Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations.

My case is not contradictory a my opponent claims because elevation of higher man is met. It also allows society to evolve which is good as well. His attack on my Value. is false because he cannot support higher man with compulsory immunizations (extend my definition from above). I promote my whole case upon higher immune system and the elevation of higher man which as I explained comes in many forms. Attack on My Vc. When they are voluntary you promote social evolution which is necessary for the society to evolve and it still helps the elevation of higher man as explained it comes in many forms. Counter attacks 1) my opponent claims to have an R.A. , yet I don't see it. So, ignore his whole point about me dropping it. Besides your R.A. doesn't matter if it was there. 2) Justice - extend my definition, only my case can support that definition because it is the only one giving out a reward (life) and a punishment (death) 3) Compulsory - extend definition and it does violate my opponents value which makes his value not plausible. His Case His c1) not really extended or defended. Like I said if the child can't adapt and survive it should die. Because vaccines cause mutations which cause more death. Tuberclious ring a bell? his c2) Not defended upon.I explained how death is the greatest good for the individual so I promote the most utilitiarian outcome no matter how my case goes. (people dying or people living due to higher immune systems) His c3) Meh. Really now he defends it by saing I agree with him about viral mutuation. this is true which is done through.....wait for it VACCINES. So, I don't see how it works for his case seeing as it will occur on the aff side more often. My case My C1) Not contridactory as am arguing evolution (darwinism) of society as well as the individual. I defined many ways this can be done, intellect was one which comes from knowledge and the higher immune system or natural immunity. My c2) Not contridactory as stated. Yes, to interfere with natural selection is bad but to have society evolve is good. Both, can happen with the government not mandating and it would promote intellect as well as the individual evolution(higher immune systems) because you have the choice and knowledge to risk whether or not you can adapt and change. Like I said his whole Societal Welfare value works for me because people with lifelong immunity are stronger people as a whole in terms of viruses and bacteria and all that good stuff. His VC of Rule Util works for me because the Greatest good is that people that are not able to adapt and become stronger die off and the natural immune or adaptable people are able to live and contribute to a better society welfare We must use my definition of justice as none was provided and I sourced it through webster. Justice: judgment involved in the determination of rights and the assignment of rewards and punishments The value of Higher Man guides this principal and so does Darwinism in determining that has the right to live and be rewarding them with that life and the deciding who should be punished with death by the survival of the fittest. So, the only way to promote justice is through my case as rewards and punishments are on dealt by nature and societal evolution. I urge a con ballot.