Pick your topic : Team Debate

Thanks to our opponents for presenting their case, and now let’s get started with some rebuttals.Con has presented 3 pieces of offense, so we'll tackle each of those independently.R1) BioethicsOur adversaries are building a slippery slope with the medical autonomy and self ownership arguments. From their own line of logic *anything* the government forces you to do results in a loss of ones rights and humanity. If that were the case under their logic, we would have lost our humanity ages ago. What they have to do and what they have failed to do is show that this situation is specifically different than the other mandates imposed by the government. Just basically asserting *bad things* are going to happen if you do this and then failing to explain why it’s bad and what makes this particular mandate different is not sufficientTo put this in perspective, there are certain things that need to be mandatory. You have the right to chose what procedures are done to you if and *only* if that decision impacts *only* you. If you don’t want to have a surgery that is required to save your life, you should not be required to have it. If you want to risk death and not undergo the procedure that is your right. Only you are physically endangered by that choice. Now what happens if you have a bomb inside you that is going to blow up and kill a city if you don’t remove it? If that same person says no to having the surgery because it’s *his autonomy*, then he risks killing everyone else because of that choice. Should someone have the right to say no and risk killing thousands of others simply because it’s *his autonomy*? Since the explosion would dramatically affect the autonomy of everyone in that city, that loss of autonomy has to be balanced against the loss resulting from undergoing surgery. Basic utility tells us the surgery is net beneficial. We can apply that same line of logic here:(1)Vaccinating prevents infection by measles, mumps and rubella.(2)Once infected with any of these three viruses, you are very likely to transmit that virus to others, threatening their autonomy.(3)Since this autonomous choice affects the autonomy of others, autonomy is best preserved by vaccinating.Let’s look at this from another perspective. I can walk out in public, close my eyes, and start swinging my fists at the air so ferociously that it would put the fear of God into Mongolian Warlords. I am allowed to do this all day everyday, that is until my fist contacts a person’s face. The second my fist imposes itself on to someones elses autonomy and splits their grill, then my right to go around swinging blindly is limited. Con is basically saying that they want to tie a blindfold around their eyes and go punch a bunch of women because they can. Shame on you anti-feminist scum. This is fundamental to the harm principle, which our opponents are ignoring.Our adversaries use 3 examples for comparison: mandatory organ donations, childbirth limitations, and a eugenics program. The first problem with these is that Con doesn’t specify any actual harm caused by these. Even if we somehow go down this slippery slope, it doesn’t matter if Con presents no harm for doing so. Every one of these examples is debatably beneficial from a utilitarian standpoint, . Second, these are all failed comparisons. We're not requiring anyone to give up a physical part of themselves to save someone else, nor are we forcing the various harms posed by surgeries and lost organs that would come with mandatory organ donation. As for childbirth limitations, merely having extra children doesn't endanger anyone around a given family. Third, it’s unclear how our plan removes inherent barriers to taking these actions. Even if these things are harmful and somehow comparable to our plan, it makes no difference if none of them will ever happen following implementation.Our adversaries argument also showcases incredible hypocrisy. They went into this gigantic rant about one's medical autonomy and self-ownership, then go on to make a point about *forcing* everyone to go to a class to educate them about the harms of the MMR. By their own logic, forcing someone to do something against their will is a violation of their own autonomy and self-ownership. So, either this point should be dismissed wholesale, as it applies to both of our plans, or this is a strong point against Con, since they’re the ones who presented this argument and they should know better.R2) CostThe part of Con's counter-plan that happens to engender the largest cost just happens to be the most vague. How long is the class? Would it be available at a wide variety of locations? Would there be a standardized curriculum? How often would the class happen? Would people who are refractive be required to take it multiple times? These are all questions that affect the cost (as well other issues mentioned later). But assuming this is just a day-long class taken once, this is still going to need to be taught in locations all across the countryy in a number of different languages and staffed by knowledgeable teachers. They will also need some form of enforcement that requires that these people arrive and stay for the duration.Con is just generally overly focused on costs to the government, and it's unclear why. They haven't actually stated any major harms that result from even a $3 billion loss. It seems that if we're going to focus on cost problems, then we should find some reason to care about those costs. Case in point, individuals losing on-the-job hours sitting in a class without any means of repayment (not to mention being outed as being anti-vaccination to their employers in the process), something that may very well have huge implications for those with minimal incomes. Our case requires an extremely minimal time commitment, doesn't require any cost paid, and protects individuals against a slew of medical costs.It’s important to recognize, however, that we outweigh on costs in any case. Studies have clearly shown that the economic impact of vaccination is tremendous, especially for children: “For every dollar spent on childhood vaccines, at least $10 in societal costs were saved.”[15] Increasing the number of people who are vaccinated – which is only certain under our case – increases that benefit. And yes, this has been shown in the U.S. directly with MMR.[16] Those cost savings are measured in billions of dollars, and that's just looking at vaccinating newborns. Considering that much of this population is poor (and would therefore be reliant on state resources when they get sick) and that our case is far more certain to protect vulnerable populations that cannot be vaccinated, this benefit is dramatic.R3) Counter-PlanThe counter-plan is non-unique. Many of the organizations Con mentions have made repeated efforts to inform the public of the importance of vaccination.[17-19] Any and all of the information they could possibly present is available online and easily accessible. That means that this only has a linear effect, and Con will have to show that a linear increase in the number of campaigns will lead to any of their impacts, which they have yet to do.This counter-plan also has no solvency. Con haven't provided any warrants or evidence showing that simply throwing more evidence at people in larger campaigns does anything. Con has presented a policy alternative – they have the burden to prove that their solution is effective. They will have to show not only that increasing education will increase the numbers of vaccinated individuals, but that that increase is significant enough to meet the herd immunity threshold of 95%. And no, it's not sufficient to refer to a minimally successful campaign for recycling on a city-wide basis and a list of public health campaigns with no discernable assessment of outcomes as a means to prove solvency in this instance.But assuming it does cause an effect, that effect will actually be negative. An increase in public campaigning will make more of the people who are already resistant to vaccination more resistant. Studies that have examined the effects of information campaigns have shown that “parental intent to get their child vaccinated” doesn't increase. Worse yet, many of the methods they used actually produced the opposite effect, “increasing the misconception that vaccines cause autism and serious side effects.”[15] Since Con hasn't defined a specific strategy for informing the public, they will have to accept that numerous strategies can and will be used, and their effects will range from ineffective to deleterious.However, none of this really matters, because our case outweighs theirs. If the point is informing the prejudiced, then only our case manages to do so by forcing them to engage with the issue. Requiring that they take a vaccine and see the effects for themselves is a lot more effective than sitting them down in a classroom and hoping that the information they've likely ignored multiple times before permeates. When they see that a vaccine isn't killing them or controlling their minds, they'll be forced to face a different reality than the one they believe exists.Further, we outweigh by ensuring equal access to vaccination through government subsidy. Even if you buy that education increases the likelihood that people will want to be vaccinated, the expense will always prevent the inclusion of many. Con are perpetuating a classist system that excludes many and, as a result of the mandatory class, actually makes things harder for the poor. Our case is the only one that affords them equal access to highly beneficial health care.15. http://cbsn.ws...16. http://bit.ly...17. http://1.usa.gov...18. http://1.usa.gov...19. http://bit.ly...