BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Herd Effect is Pointless

The herd effect is completely valid. In all compulsory immunizations there will be exemptions, such as in childhood vaccinations. When people choose to be exempted, they could be still protected because of the little chance of encountering the disease. Under the 1st amendment, the US cannot discriminate against people for their own religious beliefs. In religious cases such as the Mormons and the Amish, it is morally unjust and against god's will to use unnatural vaccines. As John Adams once said. "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.” - 1772 By this he is meaning it is in no man's ability to deny anybody their right of liberty, in this case the right to choice whether for or against these vaccinations. But the main point here is that the Constitution guarantees these exemptions and when they do occur, the people will still be protected because the vaccinated people will prevent the not vaccinated from ever being in contact with the disease.
Deus vult

Within the United States allowances are made for different religions views towards vaccinations. This has meant that many parents who claim to have deeply held religious convictions are not having their children vaccinated. The number of exemptions is extremely small representing just a few thousand of the 3.7 million children entering kindergarten in the US each year There are twenty eight states, such as Florida and New York, that allow parents to opt out on the basis of religious grounds while a further twenty, such as California and Texas, allow philosophical and personal reasons as well as religious reasons and Mississippi and West Virginia allow exemptions for medical reasons only[[http://nyvic.org/nyvic/law/filenbam.htm]] If there is an religious (or philosophical etc) exception for one group then that also has to be extended to other groups as well in order for there not to be discrimination. Since 1983 there have been a series of decision by Federal District and Appellate Courts which have clearly established that children can be exempted from vaccination based upon the personal religious beliefs of their parents. The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from discriminating between people based on their religious beliefs. If there is any state law which allows for exemption based on religious beliefs, it is available to all those people who hold religious beliefs against immunization even if their beliefs are personal and unique to them alone... We have been able to convince the court that a whole body of law which prohibits religious discrimination applies to those who have personal religious beliefs against immunization.
A child has a human right to be protected from preventable diseases from birth

As article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states, “State parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to health services.” Each year millions of children worldwide die of preventable diseases before the age of five. The argument presented here is that the state needs to protect the child and immunize him or her from preventable diseases as obviously the child does not have the capabilities at this stage to make informed decisions of their own. The United Nations Right to Liberty and Security of the Person treaty, article 6.2 supports this view - State Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child. It is up to the State to decide if a child is to be immunized, as overall it will be the State who would benefit from having the vast majority of its citizens vaccinated, and it will be the State who will have to pay for any treatment needed to treat a preventable disease. Whilst a child’s parents have to a certain degree the right to decide what is best for their child’s future, poor decision making in this area could result in serious medical issues for the nation. In this extremely important area, the State must have authority over the rights of the parent. (Vaccines don't cause autism)
With out immunization, it hurt the Red White and Blue

Benjamin Franklin has stated that “An ounce prevention is worth a pound of cure.” That is a true statement even now. For example, the recent swine flu break out have cost different government around the world much more than it takes to produce and spread the vaccine. Our country has spent over $114,500 on swine flu, with most of the money going toward personnel costs, according to a report by the country’s health official. It cost way less to just give and enforce a vaccine, because it is the most “cost-effective” way to save lives, said by the World Health Organization. If people were not have immunization, it also puts a burden on the health care system to treat all of those infected which must in some way be paid, most likely through taxes. With compulsory immunizations, all of this can be avoided thus minimizing suffering, because taxpayers will not have to pay extra tax for the treatment from health care system, in turn achieves societal welfare. If people will not choose to make the right, justifiable, and sensible choice to be vaccinated, then the choice will be made for them. Vaccinations have undoubtedly saved millions of lives since their inception, the risks are minimal; the benefits are massive. However, without compulsion, the greatest possible protection of the population would just be a waste of resource. Without compulsion, those benefits will not be seen. As a result, I urge you to affirm the resolution.
Herd Effect is Pointless

The herd effect argues that if enough members of a population are vaccinated from a certain disease, than all non-vaccinated will be protected from the disease as they will have such a low possibility of coming with the disease that it can be classified as nearly impossible. The big problem with this argument is that if vaccination is made compulsory and everyone is made to receive it, who is left un-vaccinated to benefit from the Herd Effect? If government force vaccinations on everyone, then everyone is thus vaccinated. Who then would be un-vaccinated and benefit from the herd effect? I am aware that is the US there are certain religious or philosophical reasons why a person can be considered exempt from compulsory immunization; these people would benefit from the herd effect, however this is not truly compulsory immunization. A distinction should be made, otherwise the argument of the ehrd effect is counter-intuitive.
personal choice

By being a part of this country you must adhere to the social contract. If you cannot follow the social contract and conform to the rules that are required to live in this society, then you can't quote the constitution. That only makes you a hypocrite. Also your unwillingness to get vaccinated may cause several others to come down with diseases that should have been prevented. Thus causing them to die. Their deaths weren't in part of their pursuit of happiness, which means your pursuit of happiness interfered with theirs. Further more just because we are guaranteed the pursuit of happiness doesn't mean a particular pursuit is justified. If I find killing people to be entertaining and if it makes me happy then I will go out and murder. However, it is illegal to murder for just reasons, and thus I cannot go and murder people. Another thing you make a broad generalization about children from the 50's and a random disease that, "went around back then." You provide no evidence of this and you do not look at those who were infected with swine flu and describe what group was infected. You also spell immunity wrong, that's not a big issue but if your trying to argue intelligently, spell your words right. When you mention bacteria and viruses morphing into new strands because of vaccines you give no evidence so that would be speculation and opinion.
Vaccines are good not bad.

Yes however they are side effects and every human 's body is different so it responds to certain vaccines in different manners. Therefore if some one's body was to have a certain reaction to that side effect can easily cause something much worse including autism They wouldn't be called vaccines if they didn't protect us. So, if you realize that many people got major side effects due to vaccines, would you change your mind? FIRST - Are you saying vaccines cause autism, or they don't cause autism. SECOND - THEY WOULDN'T BE CALLED VACCINES IF THEY DON'T PROTECT US. Also there aren't nearly 150 billion people on the planet. there is just over 6.7 billion people on the planet right now. it is estimated that only 69 to 110 billion have actually lived on earth.
personal choice

If i do not agree with the fact that the supposed vaccine may or may not cure me, then why should i be forced to get it, this goes against the constituion in our right to pursue our own form of happiness. If we are all to get the same vaccine the bacteria or virus will just morph into a new stand if i who have been sick and created a natural emmunity to it come in contact with the new stand its chances of infecting me are very slim. People that were between the ages of 1-12 in the 50's have been less likely to get the swine flu because of something that went around back then and they are generally emmune to it now. now wait, no one said that that person could not get the immunization, im just saying that i dont want it, if the other person gets the vaccine then that said person no longer will get infected correct? or wait they still can because the vaccine can give it to them, so if i dont want to get the vaccine because it may give me the disease its trying to prevent then the person who forced me to get the vaccine in order of their pursuit of happiness has now in fact killed me, so your point is flawed majorly
Vaccines are good not bad.

Vaccines don't cause autism, where the heck did you get that. They also help protect us, vaccines help our immune recognize diseases. the side effect you are talking about. that just happen to 1 in over 150000000 people. it is very dumb to say that if there is 1 person who will get kill by the side effect then lets stop using the vaccine and let 150000000 people die from illness. They side effects are caused by adjuvants. If you were to look up the rate of harm of these you would realize that it is actually very low. So because the rate of harm is low and the benefit of the vaccines is much higher then truly the side effects would have less reason to stop vaccination.
In the past decade important elections have become more competitive, with key races won by very slim...

In the past decade important elections have become more competitive, with key races won by very slim margins. Examples of this famously include George W Bush’s crucial victory in Florida in 2000 (by 537 votes), Cristine Gregoire’s 2004 election as Governor of Florida by 129 votes, and Al Franken’s Senate election in 2008. In such circumstances a few hundred votes could be decisive and desperate politicians would have every incentive to engage in voting fraud. We need to respond to this changing situation by bringing in new laws to protect the integrity of our democracy.
Voter identification laws are necessary to combat the serious danger of voter fraud. There is a lo...

Voter impersonation fraud is a smokescreen for a growing conservative strategy of disenfranchising poor and minority voters. The extent of voter fraud has been greatly exaggerated. If voter impersonation were such a grave problem, the government would prosecute violators. Although the Department of Justice poured unprecedented resources into voter fraud prevention under the Bush Administration, they did not prosecute a single offender. This tends to show that the true purpose behind these laws is to resurrect Jim Crow-era barriers to voting for poor and minority communities, who are more likely to vote Democrat.
Voter identification laws are not discriminatory because they apply uniformly to all state residents...

These laws disproportionately impact poor and minority communities, who are less likely to have the money needed to obtain photo ID. Federal passports are not cheap. Although most states do not charge to issue ID, some states do. Furthermore, poor individuals, especially the homeless are also less likely to have the required documents (such as birth certificates, driving licenses, social security cards, etc.). Since people of color are disproportionately poor, the law disproportionately prevents these populations from voting.
Voting is an important right, but it can be qualified by the government for an important reason. Vo...

Voting is a fundamental right that should only be infringed by the government for a compelling reason. The interest in preventing voter fraud is not compelling enough to warrant disenfranchising citizens. In many states, voter ID laws will completely prevent certain people from voting. It is estimated that roughly 12% of the US population has no photo ID. Although the laws allow voters to vote by provisional ballot, this measure is largely meaningless because voters are then required to travel to the county seat and submit an affidavit in order for their vote to be counted. As previously mentioned, the advocates of ID laws’ concerns about fraud are exaggerated and largely pretextual. Therefore, the fraud prevention rationale should not trump the right to vote.
Most states with voter identification laws make it easy for those without current forms of photo ID ...

Voting identification schemes are prone to a high level of errors associated with any bureaucratic system. Even people who bring the correct ID to the polling station may be disenfranchised as a result of misspellings on the part of the government agents who issued the documents, clerical errors over dates, duplications, and problems in the transmission of data between different levels of government. Women who have recently married and so changed their name are also likely to be denied a vote. All these problems are likely to affect poorer citizens with lower levels of literacy and civic engagement, and so are also discriminatory.
There are currently very different identification requirements for voting from state to state, meani...

There are several objections to a national voting identification standard. Firstly, voting procedures are methods for the states and the federal government should not interfere in their affairs. And if uniformity was desirable, it would be better to scrap all voter identification laws, returning to the previous situation that you just register to vote when you move and don’t’ need special identification at the polling booth. Finally, a national identity card is in itself an invasion of privacy, leading the way to a police state and the dangers associated with poor data management on the part of the government, including identity theft.
In the past decade important elections have become more competitive, with key races won by very slim...

Such elections are very much the exception rather than the norm in American politics. On the contrary, most observers are more worried about the polarisation of America into red and blue areas won by large majorities by the dominant party, and by the high rates of incumbency enjoyed by politicians of both parties. In any case so little fraud has been identified (for example, a study found that only 0.0009 of the votes in the 2004 elections in Washington were fraudulent) that even in very tight elections there is no evidence that voting fraud makes any difference to outcomes.
Voter identification laws are necessary to combat the serious danger of voter fraud. There is a lo...

Voter identification laws are necessary to combat the serious danger of voter fraud. There is a long history of voter impersonation throughout the United States. Voter fraud not only interferes with individual elections, but also undermines voter confidence in representative government generally. Identification requirements are the most direct and effective way of combating election fraud. As such, states have a compelling interest in implementing voter identification laws.
Voter identification laws are not discriminatory because they apply uniformly to all state residents...

Voter identification laws are not discriminatory because they apply uniformly to all state residents. The laws require everyone to obtain valid photo identification (ID), and therefore cannot be said to target poor and minority communities. No evidence in states that have enacted such laws reveals any discriminatory intent toward those populations. Furthermore, most of the required IDs can be obtained free of charge or, like the Driving License, are held by almost all adults Americans already. The rationale behind these laws is to increase fairness and confidence in American democracy.
Voting is an important right, but it can be qualified by the government for an important reason. Vo...

Voting is an important right, but it can be qualified by the government for an important reason. Voting rights are not made totally meaningless by voter ID laws. In most states, voters who lack identification can still cast provisional ballots that can be checked and counted later. The ID requirement is a mere inconvenience, not a complete barrier to voting. And again, the government’s interest in preventing voter fraud greatly outweighs the minor inconvenience suffered by a small group of voters.
Most states with voter identification laws make it easy for those without current forms of photo ID ...

Most states with voter identification laws make it easy for those without current forms of photo ID to obtain them from the government either free of charge or very cheaply. This would additionally benefit minorities and poorer citizens who are currently most likely to lack valid forms of photo ID, and who suffer a range of problems as a result. For example, they may face very high fees for cashing a check without a formal means of identification, or suffer problems in applying for state benefits. Finally, knowing that they already have what they need to vote will make it more likely that they will choose to do so, boosting participation rates.
Direct financial aid is better than pre-defined programs

Opp’s fundamental mistake is that we will replace financial aid with services & goods, which was never claimed. Therefore they wasted two points on attacking something which isn’t debated. We agree people should learn how to balance their budgets, but is it the gov’s duty to give them the money with which to experiment and learn? We say No - only charities, who have the insight on its need and use. Furthermore, who would track how people are using the money? are they using it for food or alcohol? expensive clothing? are people adhering to their financial plans? A charity would inherently do that, being deeply involved in the community. Opp can’t be seriously suggesting the gov will micro manage to that degree. We again point out that without adding any new mechanisms to date only 30% of the money allocated to the poor gets to them due to the inherent structure of gov [[http://tinyurl.com/damfof]] Since Opp advocate additional supervisory layers on top, it leads to an absurd situation where we spend more money to pay more people from the gov budget, leaving less money to pay the poor, being all consumed by the mechanism designed to supervise it... Even if we agree the money would be helpful and well spent, we’ve already shown how this money should not come from the taxpayer (our point 5). Further enhancements are perfectly tailored for charities. We don’t see how opp believes entrepreneurship can be developed using money that can hardly cover the gas and electric bill with under minimum income. Charities enjoy more flexibility than any gov program, and can tailor programs to people of different needs, such as study grants, as opposed to Opp’s stance of throwing money at the problem. An extreme example illustrates it well: most lottery winners end up being poorer than they were, having gotten money thrown at them. We are all for financial guidance and providing incentives and loans for entrepreneurship. These all can and do come from charities.
Financial assistance is not the government’s duty

Today we no longer live in a pure capitalistic society where laissez-faire is the sacred value. With the advent of Capitalism 4.0 we now live in a society where the weak are looked after by the strong and the gov. takes care of its poor. Prop. is behind schedule. Prop. also inherent contradictions within their own arguments. While Prop. argues for a liberal economy with minimal interference, they also argue that the gov. should take a larger hand in dictating how those welfare money should be used claiming we "can't ensure that the money ... will be used well". Having said that we have 3 responses to Prop.'s first argument. 1. B/c Prop. is not actually cutting down the amount of tax for welfare (as they also specified in their Executive Summary) but just changing its utilization from direct financial aid to provision of services, their accusation that gov. is taking money from people also applies to them. If laissez faire is Prop.'s value, gov. shouldn't intervene in the first place; be it through money or services. 2. Worried about the misusage of money if given directly to the poor, Prop. claims that gov. should dictate its usage. But they're forgetting the fact that it is through such mistakes that people learn how to use money and take their lives into their own hands. If the gov. provides all the food, clothes, and other necessities the poor need, they would become ever more dependent on gov. At least with money they are able to make their own choices as how to spend it according to their own decisions. As Prop. says (in another contradiction to their argument that gov. should dictate usage of money) money should be "free to use by the owner's discretion”. 3. Prop. states “Money … should be given to the poor by the society, since society has decided on the need and will be able to spread it better.” Is gov. not a representative of society? Isn’t gov. the agent through which society makes its decisions and allocates its resources?
4. Gov is better suited than charities.

Gov’s macro-level view is its problem. When you consider the bigger picture, you miss the details - and those details are people who don’t get what they deserve, or what would help them the most. Far reach means less ability to act on minute resolutions, and so we get a one-size-fits all solution which fits no-one and doesn’t solve the problem. For example: a poor person gets a job offer, but can't get to the job because her car battery is dead. Gov can only tell her to wait two weeks until her welfare check arrives. By that time the job will be gone. A charity can simply go out and buy a car battery (or even jump-start the dead battery)[[http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n6-1.html]] Gov’t isn’t organized better - with political appointments and the minister receiving seat due to coalition considerations, you cannot call gov efficient. Also, there’s no promise of consistent funding: while gov itself receives consistent funding, specific ministries such as welfare experience budget cuts without notice. The Nordic examples are problematic (not only since it wasn’t analyzed, but) since they’re mostly homogeneous democratic countries, however once immigration increased, they’ve failed in reducing their poverty - as can be seen in the immigrant town of Malmo, Sweden[[http://is.gd/UlRLk7]] But even if we were to adopt Opp’s criteria of outreach, amount of people able to work, and amount of funds, for which they falsely believe the gov has an advantage - again charities are a clear winner: take for example the 1.1 million charities operating in the US alone[[http://is.gd/gbu5TB]], spread across the entire country. Even if each of these charities has just 5 employees, we still have millions of targeted workers doing the job, and billions of dollar in collected donations each year. Therefore, charities have as much, if not more workers, reach, and money than the gov can hope for, and are all targeted for the purpose with less bureaucracy.