public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations

======= Framework ======= "Freedom of Men under Government is... a Liberty to follow my own Will in all things, where the Rule prescribes not" "John Locke talks about liberty he is referring to freedom" These are both quotes of my opponent and they are clearly contradictory. In his orginal case, my opponent gives a quote from John Locke which distinctly outlines the difference of liberty and freedom: the law. As John Locke says, "Freedom of men UNDER GOVERNMENT" and "where the Rule prescribes not." There is absolutely no way that my opponent can justify that freedom (to do whatever you choose) is the same as liberty (to do whatever you choose under the law.) "if [acting in the best interest of the people] infringes on the individual liberty of ones body then the government has no right to act." This is an absurd distortion of the Social Contract. Read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy I posted (the only source, my opponent has none) in which John Locke clearly says the opposite of what my opponent claims. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT: My opponent uses this faulty definition of social contract to justify almost all of his points. Right here you take his case out from the top down. If we were discussing my opponent's personal view of the social contract, this might be viable. We are, however, discussing Locke's Social Contract, which justifies acting in the best interest of the people in all cases. ========= My Contention ========= His 'second' argument is crazy! "second, the government also has no right to act on parents choice being that they may see religious or moral conflict with the immunization of their children." If my parents said, "we've raised our son to believe it is religious duty not to wear clothes; we've also taught him that the only way into heaven is to kill as often as possible", would that justify my going around naked killing everybody? I should hope not! We practice a strict separation of church and state, meaning that religion doesn't affect laws, and congress has ruled multiple times against parents exempting for religious reasons. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) --- "this is non-unique in that i can acheive his impact without compulsion. if chicago was bombed the government would just have to announce it and everyone would rush to get the vaccine." CON is just grasping at straws now! If this were true, as he states, then the even larger issues of small pox and polio in the past wouldn't have happened. While small pox, measles, polio, tuberculosis, etc. were all pandemics at one point, people weren't rushing to get the vaccine; they were protesting it! There is absolutely nothing to support this outlandish claim, and every historical example rebuts it. --- "the probablity (tho i do admit i dont know the stats) are quite low for any attempt at an anthrax or other bio weapon terror attack due to terrorists limited reasources and funding" I suppose it is also unlikely that they would have necessary funding to plan the hijacking of American planes or attempt to fly them into 2 of America's largest buildings. This is made even worse by the fact that they are only being funded by the oil-rich member countries of OPEC who have very little money to spare! --- "Freeing someone from the necessity of fighting a disease is bad because it will eventually make us dependant on immunizations to help prevent adapting viruses." My opponent says vaccines in general are bad, but advocates voluntary vaccination in his other points, eg. "I can solve this because people will rush to get the vaccine" He is shifting advocacy multiple times in his speech, so I've got no idea what I am debating now. Compulsory immunization vs. Voluntary immunization? Compulsory immunization vs. No immunization? ===== His Case ===== A. Extend my argument; he doesn't address it, just beats around the bush. Read his last rebuttal and try to find where he actually addresses that changing a word's connotation is OK. He doesn't! Attaching positive or negative connotations to words is fine, so long as the facts aren't skewed. We know the facts from independent non-governmental studies, so what he is saying, not only is irrelevant, but isn't even happening. B. "everything the media gets on immunizations is from the government" This isn't true. The government contracts private companies to create vaccines. The vaccines' effectiveness generally comes from these companies. My opponent is just making some crazy, unwarranted assertion here! "the media interviews doctors nurses or patients" 1. Many hospitals are private 2. Interviews aren't statistics 3. CON gives no reason why doctors or nurses would maliciously alter data, anyway 4. Patients = average citizens, certainly not government employees! C. "the fact we cant cure a virus was a media term used to manipulate peoples thoughts on the issue" No it isn't, it's a scientific fact. Ask any biologist. --- "the government just needs to announce to the media that a new vaccine will help eliminate virus symptoms and people will be all over it." HOW? WHY? WHEN? WHERE? We have many multitudes of vaccines and this hasn't happened yet!!!! I'm pretty irritated at my opponent's blatant disregard for any facts or common sense. His unwarranted claim has been disproven by the fact that we have issued hundreds of vaccines and what my opponent says would happen never has. D. "i feel this needs to be the definition because it means to be free from public duty or the city" or, in short "I feel this needs to be the definition because this is the definition" That's completely circular logic, and it's also completely unfounded. Ask any person what a vaccine/immunization/whatever you may call it, is. Is an immunization: A. Freedom from disease B. Protection from disease Use Common sense E. Even if it were true (it clearly isn't) you've got no link to impacts. Never once do you mention why having or not having this immunization would change whether the government manipulates language. ======= His "voters" ======= "i am upholding my entire case" ...when pigs fly. Read any argument above. "my opponent has made several non-unique arguments" His definition of non-unique is, "hypothetically, if 100% of people agreed to get the vaccination, the same thing would happen." Pragmatically, this is just idiotic. "i am actually upholding the social contract better because freedom and liberty are the same thing according to locke" It's pretty clear that they aren't when the quote you provided in your original cases is actually John Locke distinguishing between them... "i did not see a value in my opponents case and seeing as how he is lacking in that i should win right there being that i am the only one with a way to weigh the arguments of this round." Why do I need my own value? You claimed yours first, therefore I can't use it? That's nonsensical. My opponent laid down a clear framework: whoever better upholds Locke's Social Contract wins. I have clearly proven that I better uphold it, so I certainly win. It makes no difference that it was my opponent and not me that said "Social Contract is good", just that it was said. I don't think my opponent understands LD debate very well if he thinks it's impossible to agree on a value and criterion. "is it just me nails or does this resolution bite?" (This isn't related to the argument at hand) No, I love this resolution. People are always hyper-critical when the resolutions 1st come out. ======== Real Voters ======== 1. Attack E on his case Having compulsory immunizations won't change whether language is manipulated. There is no impact to his case. 2. I'm the only one who benefits society. Read my contention. It clearly outlines benefits, therefore affirming is justified under social contract.