The benefits of vaccination outweigh the harm

Opponent"s Source My opponent used this source http://www.action.org... to show 2.5 million lives per year were saved by vaccines. It references source(s) that reference the CDC, so it does indirectly reference the CDC. This is the primary source that shows 2.5 million lives would be : http://www.cdc.gov... . My opponent"s 2.5 million lives saved source mentions 3 used sources on the bottom. Source #1: http://www.who.int... Which redirects to a different page, most likely because the pdf is no longer there. But if you look at this source from the WHO my opponent cited: http://www.who.int... "However, the new data published in this week"s edition of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC), "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report" and WHO"s "Weekly Epidemiological Record", shows that overall progress towards increasing global immunization coverage has recently stagnated" Does get its info from the CDC, so it is very reasonable that the who source with the missing url gets its 2.5 million lives saved from the CDC source I showed, since the other page on the same www.who site also references the CDC and the the CDC shows the same statistic. Also, as a reminder, my opponent has the burden of proof. Source #2: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com... Says "Page not found" Source #3: "Ozawa S, et al., 2011. During The "Decade Of Vaccines," The Lives Of 6.4 Million Children Valued At $231 Billion Could Be Saved. Health Affairs, 30(6):1010-20." Is not publicly accessible. Semantics counter argument My opponent says "The vaccination itself is not harmful, but rather the HIV infection inside of it was." If the hepatitis B vaccine contains HIV, then the HIV is part of the vaccine. Very few people who argue that vaccines are dangerous argue that the weakened virus being injected into you is what it is dangerous. It"s the other crap that is in vaccines that is argued to be dangerous like aluminum, mercury, and in my argument, the HIV virus. The HIV that is added to the HIV vaccine is very much a part of the vaccine. And even if you consider the HIV in the vaccines aren"t considered a part of the vaccine by technicality, even though they are, it still doesn"t change the fact that due to the existence of the hepatitis vaccine, a lot more people were able to have been covertly killed in the name of eugenics than they would have been if the vaccine didn"t exist. The resolution is "The benefits of vaccines outway the harm" and not "The direct benefits of vaccines outway the direct harm". So if the existence of vaccines indirectly resulted in more people being killed by eugenics than would have otherwise, than that is a harm indirectly caused by the existence of the vaccine. Now to give an idea of how many fewer people would have died from eugenics if they couldn"t have been added to vaccines, the number of jews killed in the Holocaust was 6 million [1] compared to the about 35 million killed from AIDS caused by the hepatitis B vaccine. So it is not just eugenics that are responsible for the AIDS deaths from the hepatitis B vaccines, since eugenics without vaccines don"t kill as many people, especially not as covertly. Sources [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...