Question: Should Certain Vaccinations Be Mandated for Children?

Compulsory vaccination for children

Vaccinations should be compulsory for all eligible children before they reach adolescence, not just to safeguard them, but to protect the overall health of the community. Vaccines are safe and highly effective, and they are more cost-effective than medical treatment for diseases. Severe reactions to vaccines are exceedingly rare. The number of deaths caused by vaccine-preventable diseases is undeniably high. Preventing these deaths through vaccination not only saves lives but also benefits the growth and well-being of the community. Misinformation lacking scientific evidence continues to spread, and if this trend continues, future generations may become unvaccinated, potentially leading to major outbreaks. It's time to take action. Parents want to do everything in their power to keep their children safe. Protect them by vaccinating them.

My opponent has completely ignored my argument that children are incapable of making correct decisions. "children are independent and dont always agree with what their parents say about stuff" This argument doesn't say anything about why children should make their own choices. "and they should make their own life choices as it is their life and not their parents life" It may be their life but while the children are living with their parents, they are the responsibility of their parents and parents have the right to make decisions for them.

I was a little shocked that instead of denying Americans deserve freedom to choose religion, food, drink and smoke that your post actually affirms what I have been saying! Government over steps it's bounds way too often. This is supposed to be a country "for the people, by the people." I didn't vote for a ban on soda, less calories in schools or obamacare. I do believe there should be no junk food in schools but if a kid brings their own then let him/her enjoy it. As I noted in the comment section, there are students feeling like they are starving by the end of school and definitely by the end of after school activities. The school lunch program was to ensure ALL students receive some sort of sustenance and nutrition, not pay 25 cents more for less food!!! Thanks michelle! I believe the actual quote was "if the only tool you have is a hammer, every job looks like it requires a nail" I am not positive but it is a little easier to understand that way. I have worked on so many machines that I have no favorite tool. NDOT's TDM is a bunch of fools. They do not know how to build roads properly, how to have safe and effective egress and their lack of knowledge of how to synchronize traffic light is troubling. The biggest problem with the Las Vegas road system is that too many los angeles engineers moved here and they had warped conceptions on how to handle traffic. They think having to stop at every light prevents speeding but everyone here races to beat the light!?!?! I don't even want to get started on "global warming" and "climate change". It is a lie designed to create more money for the government in taxes and carbon credits PERIOD! Look at Italian/Roman art over the last 2000 years. From the 150 BC to 300 AD they were shown is summer type clothing. From 300 AD to 900 AD they are shown in longer togas and layered clothing. Again from 900 to 1200 hundred the clothing was lighter and shorter. From 1250 to 1400 the clothing was again longer and layered. This was the time of REAL climate change, they had very many floods and droughts. By the mid 1400's clothing became very heavy and rarely recorded weather of the time period, up to the mid 1800's, was almost never over 65 degrees Fahrenheit. In the late 1800's there were temperatures in the 90's and on occasion 100's in the summer. In the 1950's it cooled again and in 1988 a warming trend started. Times change and all things with it. The earth has warmed and cooled for a million years and will do so for about another million. The above dates are approximate and the clothing is not just fashion it shows the climate of the time. If you wish to view a 2,000 year old tree ring that shows the change in temperatures of Northern Europe go here http://www.dailymail.co.uk... As far as homosexuals and gambling I think that is individual right. I don't like anything gay around me but if a flamer comes in and sits next to me at the bar it is his/her right as long as they don't harass me. If someone wants to risk all their money I think it is their right but so that person's rights don't trample other's rights, they should HAVE to be logged in. If you lose everything from gambling and file bankruptcy or try to get welfare you should be denied. You have the right to bankruptcy if your business can no longer compete and welfare if you are down by no fault of your own but when it is out of your own ignorance the American people should not have to bail you out. I would expect a church or charity to help though. That is the great thing about Americans, when left to there own accord they always come through for their neighbors.

The term 'medicine' means a drug or other preparation for the treatment or prevention of disease. This might seem like an abstract problem until you need to get medicine for your dying child. Perhaps your child is seriously ill because of a preventable illness; the medicine he/she needs is 2-3 hours away by foot; when you get there, there's no guarantee that the clinic will be open or have anything in stock. And even if you could get to the clinic and everything was available, how are you going to pay for it? Thousands of people in the rural areas of Nicaragua face this problem on a daily basis. One proposal suggests that community health workers (promoters) could receive a portion of the medicine fee for each prescription. In practice, this leads to extremely negative trends, as promoters are tempted to over-prescribe medications to get more money, and only the wealthiest members of the community could afford them. On top of all this, the poorest of the poor no longer have access to medicine. Obviously the best option here is to supply the medicines for free. Prescription drugs Prescription drugs are a major component of the overall cost of caring for the elderly. By some reports, persons sixty-five and older spend an average of over three percent of their income on prescription drugs. That percentage is even higher when over-the-counter medications are included. Reports show that more than 53.26% of senior citizens are below the poverty line.This means that over half of the senior citizens are not financially well-off. Cancer,heart and respiratory diseases and diabetes are the most common and killer diseases among senior citizens.Treating these diseases cost a lot of money ad again ,the best option here is to give away those medicines for free. Hence, I believe that medicines should be made free.

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.

I hereby state that the opinions stated below and the arguments presented do not necessarily dictate my personal opinions.As commonly proposed, democracy is of the people, for the people, and by the people. The basis of democracy depends on the effectiveness of the state to grant its citizens with the right to vote and the citizens to respect that right. Democracy exists on the notion that all the eligible citizens vote for a future that they would like to see. However, in many democracies, today, a decrease in this number of eligible citizens at the voting booths has been witnessed. This is why I call for voting to be compulsory in all effective democracies. I will first present a mechanism that will address the issues at hand. Then, I will refute the arguments presented by Con as I go through my first two arguments and get to any points of rebuttal left at the end. Mechanism: All registered voters will be asked to compulsorily cast a vote during the elections. However, for those who do not have a chosen candidate or do not wish to vote on the particular election, there will be an option to not vote which would say something on the lines of “I wish to abstain from voting”. Those citizens who are registered, but do not place a vote, will be withdrawn from the list of registered voters, until they register again. On the second time of registration, they will be fined a decently hefty amount. So, we are looking into a system where a onetime registered person will be expected to vote each election year. There will be an additional law added which will ask all employers to give a day off for each one of their employees such that workload does not become an issue of low turnout.Argument 1: A better distinction between the citizens. People who are registered voters have an interest in voting for the country. By mandating them to vote each year, we are keeping our responsible eligible voters active. The turnout rate has gone very low with unequal turnout also a big issue. However, what the status quo does not tell us is the real reason behind this low turnout. Once this distinction is made, the state will be more aware of their political institutions. This will then help them see if attention should be paid to improve the campaigning systems and the procedure of political election. If many people vote to abstain, then the state will have to make sure that the political leaders express themselves better and also will have to see that a diversity of principles are presented by the leading parties. Con argued that the registered voters not voting is mainly due to reason that they are “not particularly excited by any candidates, or because they are disenchanted by their favored political Party”. The best way to confirm this will be by asking these voters to show up at the polling stations and pick the option that says they would like to abstain. This practice will help us distinguish between the people who see the political parties of the particular year to be not legit from those who just do not want to make the effort to vote. There are many other reasons for which one may not like to vote. One, being diversion from the workload and other being laziness. To make sure that these reasons do not rule the low turnout, the proposed mechanism should be adopted. The lazy people will be ousted from the registered voters list and would have to pay a penalty if they want to vote the next time. However, some of these smart lazy people will be able to see that they could save a fine and the time spent on the process of registering by going to the polling station. And if they are just going there, why not have at least some information about the parties. This will increase the effectiveness of a democracy, which will be addressed in Argument 3. Argument 2: Unfairness abolished It is important to notice that politicians place a lot of focus on making sure that their supporters go to the polling stations and place their votes, without regards to those who would probably not vote. However, if the proposed mechanism is adopted and voting is made compulsory for all registered voters, politicians will now have to make sure that most of the registered voters vote for them. They will also have to focus on the hard labor workers who could sometimes not make it to the polling stations and those people who did believe that the parties were not any good this election period. Con argued that “the duties and rights of citizens are importantly different from those of their representatives, because the latter have powers and responsibilities that the former do not...Citizens do not owe their government electoral support or legitimacy.” This claim supports a system where democracy can never work effectively. Not only democracy, any institution cannot work without a mutual share of duties of the powerful and the ruled. The citizens do have a responsibility to vote, which in our system, could also be a vote of abstention. How can citizens expect to take advantage of a democratic institution without fulfilling their own job of placing a vote? Except those who have researched and did not get fascinated by a candidate, all the other citizens have a duty to keep tuned with the political parties and then make a decision. Secondly, Con emphasized that compulsory voting takes away the right of people to have a choice, which Con suggested was “the point of democracy”. I would like to also emphasize that in the proposed mechanism this choice of the people will be respected. They will be given a choice to vote or not and for whom to vote. The proposed mechanism will both support the rights of the people and ask them to perform their duties.Argument 3: Democratic Ideals promotedThis argument will be presented in the next round.Remaining rebuttals to Con’s case:Con was worried about the fines that will follow after people will not vote. Con was right to say that this would negatively affect the poor and may increase the number of criminals who owe fine debt. However, the mechanism clearly states that a fine will only have to be paid if one wishes to register again. This will work as an incentive for registered voters to not skip a voting period. And if for some reason they do, they will not have to worry about a fine until the next elections and will only have to worry if they wish to vote next time.None of the Con’s arguments so far have shown a downfall to the proposed mechanism for the motion at hand. The mechanism works really well to make a distinction between the citizens and find out the weaknesses of the political institutions of a state and also abolishes unfairness on many grounds. This is why I urge a strong Proposition vote.

Thank you for that round. My opponent claims "Parents CANNOT simply decide to refuse a medical treatment that is determined to be necessary and essential for their daughter by a physician (such as a medical abortion) (or in the case of this news article from this week, lymphoma) The judge will base this on the patient's wishes (decision) and the patient's best interest (health - regardless of parents choice)" My opponent would like you to believe that abortion is "essential" to the health of the patient. I do understand that children who are pregnant could face sever medical complications during their term, but abortion is just as dangerous. Abortions could leave to future ectopic pregnancies (a mother has a 12% chance of dieing in an ectopic pregnancy), women who abort are 50% more vulnerable to breast cancer, Abruptio Placenta which is when the sac holding the baby (the placenta) tears away from the uterine lining. This can result in extreme and severe life-threatening bleeding. Women who have experienced abortion have a 600% increase in their risk for Abruptio Placenta in future pregnancies, emotional distress including: * acute feeling of grief * depression * anger * fear of disclosure * preoccupation with babies or getting pregnant again * nightmares * sexual dysfunction * termination of relationships * emotional coldness * increased alcohol and drug abuse * eating disorders * anxiety * flashbacks of the abortion procedure * anniversary syndrome * repeat abortions * suicide Many of these women go on to report that they regret their choice and would do anything to go back and undo the decision that resulted in so much pain. ramahinternational.org/abortion_risks.htm So, a lot of harm is done by receiving an abortion. And judges (complete strangers) shouldn't be able to dictate to parents what is in the best interests of THEIR children. My opponent claims "you need to consider one thing, this is real-life, not a cliche made up world. you cannot say "parents know whats best" or "parents make decision for kids because kids cant make decisions" Well, I think that parents are certainly more educated in the field of abortion when compared to their teenage daughters. And even if that daughter consults with a doctor, that doctor cannot deny that teenage girl an abortion under law. If parents are permitted to, parents can. Opponent: "Physicians assess the capacity of their patients in every patient encounter" However, this is not mandated by any law. Which means their is no penalty for doctors who do not access the mental capability of their patients. And if it is not mandated by law, then doctors don't have to comply with that unwritten "moral code". Opponent: "as well, the following publication by the ACLU indicates that a minor patient can go against the wishes of the parents in regards to abortion" The ACLU? Please, you must be kidding me. The American Civil Liberties Union is of course going to favor the "Civil Liberties" of the mother. Opponent: "I will simply disagree with the PRO'S argument that parents can be better judges than physicians in regards to when a medical abortion is necessary to terminate an ill pregnancy that can physically harm the child. (physicians KNOW about the necessity of medical abortion more than parents)" The question of "necessity" is established above. However, parents know more about the morals and such they enforce in their home. And if they don't want their daughter to receive an abortion, she shouldn't.

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.

Its going to be K, theory, topicality, 1AC --- K SHELL Text - Compulsory immunization leads to an increase in biopower which is unjust A) Link FORCING PEOPLE TO COMPULSORILY VACCINATE AND THEREFORE MANDATORILY RECEIVE SOME LEVEL OF HEALTHCARE LEADS TO INCREASED BIOPOWER Chambon 1999 (Adrienne, director of Ph. D program at U Toronto, Ph. D in Social Work from U Chicago, Columbia University Press New York , Reading Foucault for Social Work, "Foucault's Approach," p. 66-7) In The Birth of the Clinic (1975) Foucault argued that the development of medicine did not limit itself to knowledge of illness and disease but extended its influence to ordinary behaviors, creating knowledge about the body and health and defining normality: Medicine must no longer be confined to a body of techniques for curing ills and of the knowledge that they require; it will also embrace a knowledge of healthy man, that is, a study of non-sick man and a definition of the model man. In the ordering of human existence it assumes a normative posture, which authorizes it not only to distribute advice as to healthy life, but also to dictate the standards for physical and moral relations of the individual and of the society in which he lives. (4) Here Foucault is questioning the mechanisms and the effects of "negative" and "positive" shaping (see chap. 7). On that basis we can view the rapid expansion of health promotion models (Lupton 1995), and even contemporary ethics, as current attempts to extend a normalizing influence over individuals and populations. > B) Impact INCREASED BIOPOWER LEADS TO INCREASED WARS AND GENOCIDES. Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. New York: Vintage, 1990 Wars are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign who must be defended; they are waged on the behalf of the ontological existence of everyone; entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of life necessity: massacres have become vital. It is as managers of life and survival, of bodies and the race, that so many regimes have been able to wage so many wars, causing so many men to be killed. And thorugh a turn that closes the circle, as the technology of wars has caused them to tend increasingly toward all-out destruction, the decision that initiates them and the one that terminates them are in fact increasingly informed by the naked question of survival. The atomic situation is now at the end point of this process: the power to expose a whole population to death is the underside of the power to guarantee an individual's continued existence. C) Alternative THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO RETRACE OUR WAYS OF KNOWING BY GENEALOGY. CHAMBON '99 [FROM ABOVE] A genealogical approach to social work is an invitation to retrace specific ways of doing and knowing; to illuminate how operating assumptions have clustered together and changed over time; and to identify the events and circumstances that acted as turning points in our profession. At a time when "case management" is redefining the meaning of a "case," a genealogical inquiry requires that we set aside what we hold to be true about the nature of "the social work case" and that we retrace the history of its development and usage-that we examine the various forms the notion of case took over time, the different types of expertise it generated, and the diversity of responses. Adopting a genealogical perspective is to ask ourselves how we have come to define a case the way we do now and what that presupposes. Other practices can equally be examined, such as the "problem-solving" rationality, or the ways in which we understand and intervene in the family. -- THEORY A) Interpretation - Debate should not have ground skew; ground skew allows one debater to structurally be able to win easier without necessarily being the better debater and is therefore unfair. Reciprocal burdens are also key to fairness because it alters the structure upon with the debate is premised upon. B) Violation - Observation 2 on the 1AC allows the affirmative debater to advocate any amount of the population being immunized, meaning that the resolution a) becomes nonsensical because the affirmative ground could also be 0% of the population being compulsorily immunized which would be the only negative ground thereby positing that affirming and negating are equivalent whereas two contradictory actions cannot b) structurally skews the debate because it does not allow the negative debater to i) make solvency disads ii) make vaccine disads specific to certain groups iii) make arguments regarding exemptions for certain groups of people C) Standards The standard are reciprocity and ground skew. The violations above both link back into ground skew and reciprocity because it holds me to a higher standard and steals negative ground. D) Voter The voter is fairness. Fairness is key because it allows debate to be structurally and substantively smooth; moreover, debate is structured like a game as there are strategic advantages for certain arguments to be made. Also, people won't play an unfair game so to maintain debate as a practice, debate needs to be fair. Fairness leads to education because education is the favorable outcome of debate and insofar as people won't play this game, debate isn't educational either meaning that fairness is a prerequisite for education. This means that you will reject the affirmative debater because we don't know what would have happened if this debate were not skewed as he has skewed this debate to favor him. -- TOPICALITY A) Interpretation - Justify is defined by OED as to show to be just B) Violation - This places an intrinsic burden on the affirmative to show the policy action in question just, not more just or less just. The 2nd contention deals with voluntary immunization which is A) not proving the truth value and B) irrelevant to the context of this debate since I'm not running that counterplan. The 1st contention deals with saving lives but there are other negative rights too such as that of autonomy. Just because have life doesn't necessarily guarantee we are autonomous as we can all be in cages and have life but not autonomy. C) Standards - my interpretation is the same as my opponents; I show that my opponent doesn't meet his own interpretation D) Voters - the purpose of debate is for the affirmative to prove the resolution true; insofar as my opponent doesn't meet this implicit burden it becomes impossible to affirm. --- 1AC Go to the value stuff - the value/standard debate doesn't matter insofar as I'm proving that the resolution is not true; we can have multiple methods of achieving the same goal goal - to prove or disprove the truth value of the resolution. 2nd, I link because genocide leads to suffering. Go to O1 - there is no solvency mechanism for the WHO; its just a claim. Go to O2 - cross apply theory here. C2 is irrelevant - not an independent reason to affirm as there are a) other alternatives besides voluntary like the genealogy alt I'm giving and b) I'm not advocating voluntary. C1: A) Cross apply the T violation here; we can have people living and still have them suffering, meaning this is insufficient to affirm. B) This is nonunique; genealogy would lead us to finding the issues regarding compulsory and biopower and would eventually fix it. This means that I'm also solving for these problems. C) Certain minorities do not have access to diseases in the status quo, meaning herd immunity may not be achieved. Hospital closures result in lost access. CLARK 05 [Hospital Flight From Minority Communities: How Our Existing Civil Rights Framework Fosters Racial Inequality In Healthcare," DePaul Journal of Health Care Law] These closures have primarily occurred in urban areas with the greatest need and least resources. Remaining hospitals willing to care for minorities or the poor are either located far enough away that timely

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!

You said if vaccines weren't safe then doctors wouldn't be giving them to us, right? Well sadly that's wrong vaccines do hurt us. Vaccines can cause a threat to our bodies. Common childhood vaccinations may cause serious reactions including anaphylactic shocks, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not life threatening. Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillian-Barre Syndrome (GBS) and other disorders. Vaccines can cause a clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules, which may lead to lymphatic cancers suck as leukemia and lymphoma. www.vaccines.procon.org


Question: Should Certain Vaccinations Be Mandated for Children?

Should children in public schools be permitted to forgo vaccinations due to religious beliefs? I find this argument frustrating. It's true that vaccines once contained trace amounts of mercury, but two points are worth considering: 1) Modern vaccines no longer include mercury. 2) Even when they did, the amount was so negligible that you'd consume more mercury from a can of tuna than from all your childhood vaccinations combined. Thus, vaccines no longer contain mercury, and they never had enough to cause harm. I'll share a brief video that I encourage you to watch and react to.

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

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.

No parents shouldn't be allowed to vaccinate their children because they lead to autism

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

I will be arguing that homeschooling should not be allowed in America, and that children should be made to go to a public or private school. Pro will be arguing for allowing homeschooling. Definitions: Homeschooling - to teach school subjects to one's children at home instead of sending them to school (public or private) Rules: 1. The first round is for acceptance only 2. No trolling or semantics 3. No forfeits 4.

I accept. Since no rules were set in round 1, I will make the assumption I can begin my arguments."All buses should have seat belts"I disagree that all busses should have seat belts.I agree that some busses, those that are smaller in size, should require seatbelts for passengers. Not standard sized or larger school bussesThis topic has been debated by public officials and they have concluded that large busses offer enough protection to shield the passengers inside from harm.The National Highway Transportation Administration says, "School bus transportation is one of the safest forms of transportation in the United States." School busses that currently do not have seat belts."Overall, travel on school bus is the safest way to travel- 40 times safer than riding in a car - with only a handful of deaths occurring to passengers on school buses every year."-http://publictransport.about.com...Additionally, 1) seatbelts can and will be used as a weapon by immature children to injure other students 2) it would be impossible to ensure a bus-full of children do not undo their seatbealts 3) seat belts may trap the child in their seat in the case of an emergency: fire, flooding, etc,.http://www.nea.org...In addition to the debunked safety issue, there is the issue of cost and room:In conclusion: Some busses, the smaller, shorter ones, but not the standard size or large sized busses should not require seatbealts."It is estimated that adding seatbelts to buses would add between $8,000 and 15,000 to the cost of each bus. In addition, seatbelts would take up room currently used as seats, meaning that each bus would have fewer seating places. The additional room in the bus taken up by seatbelts would mean that bus fleets would have to increase by as much as 15% just to carry the same number of people."http://publictransport.about.com...In conclusion: Some busses, the smaller, shorter ones, but not the standard size or large sized busses should require seatbealts. Adding seatbelts to already safe transportation but adding factors of:1) new costs2) decreased seat space, 3) kids using the seatbelts as weapons, 4) trapping kids in their seat during emergenciesand given that 5) it is impossible to ensure each child will remain buckled in his or her seat 6) large and standard sized school busses are already one of the safest forms of transportation without seat belts

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.

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...

We should not be in the position to choose who lives and dies. this is what you wrote. we are not in the position of who lives and who dies. we do this because there is crazy people in this world who don't belong. I don't mean special needs I mean people who the feeling of killing people. im probably going to lose I can tell

The bottom line is that the feds have given up without a fight and settled the Autism rates are up about 10000% in just two generations- the rates are about 1000 times higher in vaccinated vs unvaccinates SIDS is UNKNOWN in unvaccinated infants, and is ALWAYS within 2 weeks of vaccinations being administered there are 1000s of cases of children coming down with illness or being permanently retarded from massive vaccinations at a young age my child was personally affected - she got ITP 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 If you cant , it proves youre just a government hack liar More government settlements to come More coverups to come More govenment lies to come DONT VACCINATE YOUR INFANTS ! you have been warned SOLARMAN


Question: Should Certain Vaccines be Mandated for Pediatric Immunization?

All negative points regarding vaccines

A vaccine controversy often emerges due to disputes over the ethics, effectiveness, and safety of vaccinations. Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the benefits of vaccination in preventing suffering and death from infectious diseases, some individuals argue against vaccination. Critics claim that vaccines are ineffective, dangerous, or that personal hygiene is a better alternative. They also argue that mandatory vaccinations violate individual rights or religious principles.

In the late 18th century, vaccination began, and opponents have always existed. Some argue that vaccines have never provided public health benefits. They contend that the reduction in communicable diseases is due to improved living conditions, not vaccination. Others argue that vaccine-induced immunity is temporary and requires boosters, whereas natural immunity lasts longer.

Critics also claim that the risk to older or weaker adults may outweigh the benefits of lowering the mortality rate among the general population. They point to the resurgence of diseases following reductions in vaccination rates in several countries. For example, in Stockholm in 1873, an anti-vaccination campaign led to a drop in vaccination rates, followed by a major smallpox epidemic. In the UK in the 1970s and 80s, a scare over the whooping cough vaccine caused a decrease in vaccination rates, leading to pertussis epidemics and deaths. In Sweden from 1979 to 1996, a suspension of whooping cough vaccination resulted in 60% of children contracting the disease, with a death rate of about one per year.

In the Netherlands in 1999-2000, an outbreak of measles occurred in an unvaccinated religious community, resulting in deaths and hospitalizations. In the UK and Ireland in 2000, a drop in vaccination rates due to the MMR vaccine controversy led to a measles outbreak. In Nigeria from 2001 onward, conservative religious leaders advised against vaccination, leading to outbreaks of polio, measles, and diphtheria.

Safety concerns about vaccines are also common. All vaccines can cause side effects, and immunization safety is a real concern. However, the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks. The scientific evidence does not support the hypothesis that vaccines cause disorders such as autism. The idea of vaccine overload, that giving many vaccines at once may weaken a child's immune system, has also been debunked. Numerous studies have shown that vaccine burden does not compromise overall immunity.

The thiomersal controversy, where thiomersal was removed

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.

Contention 1: Ignoring Adolescent Autonomy harms soceity. One of the key issues we have here is when we force adolescents to do something. When forcing them to take a life-changing procedure one can see that this issue would cause them to rebel and harm others. [1] This is often aimed at parents, doctors, and/or even the medical team. This, as an immidiate affect, could purpose such a harm to the point to where substantially injuries may occur from this act of force against Adolescents. You may ask yourself what is the solution to such a task outside of strapping the child down and forcing him to do something. The answer is simply allowing him to make choices for himself and in order to see if that is a viable situation and value one must first test it with Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperitives testing. This involeves Universalizability and Reversability. [2]Universalizability is how would it affect society if it was applied to everyone. We can see that, as I'll show throughout this debate, that on a universal scale that if all Adolescents have Autonomy and were able to make their own choices soceity would be better off. Now this doesn't mean that if they want to they can go and kill people as that would be a violation of the Categorical Imperitives and the argument wouldn't be able to stand. Next is Reversability, remember a few years back when you were an Adolescent. We all hated it when we were constantly told what to do, but loved it when we got some freedoms even though they came with responsibilities. As Adolescents we loved it and since we accepted it as Adolescents it can thus be accepted as a Reversable law. Finially we must observe Kant's Kingdom of Ends. [3] Here Kant argues that no one human must be used as a Means to an end, but only as Ends in the Kingdom of Ends. Thus you cannot use people to do something for you or do something that makes people do something, like remove a kidney if they don't want to, in order to reach a betterment of the whole or for another ends. For example, say the USFG institues a manditory Organ Harvesting program. It would be breaking the Kingdom of Ends by using people to get to an ends. Thus it shouldn't be accepted as it violates the Kingdom of Ends. Adolescent Autonomy keeps the Kingdom of Ends and keeps up with Kant's Categorical Imperitives and would thus have to be maintained as the Societial norms. Now you are probably still frantically worrying about how do we help the Adolescents get live saving surgery if they do not want it. The answer is very simple and still follows Kant, keeping the Kingdom of Ends, is through conseling. One cannot force another into making a choice as it would violate the Kingdom of Ends, but one must discuss with the other individual, because they are both Rational beings and must be treated as such. When it came to Bone marrow transplant to treat Leukemia, 96% of patients reported better life improvement, 40% no disability, and 33% minimal disability. [1] There was a great deal of lives extended and a great deal of happiness provided to these individuals, because they were able to make their own choices and were shown how it would benefit them. A key part of this decision making is being able to make an informed choice, because if they do not have the information it can still be concidered as a forced choice since they are not awear of everything that is goin on. In order for them to make a rational informed choice they must:1. Be informed of their choices: harms and benefits, as well as alternatives.2. Be Voluntary, free from coercion.3. Be competant. [4]Contention 2: A Just Government recognizes and Respects Adolescent Autonomy. Above I have given the Piaget Adolscent model for Cognative thought. This study has been commenced in the 1950's and has lasted for a great deal of time. We can see that starting at age 12, which is even before the adolescent age grouping. That the Adolescents are able to think for themselves and have abstract thoughts that are needed for this type of task. [4] We can thus see that they are mentally able to preform such a decision making task. The UN Rights of Child has convened severla times and has repeatively shown that children should be able to express how they feel and are able to think for themselves. [5] We can see that there is a growing accepting of Adolescent Autonomy, so why shouldn't the US fallow suit with what the rest of the world has acknowledged for the past 30 years? One of the greatest oppossitons to my point of view is that of the parents knowing best. I agree to an extent. We can see that studies have shown that Adolescents and parents tend to come to an agreeance on these things when regarding medical decissions. With the Adolescents respecting and many times agreeing with their parents we can see that granting this would not be a varriation from the status quo, but only give more individual freedom to those out there. The same study shown that when asked both parents and adolescents came to an agreeance that the age of which they can begin to make decissions for themselves was around age 14. [6]The Law also upholds this portion as well. In 1883, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that "who is neither a lunatic, idiot nor insane and who has arrived at 14 years of age" should be held responsible in cases of tort. [5] Jefferson Brianson was held liable for what he did despite being only 14. With that law we can even see that the law recognizes them as repsonable and thus the resolution stands in my favor. Sources1. ( “Challenging Case: Adolescence—Decision Making about Medical Care in an Adolescent with a Life-Threatening Illness” Pediatrics Vol. 107.4: p. 980)2. ( . http://www.zeepedia.com...) 3. (. http://plato.stanford.edu...) 4. (“Involving Children and Adolescents in Medical Decision Making: Developmental and Clinical Considerations. ” Journal of Pediatric Psychology. Vol. 21.4: p. 506-507) 5. (Rhonda Gay [J. D. , Ph. D. ] “Adolescent Autonomy: Clarifying an Ageless Conundrum” Hastings Law Journal 51 Hastings L. G. 1256. August 2000. ) 6. (. http://apt.rcpsych.org...)

The term 'medicine' means a drug or other preparation for the treatment or prevention of disease. This might seem like an abstract problem until you need to get medicine for your dying child. Perhaps your child is seriously ill because of a preventable illness; the medicine he/she needs is 2-3 hours away by foot; when you get there, there's no guarantee that the clinic will be open or have anything in stock. And even if you could get to the clinic and everything was available, how are you going to pay for it? Thousands of people in the rural areas of Nicaragua face this problem on a daily basis. One proposal suggests that community health workers (promoters) could receive a portion of the medicine fee for each prescription. In practice, this leads to extremely negative trends, as promoters are tempted to over-prescribe medications to get more money, and only the wealthiest members of the community could afford them. On top of all this, the poorest of the poor no longer have access to medicine. Obviously the best option here is to supply the medicines for free. Prescription drugs Prescription drugs are a major component of the overall cost of caring for the elderly. By some reports, persons sixty-five and older spend an average of over three percent of their income on prescription drugs. That percentage is even higher when over-the-counter medications are included. Reports show that more than 53.26% of senior citizens are below the poverty line.This means that over half of the senior citizens are not financially well-off. Cancer,heart and respiratory diseases and diabetes are the most common and killer diseases among senior citizens.Treating these diseases cost a lot of money ad again ,the best option here is to give away those medicines for free. Hence, I believe that medicines should be made free.

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

I do not quite think my opponent understands my debate topic: vaccines do not cause autism. If this is my debate topic then the opposing simply has to prove that vaccines do cause autism. I did not ask whether high fevers in pregnant women cause autism but rather vaccines. definitions: cause: The one, such as a person, event, or condition, that is responsible for an action or result. According to this exact definition by thefreedictionary, the opponent is required to prove that VACCINES are responsible for a result(autism) For the purpose of the argument below, assume that the opponent's argument is valid according to my debate topic: Common side effects of vaccines include: injection site reactions (pain, swelling and redness) mild fever. shivering. fatigue. headache. muscle and joint pain. Therefore, we can conclude that a more severe and rare side effect is a high fever. A pregnant woman would be required or strongly recommended to get these vaccines to protect her unborn child: Rubella, Hepatitis B, flu, and whooping cough. According to the opponent's source, high fevers were not listed as any of the side effects for any of these vaccines, but rather simply a fever. Because the fever was listed as a mild side effect, one can assume that it is a mild fever. The opponent's source does not claim that any fever in a pregnant woman is linked to autism, but rather a high fever. Source [1] states: Any medication can cause a severe allergic reaction. Such reactions from a vaccine are very rare, estimated at fewer than 1 in a million doses, and would happen within a few minutes to a few hours after the vaccination. Assume that a high fever is a severe allergic reaction. High fevers are said to be 103 F-104 F. If a pregnant woman goes against the odds and get's a high fever resulting from the vaccine and the baby gets autism, given the slim chance, the fever resulting from the vaccine CAUSED the autism, not the VACCINE itself. Since the source did not state that all cases of a high fever in a pregnant woman were due to the vaccine itself, it is safe assume that some of these cases are linked to influenza. According to the opponent's argument that the high fever resulting from the vaccine causes autism, would it also be safe to assume that high fever from the influenza virus is linked to autism as well? How about the fever as a result of a bacterial infection such as strep throat? Would that be linked to autism too? Conclusion: An accidental relationship is a correlation that exists without any causal relationship between variables. In this case, autism and vaccines are the two variables and there is an accidental relationship between these two. Does autism not occur in children at a very young age? About the same age that they receive vaccines? If so, it's entirely possible that these two variables have no real relationship and are simply coincidental that autism resulted after a vaccine. Below are credible, scientific studies that show that there is absolutely no relationship between vaccines and autism: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... http://cid.oxfordjournals.org... 1.http://www.cdc.gov... 2.http://www.cdc.gov...

Thank you for accepting. I will be arguing that parents should attend parenting classes. Parents are the primary role models for children especially during those critical ages when they are growing up. The problem is that parents are frequently unprepared to be the main 'teachers' for children. Most often that not, they still practice their old lifestyles since before they had children, like spending too much time away from home, abusing their children with negative remarks or beatings over small issues and so on. The problem is that most parents do not know what are the best ways to bring up a child. Only with the advancement of research, psychologists are able to understand better how to use words powerfully to motivate or reprimand children, or when to severely punish a child and when to let them go scot free. We all experience this first hand when we think back of our childhood years and certain things our parents did which we will never agree on. This is especially evident when countless motivational speakers remind us that our childhood upbringing is flawed because of the lack of our parents' knowledge on how to educate a child, and this affects us until adulthood. Research shows that problematic behaviour among adults like profanity, hypersexuality and so on are because of poor upbringing by parents and because of the bad environment at home which is primarily shaped by the parents. For these reasons, Pro would strongly advocate governments and community leaders to make parenting classes a must for at least one of the parents, if not both. These programs can be held over one day. No matter how it is done, parenting classes simply must be put in high importance if we truly want to develop a safe and productive society. The family unit is the first stage of a healthy society. Today, we have courses for soon to be teachers, employees and so on to teach them the soft skills and non-tech skills. Why not do the same for prospective parents as well? :)

To begin, I will remind my opponent that his/her next round will be their concluding round, in which they may not present any new information. This means that he/she can only weigh and crystallize arguments. My conclusion will be the first part of round 5, directly after my opponent's. My Arguments:My arguments have all been dropped by my opponent. This means that all my arguments have been accepted to be true. Refutations:Since my arguments have been accepted to be true, my opponent's incorrect and unproven assertions that vaccines are untrustworthy and harmful have been disproven by my arguments. I have proven that government-approved vaccinations work reliably, or as reliably as you can expect anything to. You can risk the slight risk of your child having an allergy and then have compensation from the government and protection from herd immunity. [1] This is obviously different from drinking orange juice from the grocery store, risk the slight chance of getting orange juice that is past expiration date, and then return it, get compensation from the grocery store, and get better orange juice. (Please infer sarcasm).

1. Treating selective offenders for pedophilic acts instead of incarcerating them in all instances allows more offenders the opportunity to reduce or prevent the expression of pedophilic behavior. 2. Giving pedophiles a greater opportunity to reduce or prevent their behavior decreases the likelihood of re-offending. 3. Persons convicted of pedophilic crimes should be sent to involuntary civil commitment hospitals rather than being incarcerated. 4. Civil commitment hospitals can provide incessant treatment to pedophiles while simultaneously keeping them out of society where they can potentially harm more victims. 5. If all persons convicted of pedophilic crimes are incarcerated, there is potential for devastating impacts on the correctional system. 6. A rise in the prison population causes an increase in costs, resources to become limited, and less treatment and prevention programs for those incarcerated. 7. Confinement hospitals can also prevent violent attacks toward pedophiles, which can occur both inside and outside of prison. 8. It is true that incarceration sends a clear message of punishment to those convicted of a crime. 9. Other negative consequences of choosing to treat and not incarcerate all persons convicted of pedophilic crimes are acceptable, such as evading a degree of punishment or causing emotional distraught to victims and their families. 10. Persons convicted of pedophilic crimes should be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

Your argument is invalid. First, you are using a source which does not state that the high fevers were linked to the vaccine itself. 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. Consider this analogy: The increase in icecream sales leads to an increase of drownings. See anything wrong with this? Your statement is quite similar; it is not the icecream sales leading to the drownings, but rather a hidden factor, higher temperatures. This is an example of a hidden cause relationship. 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. Keeping this in mind, we do not know the direct cause of autism yet, and until we do, your argument is invalid.