Question: Should Certain Vaccinations Be Mandated for Children?

Vaccination for minors under the age of 13 ought to be compulsory.

Let's address the counterarguments right from the start. The contention that only the parents who opt out of vaccinating their children will face the consequences of illness in their offspring, and that vaccinated children should be unaffected, is misleading. The real issue is that unvaccinated children can contract diseases, spread them to other children who may also believe they are safe without vaccination, and then transmit them to those who were scheduled to receive a vaccine. One child, due to inattentive or negligent parenting, can become infected and spread the risk to all their classmates or friends. The argument isn't that vaccinated kids will fall ill, but that one child can transmit the illness to many others. The only individuals who could be considered, in a sense, "beneficiaries" are the vaccinated ones.

Critics have alleged that vaccination is unnecessary in situations where the risk of death from disease is minimal. They cite the early nineteenth century, where mortality from childhood diseases such as whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever plummeted before immunization was available. They attribute this drop in mortality to improved personal hygiene, water purification, effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition. However, vaccines are indeed necessary, even when the death rate is low. The risks associated with vaccination are minute compared to the potential for suffering and death from diseases like whooping cough, which was responsible for 5,000 to 10,000 deaths annually in the United States before vaccines were introduced. Today, the annual death toll is only 30. Measles, while less lethal, still causes 20 million cases each year. These diseases could be eradicated with a single vaccine.

It has been argued that common childhood vaccinations may lead to rare but severe reactions, including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. However, the risks are vastly outweighed by the benefits. Most diseases that vaccines target cause immense suffering in children, and could be prevented with vaccination.

Some have suggested that vaccines can trigger autoimmune disorders like arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), and other conditions. Yet, the absence of vaccines exposes children to a myriad of diseases such as anthrax, chickenpox, diphtheria, hepatitis A and B, Hib, HPV, Japanese encephalitis, lyme disease, measles, meningococcal, mumps, pertussis,

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.

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!

"The bottom line is that the feds have given up without a fight and settled" No, that's not the bottom line. The bottom line is whether that means anything or not. And I don't think you made any substantial connection at all. "the Autism rates are up about 10000% in just two generations- the rates are about 1000 times higher in vaccinated vs unvaccinates" Yes, but they fell ever since the mercury compound was removed. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... So this doesn't help your point that we should stop vaccinating our children. The vaccines may have been dangerous before, but they're fine now. "SIDS is UNKNOWN in unvaccinated infants, and is ALWAYS within 2 weeks of vaccinations being administered" SIDS is unknown everywhere. A British study showed that vaccinations may have helped to PREVENT SIDS though. And the chance of your kid dying from SIDS is lower than the chance of your kid dying from diseases that vaccines defend against. "there are 1000s of cases of children coming down with illness or being permanently retarded from massive vaccinations at a young age" Actually, there is no direct correlation. And even if it were so, my argument still stands. Vaccines are safe today. "my child was personally affected - she got ITP" I'm sorry, but I don't see the correlation and how you can assume that. "If youre such a medical expert (you are a LIAR just by your tag line and age) why dont you explain to me what ITP is and the causes and cures" In order for me to be a liar, I would first have to tell a lie, wouldn't I? I never said I was a medical expert Solarman. I'm just a pharmacy student with a pretty good grasp of Biochemistry. But I think this is what you meant http://en.wikipedia.org... Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura. No connection with vaccines at all. "If you cant , it proves youre just a government hack liar" No, if I can't, it just means I can't read your mind. "More government settlements to come More coverups to come More govenment lies to come DONT VACCINATE YOUR INFANTS ! you have been warned SOLARMAN" You're not a superhero. And I know who you are, you don't have to sign your name to look cool. Not that this matters, but the government doesn't make any money off vaccines. They lose money off vaccines. Why would they want to defend it? The compensation money doesn't come from deep pockets, they come from our taxes. They won't care about covering this up. There are plenty of other things the government covers up, with good purpose. Vaccine related illnesses aren't one of them. Besides, you still have yet to show that vaccines are still dangerous today. The data shows that the mercuric compound was removed, and the autism rates are dropping. I await your final response.

Since the vaccine schedule was increased in the 1990's autism rates and other learning disorders have sky rocketed. Thousands of parents all have the same story of their kid's receiving the MMR vaccine and their kids falling into autism shortly after. When a doctor suggested that he may have found a link between autism and vaccines and published a paper in a journal, all hell broke loose. This doctor has been discredited, and anyone who suggests that he was on to something is vilified. Why was this the reaction of the medical community and governments? Why did they not look into the claims and spend money doing the research? Why can they not explain the sudden jump in autism rates? Should parents be expected to trust government and vaccine companies? Why did they remove the ingredient Thermosal from most vaccines? If the ingredient was safe, why did they take it out? Does it make sense too give babies do many vaccines? With aluminum, formaldehyde, and other toxic ingredients? There are many medical professionals who believe vaccines are damaging children. It may be a case of too much of a "good" thing. Why does Dr. Oz not get his children vaccinated for the flu? Anyone who bring up the subject is labeled a anti vaccer and said to be a nut. I will show how the government, media, and medical profession are in the process of the biggest cover up in history, and how the truth about vaccines is being suppressed. http://www.cdc.gov...

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

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

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

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.

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?

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


Question: Should Certain Vaccines be Mandated for Pediatric Immunization?

Children ought to be vaccinated. Shouldn't children receive vaccinations? However, some vaccines may not be entirely reliable and could potentially pose risks to children's health.

Unfortunatley, my opponent forfeited her round 3 and did not present her own arguments. My own arguments still stand without refutation. With this in mind, I strongly urge a CON vote.

Minor-Someone under the age of 18 I believe that minors should be required to get permission from their parents to receive an abortion. I believe this because minors are children, children are under the supervision of their parents. Children are not capable of making any decisions for themselves without the input of their parents. Abortion is no different. Parents have a right to know what is going on in the lives of their children. Since a minor is still being cared for by the parent; then parents have to right to either grant or not grant an abortion without input from their daughter.

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

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

In a website called AutismSociety, I quote "There is no know single cause for autism...generally accepted that it is caused by abnormalities in the brain structure or function." (Apr.10.AutismSociety.Lives Affected by Autism.Nov.19 2012). This quote is exexplaining that autism is not caused by vaccines but by a mutation in the brain. If vaccines were the cause of Autsim, wouldn't more children have Autsim? Vaccines are more cheaper to have than to treat a disease. For example, if someone was vaccinated and they had a serious disease it would cost the family over $1000 to pay for medical treatment. Vaccines are covered by most insurances so they have little to no cost to you. Now why would you want to waste money for a disease that could have been prevented by a vaccines. Scientists usually take 10 to 15 making sure a vaccine are safe and effective and if they were not then they wouldn't be giving it to us. www.vaccines.org www.austism-society/causes.org

Okay lets get to the mandatory side. First, Let's talk herd immunity. Then he basically opened a new hole in the system. He spread the disease even farther. Measles side effects only show up about 2 weeks after being exposed to it. He could be going to public places and infecting many people. If that person was vaccinated, He had a 99. 8% chance of not catching the measles and spreading it to other people that are not vaccinated or immuno compromized. Once one person is not vaccinated and catches it, A whole big chain spreads. But in school, That is even worse. You go to the same place as 500 people, Eat food near them, Cough near them, Sit near them and spread your germs. If people want to go to school, They must be vaccinated or have a medical (serious) record that prevents them from being vaccined.

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

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

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...

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


Question: Should Certain Vaccines be Mandated for Pediatric Immunization?

Vaccinations are essential and do not cause autism.
Synopsis: Despite high vaccination rates, some parents are still concerned that vaccines might cause autism. Several theories have been proposed, including the MMR vaccine causing autism by damaging the gut lining, thimerosal being toxic to the central nervous system, and multiple vaccines overwhelming the immune system. This article discusses each theory and reviews the epidemiological evidence, concluding that vaccines do not cause autism.
MMR Vaccine and Autism
In 1998, Andrew Wakefield and colleagues published a paper in The Lancet suggesting that MMR vaccine caused autism by damaging the intestinal lining, allowing encephalopathic proteins to enter the bloodstream and brain. However, several issues undermine the interpretation of this case series. The study did not include control subjects, precluding the authors from determining whether the occurrence of autism following MMR vaccination was causal or coincidental. Endoscopic or neuropsychological assessments were not blind, and data were not collected systematically or completely. Gastrointestinal symptoms did not predate autism in several children, and measles, mumps, or rubella vaccine viruses have not been found to cause chronic intestinal inflammation or loss of intestinal barrier function. Putative encephalopathic peptides traveling from the intestine to the brain have never been identified. Several epidemiological studies have failed to support the association between MMR vaccine and autism (Table 1).
Thimerosal and Autism
Thimerosal, an ethylmercury-containing preservative in some vaccines, has also been proposed as a cause of autism. However, the signs and symptoms of autism are distinct from those of mercury poisoning, making the theory biologically implausible. Seven studies have been performed, including ecological studies in Sweden, Denmark, and Quebec, and cohort studies in Denmark, the United States, England, and the United Kingdom, and all failed to find a relationship between thimerosal exposure and autism (Table 2).
Too Many Vaccines
The theory that the simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines overwhelms or weakens the immune system and creates an interaction with the nervous system that triggers autism in a susceptible host is also flawed. Vaccines do not overwhelm the immune system, as the infant immune system is capable of generating a vast array of protective responses. Vaccines represent a minute fraction of what a child's immune system routinely navigates, and vaccinated and unvaccinated children do not differ in their susceptibility to infections not prevented by vaccines. Autism is not an immune-mediated disease, as there is no evidence of immune activation or inflammatory lesions in

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

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

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.

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

======= =Rebuttal= ======= "My core value is Justice." I'm glad to here that. Unfortunately, CON has provided no reason that justice should be the 'core value' of anything else, namely this round. --- "First, government is the only entity with the right to compel individuals to behave in specific ways--in this case, to be immunized. Giving this power to any other entity justifies community witch hunts, lynch mobs, and vigilante justice." Why is this a reason that the government should preserve natural rights at all? All CON is saying is that the government can compel people to do things. If anything, this is contradictory to his claim that the government must preserve natual rights, since according to this point, the government can compel us to give our rights up. --- "Second, public health is within the government's purview because all questions of overall community welfare must be addressed by the government. This idea stems from social contract theory." Again, I'm not really seeing the connection between this statement and CON's criterion. How does this in any way mean that the government must protect natual rights? --- "Third, granting any other entity the right to compel individuals to get immunized would erode governmental authority and encourage anarchy." 1. This is the exact same thing he said in his 'First' point. 2. It still has nothing to do with natural rights. --- CONTENTION 1: A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT HAS AN OBLIGATION TO PRESERVE NATURAL RIGHTS. Well, instead of posting any thoughts of his own, CON just copies the words of William Channing and calls it a contention. It doesn't matter, since Channing contradicts my opponent any way. He argues that the government's "highest function is to protect the weak against the powerful." In that instance, protecting the weak from the powerful supercedes preserving natural rights (in this instance, those of the powerful.) --- CONTENTION 2: NATURAL RIGHTS CANNOT BE SACRIFICED FOR THE 'GREATER GOOD.' I would suggest to my opponent here that he actually read the book that he has quoted his entire contention (yet again) from. Rawlsian philosophy is about as far from 'to each his own' as one could get. Rawls's concept of justice is not that we allow everybody to do what he will with his own possessions (in this case, his rights) but that we ought to redistribute wealth so that everyone in society has equal benefit. [1][2] --- CONTENTION 3: COMPULSORY VACCINATION VIOLATES INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. "anti-vaccinationists raise the classic American values of freedom and individualism" -and vaccinationists raise the classic American values of not dying "Groups opposed to government interference in personal lives vociferously argue that no one, especially not the state, can dictate what they can do with their body" 1. This contradicts my opponent's previous claim that: "government [can] compel individuals to behave in specific ways" 2. Who cares? Why does it matter what these 'groups' think? 3. The groups I formed have argued that the government can not not dictate what they can do with their bodies. "In fact, nearly 4 out of 5 websites opposing vaccination argue that current U.S. immunization laws are a violation of civil liberties." Despite the credibility of "4 out of 5 websites opposing vaccination," a slightly more credible source known as the Supreme Court ruled that compulsory immunization is entirely constitutional. [3] "Antivaccinationists further characterize public health authorities as abusive, untrustworthy and paternalistic." -But vaccinationists further characterize public health authorities as jovial, warm-hearted, merry old souls. "Resisting forced immunization, on the other hand, is equated with the noble fight against government oppression." -Resisting forced immunization, on the other other hand, is equated with children whining about getting shots. --- CONTENTION 4: COMPELLING INDIVIDUALS TO GET VACCINATED VIOLATES A GOVERNMENTS LEGITIMACY. Not a word of this is in my opponent's own words. For the 4th time, he has just cited some other person as a stand-alone contention. However, this entire spiel by Younkins never even once contains the worlds 'vaccination' or 'immunization' ========= =Affirmative= ========= The standard is public health, as explicitly stated by the resolution. My opponent stated in his observation that: "the Neg does not have to prove that all immunizations are bad, and that immunizations are not affective, just that immunization should never be made compulsory." Thus, as long as I can give instances where immunization can be made compulsory, I've fulfilled my burden. 1. Immunizing animals who refuse to allow veterinarians to vaccinate them voluntarily A. This hampers the spread of rabies. B. This allows veterinarians to fulfill their job of providing for the wishes of the pet's owner. C. This prevents terrorist attacks of live stock as a method to wreak havoc. D. This better protects us from future diseases stemming originally from animals (Bubonic Plague, Swine Flu, Bird Flu) 2. Immunizing felons with the cocaine vaccine. A. Felons have no claim to rights since they have violated the rights of others. B. Felons can't be trusted to act in the best interest of society. C. Drug use costs America $100 billion annually in total social costs. [4] D. Many felons resist immunization simply out of a lack of willpower to fight their addiction. 3. Immunizing an area after a bioterror attack. A. Not doing so allows the disease to spread to other areas, causing further damage. B. The quicker the disease outbreak is eradicated, the less it costs society in health care/reparation. C. This makes terrorists less satisfied with their results. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://plato.stanford.edu... [3] http://www.fas.org... [4] http://papers.ssrn.com...

I appreciate my opponent's response, and hope that this will be a fruitful debate. My opponent was quite ill, so I shall forgive his tardiness...this time... :) -------------------------------------------------------------- On the Standards Debate (Justice vs. Natural Rights/Preservation of Natural Rights vs. Achieving Herd Immunity) 1. My opponent has yet to give a hard and fast definition of our natural rights, with the sole exception that the UN Declaration of Human Rights is the document that lays them out. Therefore, the round will be dictated by the list that I provided in the AC: life, liberty, property, and safety of person. 2. Since I am arguing that what is "due" to people is their natural rights, we are both essentially striving for the same end goal in our standards. Hence, whoever can preserve those natural rights the best will win this round. 3. My criterion is precluding my opponent's standards, as well as any benefits he might be trying achieve in his case. Herd immunity, per the warrants in my case, saves the greatest amount of lives. Since being alive clearly precludes one's ability exercise any other auxiliary right, if I can prove that achieving herd immunity does not violate any essential, natural rights, I will this round. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Negative Case Responses Contention 1 Tag Line: 1. Cross-apply my contention 1, subpoint B to this tag and all its underlying subpoints. When an auxiliary right comes into conflict with another's natural rights, the natural rights will always be preferred. If one's religious doctrine gives one permission to kill anyone who does not believe said doctrine is true, my opponent is claiming that killing in the name of religious doctrine is 100% justified. 2. Cross-apply my entire contention 2 here, but especially subpoint A. This conclusively proves that those who religiously or philosophically object to vaccinations are in little to no mortal danger by being vaccinated. Hence, this proves that an auxiliary right and natural right are in clear conflict. 3. Extend my contention 1, subpoint C impacts here. My opponent is actually costing more natural rights than he is protecting them, in that a lack of herd immunity not only affects the infected individual, but easy affects other communities, cities, and nations. The only way to prevent these deaths (again, dead people can't exercise their individual rights) is to compulsorily immunize. Contention 1, Subpoint A: 1. By my opponent's rationale, we should also abolish traffic laws, as they are a product of a tyrannous state because they are mandatory. Laws in and of themselves are compulsory, even if they were instilled via popular consent (which not all of them are in just governments). My opponent assumes that a single directive constitutes a tyrannical government, when that is clearly not the case. In a democracy such as the U.S., that would make all executive orders signed by the president, or all acts of Congress not directly influenced by the population, acts of tyranny. 2. Cross-apply my contention 1, subpoint A here. The concept of liberty may not be violated if we are expected to live in a free and equitable society. Much like the US Constitution (if I may draw a parallel between a universal and non-universal document), the UN Declaration of Human Rights does outline basic religious and ideological freedom. However, these are not static rights. One may practice one's own religion until it comes into conflict with another's right to life or safety of person, for instance. Unless, of course, my opponent would like to also defend practices such as ritual human sacrifice. Another perfect example is the freedom of speech. I may say whatever I want, but I may not, to use a tired example, yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, as I would be actively violating other's right to life and safety. Contention 1, Subpoint B: 1. This subpoint assumes that religion has the right to freely exercise all of its doctrine in the first place, which is not true. 2. My opponent's card only deals with religious fundamentalists who do not represent the major body of religious persons in the world. Unless my opponent can prove that compulsory vaccination will end the world, the impacts won't outweigh unchecked pandemics. I doubt we are going to nuclear war with a terrorist organization about vaccines. 3. What he is suggesting is that, because a few fundamentalists may object to vaccination, we should disregard a policy that has the ability (as I've clearly shown in my case) to save millions upon millions of lives. By his rationale, we should also discontinue health and well-being projects around the globe, or anything that a fundamentalist would object to, for that matter. Contention 1, Subpoint C: 1. My opponent makes absolutely no link between Chinese suicide rates and compulsory immunization programs. He just states that societal upheaval leads to increased suicide, but can't prove that societal upheaval would ever occur to the extent of driving people to suicide. 2. TURN: with SARS, Malaria, Yellow Fever, Swine Flu, etc. affecting the largest population in the world, alleviating the rapid spread of infectious diseases amongst the Chinese population would do far more to stabilize the society than would a lack of vaccination. Look to the SARS panic of the past decade for all the evidence you need. Contention 2 Tag Line: 1. My opponent's card doesn't actually prove his subpoint at all. The card states that an undetermined number of elderly fell sick from a dose of flu vaccine. Nowhere does he warrant his actual claim, which is that people who are likely to die from vaccination are oftentimes not medically exempted. 2. My opponent's card is incredibly isolated. Since "compulsory immunization" does not imply flu at all, his warrants cannot outweigh those that I provide in the affirmative case. I have conclusive data and expert medical opinion which states that while, yes, there are some rare and serious risks, the benefits still far outweigh those harms. The affirmative readily acknowledges that vaccinations are not perfect. To reuse an earlier analogy, neither are traffic lights. Every once and a while, one might malfunction, allowing for a head on collision at an intersection. That collision will result in property damage, injury, and possibly the loss of innocent life. However, does that mean that we eliminate all traffic safety devices? Of course, the answer is "no." We don't eliminate those other public health preservation measures because every system has inherent risks. However, if the benefits outweigh the risks enough (which they do—check out my contention 2, subpoint B), then the measure is deemed justified.

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

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

A. It is not morally wrong to teach a child ABOUT a certain religion. B. It is morally wrong to teach a child to ACCEPT a certain religion. 1. A child is pre-disposed to trust its parents in order to survive. 2. A child needs to be able to trust its parents when it is told do not touch the hot stove or do not play in the street. 3. That same trust can be used to manipulate a child into believing certain unknowable aspects of our existence. 4. I am strongly opposed to any manipulation of a child's pure trust in order to believe certain ways about currently unknowable things. C. The decision to follow a certain religion or religious leader is individualistic. 1. Young children cannot make this decision. 2. Because young children cannot make this decision, they should not have it made for them. D. It is important to teach a child about morality. 1. There are multiple ways to derive a personal morality. 2. Religion is one way. 3. Society is another way. 4. The different means of obtaining morality should be explained to children. E. It is detrimental to teach a child that morality should be unquestioned because of a creed or code. F. Decisions regarding how a child should be raised should not flow from the personal pleasure of the parent. Thank you.