Question: Should Certain Vaccines be Mandated for Pediatric Immunization?

Edible vaccines have the potential to save countless lives. The individuals we have been testing have provided positive feedback, and these vaccines can effectively prevent diseases. Considering the benefits, shouldn't we explore the use of edible vaccines for children to ensure their health and safety? After all, they offer a promising alternative to traditional vaccination methods, potentially making the process easier and more accessible for children.

Thank you Canuckleball. I apologize for making the assumption that your position was dependant on the idea of choice and intention. This was based on the use of the term choice in relation to their "evilness", and how the fact that it was a disorder was of key importance. Some clarification would be much appreciated. I do not use utilitarianism in my debate. It is understandable that such a message came across, but the greatest quantity of happiness for the greatest quantity of people is irrelevant to this debate. Instead, I am working upon the shared assumption that child abuse is wrong, alongside the assumption that pedophillia should be treated medically. I am applying consequentialist reasoning to this, because then this is a simple matter of how good and bad things are, and we don't have to get caught up in virtue or deontological ethics. I never stated that the existence of people who are pedophiles is immoral, because that would require looking into the value of a person, and that's irrelevant to the debate. I stated that the specific act of being afflicted with pedophilia is immoral, in a similar sense to how being afflicted with depression is immoral. I am not stating that it would be moral to eliminate those with either disorder, I am saying that the presence of depression is immoral; that being depressed is, in and of itself, unethical. The same reasoning applies to pedophiles. Pedophiles aren't simply statistically more likely to abuse children, pedophilia is an active force that could easily be viewed as causing the immoral acts. People who have plans and intentions to murder people aren't just more likely to act unethically, the plans and intentions themselves are immoral, as they work to cause murders. Pedophilia may not definitively and in all cases actually come to its fruition, but it very often does. Being black does not cause one to commit crimes. Long term consequences can not be accounted for in this debate, as they are fully unknown to both of us. Murder (with exceptions of self defense and whatnot) is immoral. One can murder, and by extention manage to save the lives of many people. This does nothing to change the fact that the generalized action of murder is wrong. Similarly, if being a pedophile helped a person cure pedophilia, we both have (more or less) agreed that such an action would be good. This wouldn't prove that pedophillia is not, on balance, immoral. Being a Nazi is immoral. One can still be a Nazi in such a fashion that is morally good. if I were to state that people have ten fingers, I'm sure you would agree, dispute that fact not being without exception. My opponent still seems to think that I am of the opinion that pedophiles are evil or immoral, when this is not so. I do not think that those who have littered are immoral or evil people, but I still might think that the act of littering is immoral. Ghandi may have done some immoral things, but that has little effect on how morally positive his presence was. My opponent sees pedophilia as something that is should be cured. The logical confusion being that curing pedophilia and being rid of it is positive. We can deduce from this that my opponent is of the opinion that the presence of pedophilia is negative. I am making the conclusion from this, that pedophillia is immoral. I am further concluding that any action that brings about pedophilia is immoral in that regard. Being pedophilic increases pedophilia, and is therefore immoral. The act of being pedophilic is not intentional, but is never the less unethical. I also would like to emphasize that the abuse of children is not the only negative consequence of being a pedophile. As a disorder, it is defined as having a negative impact upon the sufferer's behalf. We can certainly see this, as society acts punitively towards it. If my opponent thinks that all of these negative effects of being a pedophile are nonexinstant, or possibly thinks that pedophilia has some sort of positive effect, I would like to know. I await my opponent's response.

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...

While I do agree the cost of health care in the US is too high and we must act to reduce the cost, I vehemently disagree with mandatory health insurance participation. I find the notion of forcing citizens into health insurance to be almost as un-American as the Universal Healthcare proposals of liberal Democrats. I agree the best approach is a market based approach to make health insurance more affordable for all citizens regardless of income. Its all well and good to support all Americans having health insurance, but your argument is absent of ideas and proposals to make health insurance more affordable. Just simply saying health insurance should be affordable for all does not necessarily make it so. I am curious to hear your ideas on how to make health insurance more affordable. I suppose the biggest reason I oppose mandatory health insurance is because there are many unanswered questions and assumptions with this proposal. Are you going to use the power of the federal government to force private companies to provide more affordable insurance? If not, what incentives will you use to get private companies on your side in making the insurance more affordable? Also just because someone has health insurance does not mean they will use it when they need it. If many families are scraping by just to pay for insurance, will they be able to afford whats left over that the insurance does not cover? If not, who will be liable to pay the difference? Clearly you have identified a problem, however I do not see any arguments or empirical data to support your proposition. At this point I will yield and wait for your responses to the questions I posed. Thanks, and good luck.

Thank you, sherlockmethod, for taking time out to debate with me. We seem to disagree on some key issues, so I'm sure we will have plenty to argue about. For starters, the laws we create in society are a reflection of the moral standards we've adopted. And I'm arguing that the law "should" be a certain way. Words like "should" or "ought" imply ethical judgments. [1] As such, my opponent and I are arguing about the moral principles that underpin our laws, not the actual constitutional merit of the laws themselves. For example, a law can be constitutional and wrong (morally) or vice versa. Therefore, laws and constitutional standards cannot be used to justify their own validity; that would be circular reasoning. Not to disparage my antagonist in any way, but this is a basic point in logic. I'm not saying anything that isn't universally accepted by logicians. With that out of the way, lets get into the actual debate. =======================> Why Infanticide Can Be Morally Justified <========================= C1: Infanticide is justified in the case of infants with severe medical problems that will end up killing them painfully. My opponent argues that a child, once born, should have a right to life under the constitution, and thus infanticide is unacceptable. Later on, he suggests that my proposal is equivalent to advocating for "homicide". Unfortunately, he has yet to explain why this is the case. As such, my opponent seems to be appealing to moral principles, which, oddly enough, he has not mentioned at all in the course of his first round. Despite what my antagonist may believe, there are very strong and reasonable grounds to suppose that not every human born in the United Sates has a serious right to life. I will demonstrate this by putting his reasoning into a syllogism and then I will demonstrate why it is unsound. If his arguments were put into a syllogism, then they might take the following form: P1: It is wrong to kill an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens that has already been born. P2: A human infant is an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens that has already been born. P3: Therefore, it is wrong to kill a human infant. (from 1 and 2) (Modus Ponens) C: Therefore, it is legally objectionable to kill an infant. (from 3) If my opponent's argument is constructed like this, strong objections can be raised against the first premise. For example, a devastating counterexample can be raised against the notion that it is always wrong to kill an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens that has been born. An adult human with complete upper brain death is an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens that has been born. However, an adult human with complete upper brain death does not possess a serious right to life; they are, for all intensive legal and moral purposes, already dead at that stage. [2] As Bernard Gert - the Stone Professor of Intellectual and Moral Philosophy at Dartmouth College – points out, simply being alive does not have inherit value in itself. It is, rather, the capacity for conscious experience in a human that is important. [3] So, those who may wish to still believe all humans have a serious right to life should consider how ridiculous the anti-infanticide syllogism would appear in light of the counter example listed above. Clearly, the notion that all innocent members of the species Homo sapiens have a serious right to life if they are already born is deeply erroneous. Unlike an adult, a human infant is lacking attributes in several very important areas. The human infant does not posses the same mental faculties as a full-grown adult and therefore cannot be said to posses the same serious right to life that conscious persons do. As demonstrated earlier, this moral principle can be recognized in the way humans differentiate between fully conscious adults and those that have experienced a permanent loss of consciousness due to disease or some sort of traumatic accident. And it is in this ethical purview that it is possible to recognize that an infant does not have a strong right to life since, like a brain dead adult, it does not posses a significant mental life with thoughts and desires. This is why murdering grown adults is wrong whereas killing an infant is not (as least some of the time). Furthermore, I don't think my antagonist's attack on my first argument can withhold scrutiny. While trying to refute my central argument in this section, he claims that anencephalic infants will die without pain and, therefore, infanticide is unnecessary. However, according to my opponent's own source, "A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain." [4] The key word in that sentence is USUALLY. On some occasions, according to Con's source, anencephalic infants can feel pain. Therefore, risking immense suffering on these infants by letting them die naturally from cardiorespiratory arrest is simply unacceptable since some of them apparently can feel pain. C2: A human infant is not a person and thus cannot have a serious right to life. Before I continue, let me make a few things clear. I do not take a cavalier attitude toward the practice of infanticide. Moreover, I'm not in the mood to draw up a legal document, but I will say that I don't think infanticide should be allowed after the infant has been alive for one month. And lastly, I'm only advocating infanticide for disabled infants insofar as they are so disabled that they will surely die miserably from their conditions. Moving on… In attempting to demonstrate why my proposal is flawed, (Con) wrote the following: "Infants are persons under the law and this debate is about legality so they can be said to be persons, Dr. Singer and utilitarianism aside." Now, this argument simply begs the question. My opponent is essentially claiming that an infant has a moral right to be protected under the constitution without first establishing why constitutional protections should apply to beings that are not rational, autonomous or self-conscious agents. Con simply can't use existing laws to justify the morality of a legal standard; as was stated earlier, that would be circular reasoning. Secondly, at no point in the United States constitution does it specify what qualifies someone as a person. Moreover, even if the constitution explicitly rejected my proposal, that would not demonstrate why my proposal was flawed: it would only demonstrate that my arguments lacked constitutional merit. And since this debate has nothing to do with constitutional standards, this point would be irrelevant at any rate. C3: An entity's potentials cannot grant that entity rights. My opponent has chosen not to address this argument. That's fine with me. Unless he wishes to refute this in his second round, I will have won this specific argument. ::Conclusion:: In order to win this debate, all I need to do is successfully manage to defend my first argument regarding severely disabled infants with terminal ailments. Up until this point, I think it is quite clear that I have done this. As was shown earlier, infants with anencephaly can potentially suffer, and infanticide is, therefore, a valid way to ensure that those infants won't suffer horribly in their last moments on Earth. Additionally, I have also managed to successfully defend my second contention since my opponent hasn't managed to refute the criteria I have given for personhood. As such, the weight of the arguments leans heavily in my favor in the debate so far. Sources: 1. http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. http://spot.colorado.edu... (7.2 The Counterexample Objection) 3. Gert, Bernard. Common Morality: Deciding What to Do. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. (p. 30) 4. http://www.ninds.nih.gov... Best, Freeman

And an interesting claim about vaccines working as a cure for existing infections. My argument was actually made to refute the claim that the vaccine made to prevent infection from smallpox was based on the definition of homeopathy - which is not the case. As the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services puts it, "A vaccine is made from very small amounts of weak or dead germs that can cause diseases " for example, viruses, bacteria, or toxins. It prepares your body to fight the disease faster and more effectively so you won"t get sick. " Not homeopathy, and you take it so that you won't get sick, in other words, prevention. The principle on which vaccines work is immunisation (this happens due to the presence of our body's immune system. ) The U. S. Department of Health and Human Services defines this as : the process of becoming immune to (protected against) a disease. Now I did open the link that you sent and it certainly was interesting. The source concluded in one of its 'key takeaways' - "Vaccines can boost an individual"s immune response and control viruses, such as Ebola and rabies, before they become deadly. " Note the words here - immune response. This isn't a cure, this is a boost to our immune system. Homeopathy on the other hand claims to cure diseases, not 'initiate immune response'. The working of the immune system was not known during the time homeopathy was developed and there are some woo-woo concepts such as 'imbalance of the life forces' - unscientific, or rather pseudoscientific rubbish. Homeopathy and vaccination/immunisation are unrelated. As for homeopathy being used as prevention, also known as homeoprophylaxis, that is actually quite dangerous as it may lead to people avoiding vaccines - something with fatal consequences. Many Homeopaths do not subscribe to this and its proponents usually attack vaccines in some form and it is quite clear that it is not vaccination, even its proponents say so in this report which of course I disagree with . https://freeandhealthychildren.org... Conclusion: Homeopathy is an unproven, illogical form of medicine that is inaccurately presented as scientific, whilst it is anything but. reports on the efficacy of Homeopathy, by meta-analyses, show it to be no more effective than placebos. It is time to promote real medicine and discourage if not completely remove Homeopathy. "If Homeopathy really worked, dumping Osama bin Laden's body into the ocean would have cured the world of terrorism" Do not consider the above as part of the formal debate. Vote con, and thank you for participating pro. It has been a pleasure.

First of all, just because society deems people an "adult" at a certain age, that has no bearing on the decisions students make. Just because you graduate from high school does not mean that you transition immediately from a adolescent to an adult and can make "good" decisions. College is still a period for people to progress into adulthood and learn from school courses and the positive and negative experiences associated in and around it to later make rational adult decisions. What is to say that certain students graduating from high school definitely know or are concerned about their health issues. A required course is a definite way that all students will gain some sort of knowledge from the resources offered about health and physical education. And what is so terrible about requiring a course that will only benefit students with knowledge they can use for the rest of their lives? You may say how do you know that students are not going to seek out PE courses without the requirement, but how do you know that they are. Students who workout daily and want to keep benefits of the facility and all it has to offer also see all the other students partaking in these same activities. How do you know that they will not put off the responsibility onto all the other students to enroll in courses to keep the facility paid for. They could conceivably think that they are just one student and if they do not enroll everyone else probably will, so there is no need. Furthermore, students who workout there could just as easily be working out there merely because it is offered and not because it is a necessity. Students can work out outside or may have apartment complexes or other workout centers in other places that they attend. Therefore, having a free facility does not really effect them. Money from gym classes could be much better suited for academic courses that will never be scratched off the requirement list. PE is not a time constraint but rather a time of relief. People who are usually overwhelmed with school and work do not have time to incorporate physical activity in their schedule. With PE being a course required, they not only receive credit towards graduate, but can put in place time for them to engage in healthy activity each day. Also, PE courses take a mere hour out of your day. With the time people spend watching tv, socializing, "facebooking," or playing video games, they could take an hour out of their day to engage in a simple activity that will stimulate both their mind and their body.

For the feedback, thank you. I totally appreciate you treating this as a worthy debate. I’m enjoying it as well. Rebuttal 1 I believe you are missing the point about religion in your school, and your examples. It an example, its not making your argument that Religion should not be forced on children in school. Your just stating what happened to you and others. Even if every 2nd school had prayer, it doesn't make your argument any different that it occurs. Did you want to avoid math, and do you not use it now? Is this not the same? Rebuttal 2 You present two impossible tenants. Regardless, it doesn't support your argument, or further the debate, unless you’re going to say, your religion is allowed and your religion is not. It’s a side issue not related to the debate but problem with your overall argument, by saying one has priority of belief over another. Rebuttal 3 So we go from weak women to a possible powerful fanatic. Interesting. As for unconformable it depends where I am an what I'm doing. If it’s in the bathroom probably uncomfortable. However if anyone knocks on my door during a reasonable time, I am more then willing to debate or talk with. Again begging the question does not further your argument. You still have not made an effective argument as to why. Discomfort and objection is not rational ground for your argument. Rebuttal 4 Actually I think we both misunderstood. I took the position of North America an industrialized world, where you mean every school and public schools. However it doesn't address your question it shouldn't be forced, just that it varies what the laws are. Rebuttal 5 Your argument from bias is slightly biased. I lived with 5 gay men during university, being the only straight one in the house for a year. A friend, who is a drag queen, upon his birthday, requested we all dress in drag for a night, as his present. I look fabulous in my g/fs dress. I am not homophobic. My argument, which you seemed to miss, is that you cannot choose topics based on discomfort of the people involved. Your argument that it might offend gay people to hear that the bible says there doomed to hell is not a reason not to study the bible and its impact on history especially when it says that. Maybe if you taught it, you would have less gay Christians and more ration gay men when it came to religion. If your argument is not to teach people because it might offend them, then teaching evolution might offend Christians who believe in ID. If you choose to support gay offensive over Christian’s offense, what is your basis to choose? again this is moving your argument forward, only if you choose to have rights over another based on discomfort. This is a weak argument. My argument why religion should be forced. Why? Its a school, where else are you supposed to learn things? Home study, your friend down the street a church? It is completely acceptable to force religion into school. Teach about religion, its effects, its contradictions, its actual message (slavery, incest, bigotry) and the fact you can’t prove a god exist. It’s like not teaching about Hitler and the holocaust and ignoring that it was a Christian idea and movement (Sam Harris, letters to a Christian Nation). To wit, not a single member of the founding fathers was Christian in any sense most people apply it and the treaty of Tripoli stated that US was not a Christian nation, which was signed by the congress. Again, very few people seem to know that. If people taught it you wouldn't have Michael Bauchman repeating it and being believed by a majority of Americans. If you don’t teach history, your doomed to repeat it. Defiantly have religion in the class room, and you will have a lot less religious people in the world and a better informed public. And defiantly include ID in science, make it mandatory 1st year in high school. The more you read about what science is and the flaws of ID, the more people will stop calling it science. Show why it’s not, show how it’s not, and what science actually is. Teach the controversy. You know how you get a well-informed person on a subject, have them read about it. The bible, include it as mandatory reading. Make children (or teens) read it. All of it. Twice. Have a pop quiz of "does god promote slavery and if so how many times?" "does the god really hate gay people?" `was the bible used to justify slavery in the south, north and everywhere else?` 'given that Jesus what born in the middle east, to Jewish parents, why is it that every church you walk in, he looks like an poster child for albinos hocking sun screen?" “What day did Jesus die, Friday morning, afternoon, Saturday, Sunday or all of the above?” you’re going to have a lot more rational people if you have to read it. http://en.wikipedia.org...

As my opponent hasn't rebuted any of my arguments, I'll respond to both of the arguments my opponent has given so far. I'd like to point out that it appears that my opponent has no original arguments. He copied and pasted them from the following citation. [1] All he did cite a source and he was done. Because of this, he may not even take the time to respond to my arguments, as he clearly can't come up with any original content. Anyway, first I'll go through my opponent's first round. "According to Shot@Life, a United Nations Foundation partner organization, vaccines save 2.5 million children from preventable diseases every year, which equates to roughly 285 children saved every hour. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimated that 732,000 American children were saved from death and 322 million cases of childhood illnesses were prevented between 1994 and 2014 due to vaccination." [1]The amount of lives saved trumps minor adverse effects. Let's look at the rates of the allergic reaction anaphylaxis that my opponent discusses. In the sources words, it describes it as a"...life-threatening allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) [that effects] about one per million children." This is in every vaccine, mind you. While that happens in one per million children, 2.5 million children are saved by vaccines every year, as well as there being 322 million cases of childhood illness prevented between 1994 and 2014, according to the quotation used above.With those statistics in mind, we can assume that, for every 2.5 million children saved by vaccines, 2.5 children are affected by anaphylaxis. For the 322 million cases of childhood illness prevented in the twenty year period described above, 322 were affected by anaphylaxis. Again, it's rare."Anaphylaxis may occur following exposure to allergens from a variety of sources including food, aeroallergens, venom, drugs, and immunisations." [2] Oh yes, not just vaccines are guilty of this."More than half of all cases of food-related anaphylaxis are caused by peanuts."Other foods known to trigger anaphylaxis include:"nuts– such as walnuts, cashew nuts, almonds, brazil nuts and hazelnuts"milk"fish and shellfish"eggs"some types of fruit– such as bananas, kiwi fruit, grapes and strawberries" [3]This is the most common cause of anaphylaxis. Does that mean we shouldn't let anyone eat peanuts because of the effects it may have on some people? In the case of vaccines, it saves more lives than it harms, as shown by the statistics provided earlier.Again, like I said in my arguments, these effects and all the others proposed are incredibly rare, if not non-existent. We shouldn't risk the lives of many when we're trying to potentially save the lives of some.Now on to my opponent's next round about harmful ingredients in vaccines."It’s true that these chemicals are toxic to the human body in certain levels, but only trace amounts of these chemicals are used in FDA approved vaccines. In fact, according to the FDA and the CDC,formaldehydeis produced at higher rates by our own metabolic systems and there isno scientific evidencethat the low levels of this chemical, mercury or aluminum in vaccines can be harmful." [4]"Children are exposed to more aluminum in breast milk and infant formula than they are exposed to in vaccines.Paul Offit, MD, notes that children are exposed to more bacteria, viruses, toxins, and other harmful substances in one day of normal activity than are in vaccines." [1]In fact, all of the components proposed are used in trace amounts, so it does no harm to the vaccinated children.Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals, if he has any.Citations[1]http://vaccines.procon.org...[2]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[3]http://www.nhs.uk...[4]http://www.publichealth.org...

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...

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.


Question: Should Certain Vaccines be Mandated for Pediatric Immunization?

Overweight children should not be compelled to diet. No, if children want to be overweight, they should be allowed to be, unless parents only provide fast food like McDonald's, which is a separate issue. However, we shouldn't force overweight children to exercise. Why can't I insist that you paint your own house? Because I can't compel you to do anything, as it's wrong. Instead of forcing them, motivate overweight children. However, mandatory vaccinations for children are necessary, as they benefit society as a whole. Being overweight is only detrimental to the individual (and perhaps the person next to them on the bus, lol). Yet, ensuring children receive necessary vaccinations is essential for the health of the community.

I'm sure it will be interesting. Also this is my first debate so have mercy please. . http://en.wikipedia.org... According to the link above more people speak English than Mandarin. 1.5 billion speak English while roughly 1 billion speak Mandarin. While this seems like a good reason for Americans to start picking up a second language you have to actually look deeper into the situation. English is used more as an international language while mandarin is primarily a local language. Out of 1.5 billion half speak English as a first language while the other speak it as a foreign language. Of those who speak Mandarin 800 million or so speak it as their first language. The other 200 million as a foreign language. Why would be force our children to learn a language that even most other countries don't use as a second language? I can't deny the expansion of China economically but what does a language do for you if it's primarily spoken in its native land? English is used everywhere. Almost any country you go to there will always be someone that knows English. You can't really say that with Mandarin. Until Mandarin becomes more international it should remain as an optional subject of study.

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.

Vaccines contain harmful ingredients. Some physicians believe thimerosal, an organic mercury compound found in trace amounts in one flu vaccine for children and other vaccines for adults, is linked to autism. [84] Aluminum is used in some vaccines and excess aluminum in human bodies can cause neurological harm. [85] Formaldehyde, also found in some vaccines, is a carcinogen, and, according to VaxTruth.org, exposure can cause side effects such as cardiac impairment, central nervous system depression, "changes in higher cognitive functions," coma, convulsions, and death. [86] Glutaraldehyde, a compound used to disinfect medical and dental equipment, is used in some DTaP vaccinations and exposure can cause asthma and other respiratory issues. [86] Some flu vaccines contain cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTMB), a compound used as an antiseptic, which can be a skin, eye, and respiratory irritant. Some polio, TD, and DTaP vaccines contain 2-phenoxyethanol, an antibacterial that is a skin and eye irritant that can cause headache, shock, convulsions, kidney damage, cardiac and kidney failure, and death. [86] Some vaccines for the flu contain chicken egg protein, which can be harmful to children who are allergic to eggs. [87] Some vaccines for PCV, HPV, DTaP, Hep A, Hep B, and Hib contain yeast proteins which, according to VaxTruth and Joseph Mercola, MD, an alternative medicine proponent, contain MSG that can cause migraines, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), asthma, diabetes, Alzheimer"s, Lou Gehrig"s disease, ADD, seizure, and stroke. [86] [88] http://vaccines.procon.org...

1. Seat belts only apply to the person wearing them. If i don't wear a seat belt, the worst possible thing that can happen is that i get injured. No-one else is affected by this. 2. Adults should be able to choose how they handle things that only affect them. For instance, if i smoke alone, on my property, i should be mature enough to realize the consequences. I am not harming anyone else, so i should have the right to choose. 3. Minors will still have to wear seat belts. I believe that children are not mature enough to make decisions like this, that can potentially harm them. One point i want to clear up is that i am not endorsing that people should smoke and not wear seat belts, just that if they feel like they want to, they should have that right.

With the expansion and globalization of modern society, learning to communicate with others is crucial, especially in a diverse country like the United States. I feel that the current method of language learning courses in high schools is not enough and students should be immersed into more methods of language learning, especially early in childhood development so that by the end of high school, students would either be fluent, or at least at an intermediate level of fluency in a second language (or third if they already speak a foreign language at home). If necessary, parents should also encourage their child to learn more languages at home as well. From a global perspective Spanish, French, Portuguese, Arabic and Chinese are the most important spoken languages in the world for children to learn other than English. If you disagree with my suggestion, please explain why exactly you do. Your argument must be logical and if necessary, please provide evidence to support your claims.

A. History In the 1960's an autistic child was diagnosed in 1 out of every 5,000 children. Today the number is 1 in 50. This is an epidemic that needs too be made priority in our society. Yet it does not seem like this problem is being taken seriously. There is no cure, and nobody knows what causes it. And parents and people who claim there is a link too vaccines are vilified. Why does the government and the media keep telling us what it is not causing autism? During the past quarter century, the CDC and AAP increased the numbers of vaccinations doctors are told to give American children from 23 doses of 7 vaccines to 48 doses of 14 vaccines by age five. Although today almost all childhood vaccines contain only trace amounts of mercury or never contained mercury preservatives, such as polio, pneumococcal, hepatitis A and live virus MMR, chicken pox and rotavirus vaccines, parents around the nation continue to report that their children are regressing physically, mentally and emotionally following receipt of multiple vaccines. These parents report their children are becoming chronically ill and disabled, suffering with autism, learning disabilities, ADHD, asthma, diabetes, intestinal bowel disorders and other brain and immune system dysfunction. How many more children will be hurt before government, industry and paediatricians open their eyes and see what too much vaccination has done to our children? More than 3.5 million Americans live with an autism spectrum disorder. (Buescher et al., 2014) Prevalence of autism in U.S. children increased by 119.4 percent from 2000 (1 in 150) to 2010 (1 in 68). (CDC, 2014) Autism is the fastest-growing developmental disability. (CDC, 2008) Prevalence has increased by 6-15 percent each year from 2002 to 2010. (Based on biennial numbers from the CDC) http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.autism-society.org... The theory of vaccines causing autism comes from a source that should be trusted, parents. It was not evil Dr. Wakefield, or a Lawyer looking for money. The theory was born because parents with autistic children had the same story. They did not conspire or plan too bring down big pharm. They simply wanted to know why their children who were developing normally before their MMR shot were now sick and autistic. My opponent points too a CDC study that says there is no link between vaccines and autism. Where have I heard that before? No link? Ah yes, the CDC told the public that there was no link between smoking cigarettes and cancer. They were backing an industry that made billions of dollars a year. Sound familiar? http://www.thefreelibrary.com... The Truth Behind the Tobacco Industry Cover-Up.-a019030080 It is funny how history repeats itself. Another whistle blower has surfaced. "William W. Thompson, PhD, Senior Scientist with the CDC has stepped forward and admitted the 2004 paper entitled "Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan Atlanta," which has been used repeatedly by the CDC to deny the MMR-autism connection, was a fraud." "Dr. Thompson has admitted the 340% increase in boys receiving the MMR vaccine "on time," as opposed to delayed, was buried by himself, Dr. DeStefano, Dr. Bhasin, Dr. Yeargin-Allsopp, and Dr. Boyle. Dr. Thompson first called and spoke with Dr. Brian Hooker, who then revealed the information to Dr. Andrew Wakefield and the Autism Media Channel." The video link I have added tells the story of deception. https://vimeo.com... 1 in 50 children are diagnosed with autism and the CDC is covering up evidence that shows the link that Dr. Wakefield had found. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created when big pharm lobbied the government too create a program where parents could not sue them when vaccines damaged their children. The Pharmaceutical lobby gives more money to government than any other lobby group. http://www.hrsa.gov... When a child is injured by vaccines, the family can not sue, they must go too the vaccine vourt to request compensation. Over 2.5 billion dollars in compensation has been handed out by the program. If vaccines were not damaging children, why would they be handing out over 2.5 billion in compensation? In Italy, you can sue the vaccine companies. A recent ruling found that vaccines do cause autism and the family was awarded compensation. In the USA people call you a nut for claiming a link. Doctors that have done honest research are pushed out of the system and lose their careers. But in Italy, vaccines cause autism. Italian Court Rules MMR Vaccine Caused Autism Valentino Bocca was given an MMR shot in 2004, at the age of 15 months. According to his parents, the change in his behavior was immediate. That same night he refused to eat, and he developed diarrhea during the night. It quickly went downhill from there. Within days he was no longer able to put a spoon to his mouth, and he spent nights crying in pain. His parents immediately suspected the vaccination, but were told this was "impossible." Valentino progressively regressed, and received the diagnosis of autism a year later. In the final analysis, the Italian Health Ministry disagreed with the initial conclusion of the pediatrician, conceding that the vaccine was at fault. As a result, a court in Rimini, Italy recently awarded the Bocca family a 15-year annuity totaling 174,000 Euros (just under $220,000), plus reimbursement for court costs, ruling that Valentino "has been damaged by irreversible complications due to vaccination (prophylaxis trivalent MMR)i." According to a featured article in the UK newspaper, The Independentii, about 100 similar cases are now being examined by Italian lawyers, and more cases may be brought to court. "Luca Ventaloro the family lawyer, said yesterday: "This is very significant for Britain which uses, and has used, an MMR vaccine with the same components as the one given to Valentino. It is wrong for governments and their health authorities to exert strong pressure on parents to take children for the MMR jab while ignoring that this vaccine can cause autism and linked conditions." The number of autism cases has risen sharply since the 1970s, with one in 64 British children affected," The Independent reportsiii . Why is US Media in Black-Out on this Story? It's well worth mentioning that this story has yet to be addressed in the US media... The Daily Mail was the first paper in the UK to talk about it on June 15iv. The Independent was the second to print an article, on June 17. The Daily Mail was the most substantive of the two. Their version included the following statements: "Judge Lucio Ardigo, awarding compensation to the family... said it was 'conclusively established' that Valentino had suffered from an 'autistic disorder associated with medium cognitive delay' and his illness, as Dr Barboni stated, was linked to receiving the jab. Lawyer Mr Ventaloro explained yesterday: 'This is very significant for Britain which uses, and has used, an MMR vaccine with the same components as the one given to Valentino. 'It is wrong for governments and their health authorities to exert strong pressure on parents to take children for the MMR jab while ignoring that this vaccine can cause autism and linked conditions.' So we know that the CDC, the media, big pharm, the government, and the medical profession are lying to the public. 2.5 billion in compensation, Italian court rulings, CDC scientists blowing the whistle, and thousands of parents story's show us that vaccines cause autism. http://www.cdc.gov... http://articles.mercola.com... http://www.hrsa.gov... http://www.autism-society.org...

Hi your argument makes sense, but I am telling you now that it is not only one child not misbehaving in certain lessons, children might be intimidated due to the fact they don't want to go to school. Parents should have the rights to pay for whatever they want so I really don't see how your point is valid to our motion. Private schools do have trips and program that children attending the school could go to.

Protection against unwanted pregnancy is a medical necessity because it must be prevented at all costs, certain women under grave circumstances cannot physically, mentally or emotionally carry the burden of reproduction and as long as their bodies are capable of conceiving a child they should be given guaranteed ways of preventing it and birth control fits the description. The burden of medical necessity lies with a doctor and should not be determined by an insurance company. As for the Viagra claim, the fact that some insurance companies cover this drug proves sexism because no insurance company has ever covered birth control under any circumstances. If certain insurances deem a man's erectile dysfunction as being a medical problem than a women who is battling cancer should be allowed the same coverage. Men cannot bare children this is true but women should not have to suffer because they are capable of bringing life into this world that is one of the reasons as to why we have the equal rights amendment, to procure that women be treated fairly when it comes to men in every aspect regardless of their physical description or biological make up.

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

Im doing this topic for a school essay and want to know other peoples opinions on it. I promise I will not accredit anything without your ok. I just want an argument against this. If you could do this that would be great thanks:)


Question: Should Certain Vaccines Be Mandated for Children?

Cases illustrate that vaccines can have adverse effects on children's health. Every medication comes with potential side effects, yet we don't prohibit all medicines. Vaccinations may lead to minor side effects in most instances, as demonstrated by the following examples: "DTaP/IPV/Hib: Vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, and Hib can cause redness and swelling at the injection site, lasting a few days. Infants may experience mild fever for up to ten days after receiving the shots. PCV: About one in seven children may have redness and inflammation at the injection site. Mild irritability, fever, and digestive issues might occur. MenC: Common side effects include swelling and redness at the injection site. Some toddlers may have disturbed sleep or a light fever within a few days of the jab. Older children might experience a mild headache. MMR: Cold symptoms, fever, and swollen salivary glands might be noticed in children anytime from a few days to three weeks after the MMR shot. Some may develop a rash or loss of appetite for up to ten days." [1] The side effects are relatively minor compared to those of the diseases being vaccinated against. Mild symptoms similar to those of the disease are occasionally seen as side effects, while severe allergic reactions are exceedingly rare. [1]Babies and immunization, BBC Health, accessed 06/13/2011

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.

Kids should be forced to work in the mines, so they won't become obese, retarded, lazy, screen-addicted beasts. So all children from the ages of 6 to 18 should be forced to work in the mines for 100 hours a year. Now what do you think?

Thank you for joining me. A. First, allow me to detail that which I agree with in your first statement. 1. Parents are responsible for their children. 2. Parents are responsible for teaching their children anything they don't learn in school. 3. Religious teaching is the responsibility of the parents. B. Now, I will detail two other points. 1. I am not arguing that a government should tell any parent how to teach their children. I am in favor of parents having the ability to homeschool their children. Although, I do recognize that a poor teacher is a poor teacher regardless of their relation to the student. 2. Also, I do not care if a religion has a process to confirm any of its maturing congregation. That is beside the point I am attempting to make. C. My point still stands. 1. Parents should teach their children critical thinking. It is the obligation of a good parent to ensure their children know basic decision-making skills. They should do this regarding all decisions, but especially questions which do not have absolute answers. 2. It is morally wrong to tell a child an absolute statement which in reality is a mere belief. 3. I think that it disintegrates the child's ability to make coherent decisions because the child learns to accept things without thinking them through.

If the baby needs to die, It is for the mother to decide. I am pro-Choice, But for many reasons. 1: What if there needs to be scientific research on Fetuses? A mother can donate the child, Even if it is barely months old, It can be aborted according to trimester. 2: What if the child has a serious disease before it is born? A doctor can tell you that before 3rd trimester, And many don't want to see their child suffer the economic and suffering their child will endure. Watching suffering happen and not taking the choice to stop it before they suffer is just cruel to the child. 3: More on economy. What if the mother doesn't have the money to continue taking care of a child? What will happen is again, The child will suffer and most good parents don't want to see what happened to them happen to their child. 4: Excluding when the baby is born. This means if the mother is dying before they are born can't have abortions. What happens to the fetus then? It dies before it is born! What would be the point of it then, Huh? 5: Ask women why they would have abortions, Neither of us are men, What gives you the right to say that women shouldn't have abortions? Besides, Ask a woman yourself. 6: Most fetuses aren't alive, Actually. According to the 5 laws of biology, A child must reproduce, Respond to stimuli, Have regulation, Maintain homeostasis, And process energy. This means that in order for it to be alive, It must follow these laws independently. A fetus requires its mother to live, Or it would die. This means it doesn't have the ability to do this independently, And is not considered alive. For these reasons, I believe we shouldn't outlaw Abortions.

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...

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!

Okay you have no sources. You claim that because adolescents have personal liberty or freedom of choices (which is true for every living thing) that they should make their own medical choices. Your source is a book which I haven't read so I have no idea if such a book exists! Therfore that is an unaccurate and unsupported source. I have stated why it is up to the adults to make a desicision. If you want I could add some science in also. Adolescents are particularly sensitive and responsive to influence by friends, desires and emotions, researchers say. It"s one of the hallmarks of this stage in life. Teenagers often don't make the right choices. "A major reason why teenagers often respond to influences with irrational decisions is the presence of a brain chemical known as dopamine. The brain releases dopamine when something makes us feel good, whether it"s receiving a teacher"s compliment or finding a $20 bill. Dopamine levels in general peak during adolescence. In teenagers, the strength of this "feel good" response helps explain why they often give in to impulsive desires." https://student.societyforscience.org... If you want to talk Bible talk, "Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord." https://www.biblegateway.com... In conclusion to this round it should be clear why adolescents shouldn't be allowed to independently make medical desicions. I look forward to my opponents response again.

1. Seat belts only apply to the person wearing them. If i don't wear a seat belt, the worst possible thing that can happen is that i get injured. No-one else is affected by this. 2. Adults should be able to choose how they handle things that only affect them. For instance, if i smoke alone, on my property, i should be mature enough to realize the consequences. I am not harming anyone else, so i should have the right to choose. 3. Minors will still have to wear seat belts. I believe that children are not mature enough to make decisions like this, that can potentially harm them. One point i want to clear up is that i am not endorsing that people should smoke and not wear seat belts, just that if they feel like they want to, they should have that right.

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. ===

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


Question: Should the Use of Performance-Enhancing Substances be Permitted in Athletics?

Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be accepted in professional sports.
I concur that PEDs should be allowed in sports. Permitting PEDs would help to equalize the playing field. According to a New York Times report, over one-third of the top Tour de France finishers since 1998 have been confirmed to have used performance-enhancing drugs during the race, despite efforts to prevent it (1). This data demonstrates that those who adhere to the rules and abstain from PEDs have a significantly lower chance of success. If the Tour de France racers who did not use PEDs were permitted to do so, they would have had the same advantages as those who currently use them illegally, resulting in a more level playing field. One of the primary reasons people watch professional sports is to witness the pinnacle of human athletic achievement. Allowing PEDs would elevate the level of competition and skill in professional sports, making athletic achievements even more impressive and attracting more spectators to these events. As Forbes explains, "A significant part of watching sports is seeing the pinnacle of human athletic ability, and legalizing performance-enhancing drugs would help athletes reach even higher (2)." This demonstrates that PEDs can enhance the level of sports, making them an even greater spectacle. For instance, during the 1990s, when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa used steroids, their games were frequently sold out due to people's interest in witnessing their enhanced abilities (2). I will now address my opponent's arguments. My opponent contends that PEDs pose a significant risk to athletes. However, athletes who use PEDs are already in a dangerous profession and are often injured regardless of whether they use drugs. In 2013 alone, the NFL reported at least 152 concussions and was compelled to spend up to $765 million to settle claims of traumatic head injuries brought by former players (3). Thus, PEDs do not significantly increase the injury risk compared to the inherent risks of professional sports. My opponent also argues that allowing PEDs diminishes true human achievement. However, being an athlete requires a high level of skill regardless of PED use. For example, hitting a home run necessitates excellent timing and a precise swing. PEDs may increase the distance of a home run, but hitting it is still a demonstration of your own human, not chemical, precision. Therefore, performing in sports always requires intricate skill, with or without PEDs. It is evident that PEDs do not detract from human

College athletes spend an average of 43.3 hours dedicated to their sport [1]. Why should they only be paid what their tuition is worth, when coaches and other people profit off the NCAA and make millions of dollars? Paying college athletes would make the sports more competitive. Athletes would work harder to be more valuable. This wiuld make the games more exciting. It would also prevent college athletes from struggling financially. Paying athletes also allows them to leave school with more than just a degree; they can also have a savings account. Perhaps some of them will invest their money and learn maturity. There are ways to pay college athletes fairly that do not necessarily burden the schools, but reward the players their due compensation [2]. I can expand on this in the next round. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://www.nytimes.com...

I don't know of a single sport whose athletes would not be able to effectively argue points as to why their particular sport is "better." However, given your supporting argument, I'm personally having a hard time even understanding which side of this argument you're on, given that the title says that Rhythmic/Artistic gymnastics are "better than any other sport," but your argument seems to be against that claim. Perhaps you should clarify your actual stance in the next round so we can have a more legitimate debate.

I, pro, will be arguing for the legalization of the recreational use of marijuana, also known as weed. Format: Round 1 - Opening statements (not arguments) Round 2 - Pro begins opening argument, con rebuttals Round 3 - Final arguments and statements Rules: 1. Don't troll 2. Use correct grammar and spelling 3. You will have 72 hours to respond. This should be more than enough time and both person's are expected to submit their arguments during this time frame to prevent bugs and glitches 4. Be civil 5. There is a max of 8,000 characters. If you need more, put it on a Google document and post the link as your argument. 6. If you need extra time or wish to continue the debate, message your opponent.

I can not agree with you, because as I know, sport always helped, helps and will help promote health. For example to take an old people, who are over 60, for what they are do exercises and jogging? To be in good shape and to strengthen their immune system. Or people wake up a bit earlier for what? To do a stretching, to temper their body.

Hey! How are you doin'? I'm daddydrerek616, And I don't believe that the United States federal government should legalize all drugs. First off, Smoking is for retards. No one wants to have health problems, Right? Well, The disabled honkeys seem to do. Now, Let's take a look at cigarettes. They cause lung cancer. No smart white person would want that, Unless they are disabled. Now, You might argue that they can't stop smoking, But my question is, Why did they start smoking them in the first place? I still don't get that. Why would you want lung cancer as a part of your life? Cigarettes should be banned because of this. Second, Marijuana. Niggers love to smoke it and get high everyday. It's so god damn annoying. It's already illegal in the first place, So why make it legal now? Also, No, We shouldn't have medical marijuana, Because the black people are just going to abuse the system so they can get high like the niggers they are. Third, Meth. Yeah, Screw that. Meth f#cks people up. 'Nuff said. I could go ON AND ON AND ON about how bad drugs are. Basically, Drugs are bad, And only disabled honkeys, Niggers, And other races smoke. Us smart white people are clean, And don't like drugs.

Lately, Some people have been saying, "steroids would make baseball more interesting" I've heard that a lot. I just simply think that they would make America's Pastime LESS interesting than ever. Pitchers would be pitching 115 MPH regularly. Hitters would have a lot of trouble hitting. And when they do make contact, it would be nothing but HRs

I don't know how you are so convinced that Barry Bonds intentionally took steroids. He already had a huge contract. Why would he all of the sudden want to do a risky act that could put him in jail and kick him out of the MLB? Barry has a very good work ethic, and, I believe, he worked out for how big he is now. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason that Barry Bonds should lose his legally won record, because he did NOT use steroids.

When you say me saying marijuana Is a drug is not neccesarily permissible is incorrect. Marijuana is a drug regardless of its effects. Whether it helps or not it is still a drug. It is a schedule one substance that shows its value and where it stands. Some pills used for pain such as Tylenol even though it is not extreme will take away your pain, and not alter your brain. It won't alter your senses or your perception. Marijuana does. The effects are similar not the same, and the effects at completely diffrent. Banning and something being illegal is pretty much the same thing? The argument I made that you spoke on and tried to break down didn't make since. However it is a good thing cocaine is illegal as well as other drugs because it is helping the community and the people whom don't know any better. Sure you can say it's a freedom of choice. If someone didnt know any Better or we young, they would be not prone to try it, and even more at that if it was legalised. Cocaine shouldnt be used, it's not the same as Ritalin or else that would be illegal as well. Cocaine makes you ugly :/. When you say if someone wants to take it for a small reason makes it acceptable, then you are also for recreational use. Because if someone went into a dispensary to get cannabis with a scratch, and got some. That's not medical use. A traditional mindset means that if you are destroying your body to have fun and enjoy at an expense that you are ruining your body is not very smart. Right have fun and get hurt. There are other ways to have fun. But hey their lives and outlooks. I'm sure however grandparents in the older generations were not going out and getting wasted and intoxicated. In the end it is free choice of the states. If people want It that bad, then it will be legalized. The world did people a favor out of education and knowing right from wrong. Just like a mother not giving her obese child a candy bar. free choice right :) However once it becomes legal professionals will regret the decision after seeing the consequences. Maybe the government is doing themsleves a favor to get nor money. Yes it has a big impact on the economy but it is unnecesary. I believe smart people will refrain. Don't indulge in worldly pleasures and you will see the garden -to religious people is this quote. An excessive user does eventually become slow. And this I noticable. Chemical dependency one. It's harder for them to learn things that would be easier to other people.

As you can see, my opponent has forfieted a round as well. Drug legalization is a stupid idea to be honest, because it will a big danger to humans, and will also cause a large death rate due to people using drugs in the wrong way.

Okay, why don't we examine this debate from first a moral standpoint and then a logical one. The value I am basing my debate on is EQUALITY. First, the moral standpoint. Women pretending to be men? No, we're not. Quite honestly, I find it a bit insulting. I am all for diversity. Sure, women are different. That's great. But going so far as banning women from participating? That is not only irrational, but unfair as well. "Separate but equal" was a term coined in the 60s to promote racial segregation. As we know now, this is not fair, equal, or, to put it simply, 'okay.' In fact, going so far as to ban a person from sports due to organs between their legs is both morally reprehensible and an unfair act protected by a thin barrier of "logic". See, statistically speaking, women account for 78% of healthcare works. [1] But should we ban men from entering this job? Of course not. Next, why don't we move on to the logical standpoint.Before I begin, can you provide evidence from your claim that "most men don't think womens sport means diddle squat apart from...". Even if you can provide evidence, WHY does it matter? See, while I understand that men's sports, historically speaking, have brought in more revenue than women's, this is NOT the sole purpose of sports. Like I already mentioned, having superior ability, winning, or sex organs doesn't constitute a valid reason for participating (or not participating) in an activity. Sports can be used to express oneself, to stay physically active, to bond with friends, to have fun in a friendly competition, and even to burn off excess energy. For many, it's even a form of therapy. And who are you to deny women the right to any of these outlets? Furthermore, you argue against "political correct[ness]". Can you elaborate on this so I can gain a clearer understanding?[1] http://www.forbes.com...