legality and the standards involved. Right now, as legal as it is, we have doctors both qualified and unqualified who perform these operations with no regard to whether if botched, they would be responsible. If it were made illegal, these doctors would rarely risk to perform them in unsafe environments nor be caught at it, the health of the patients and these operations would be far in between and not as frequent as they are now. Some abortions are induced abortions and even though are a hazard to the women, they are done all the same with or without consent. A debate for another day. http://en.wikipedia.org... As for having the females make their own choice, Statistics show that 35% choose to have the operation," a decision that indicate there is problem not only with the promiscuity of the teens but with the decision to keep or remove the pregnancy" as stated by Choice Pregnancy Care center. http://www.choicespregnancy.org.... Lets us make the decision for our children, let us protect them and let us make Abortion illegal.

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.

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 deal with con's arguments in the order he has made them. 1) Apologizing for me to the gallery is not very fashionable, or of good manner. It is just plain rude, so please let us be more polite in the future. Thank You. 2) Your argument is that after kids get voting rights, beer cigarettes and pornography rights are next, am I correct? Well this is not very likely at all, because what kid wants to smoke and drink? And the ones that do will get their hands on it, one way or another, even if it is illegal. What you do not realize is that right now many kids are smoking and drinking, even though they are under the age limit. So even though it is not likely to happen, a law allowing kids to drink and smoke would change nothing. 3) Who says that children don't fend for themselves? They do, but just in a different way than adults. The average everyday child struggles with school, activities, and the need to fit in. The only difference between them and adults is that children are restricted in many areas, in this case voting, so it seems to the casual onlooker that they are fended for by their parents. 4) Con said "So according to Pro if we were to follow these laws we would be considered SLAVES. " In no way are adults slaves. You see, people over 18 get a SAY in the laws, and they have to obey them. Whereas, people under 18 DON'T GET A SAY, yet they still have to follow laws made by others. And isn't a person forced to do something against their will a slave? Now you might say, "I don't agree with this or that law so I'm a slave! " But the reality is, you are not because you had an OPPORTUNITY to influence the outcome of each law. 5) Now Con has said that government does not affect children. Now think, Who sets up schools and makes rules for them? Who goes to these schools? Who provides health care for those under the poverty line? Can't children and their families be under the poverty line? Who cannot legally make contracts? Children. Who denies the right for children to choose where they live? The government. Why, children don't even have the right to not be assaulted! There are many more examples, but I have only chosen to list a few. So as you see, the government has a huge impact on the lives of children. 6) Pro has twisted my words again, for I never said that kids shouldn't listen to their parents, I just said that they shouldn't have to agree with them. And I never said that children should hold seats in the government, I just said that it should be allowed. You forget that to hold a government seat, one must be elected. Now if a nine year old is very smart and savvy in politics, why shouldn't they hold a seat in the government? And also, in saying skill and expertise, do you really think that all of that depends on a college degree? I think not, but rather how smart one is. And if kids were allowed to vote, who said they would vote in a 9 year old that knew nothing? If the kid knew nothing, than I think that adults would all vote against him, and there would be no way he or she could hold a seat. So what is there to worry about?

Con 1 Vaccines can cause serious and sometimes fatal side effects. According to the CDC, all vaccines carry a risk of a life-threatening allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) in about one per million children. [49] The rotavirus vaccination can cause intussusception, a type of bowel blockage that may require hospitalization, in about one per 20,000 babies in the United States. [49] Long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness, and permanent brain damage may be associated with the DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis) and MMR vaccines, though the CDC notes the rarity of the reaction makes it difficult to determine causation. [49] The CDC reports that pneumonia can be caused by the chickenpox vaccine, and a "small possibility" exists that the flu vaccine could be associated with Guillain-Barr" Syndrome, a disorder in which the person"s immune system attacks parts of the peripheral nervous system, in about one or two per million people vaccinated. [49]. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) says that vaccines may be linked to learning disabilities, asthma, autism, diabetes, chronic inflammation, and other disabilities. [82] [83]http://vaccines.procon.org...

To answer your question, while I do agree with you that a freshman or sophomore in high school may be influenced by many other factors in her life, she might not be emotionally ready or mature enough to make the decision about obtaining birth control by herself. However, if this young girl believed she was emotionally stable enough to become sexually active (even if she is not) she should have the right to obtain birth control in case her parents do not consent. Again, if this young girl was to continue being sexually active even without her parents consent to get birth control, why should she be able to get pregnant which would complicate her life even further? If she could pay for the birth control pills, and was responsible enough to take them everyday, I don't understand why she should not be able to prevent a mistake from happening.