BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Compulsory Immunizations are necessary to protect the right's of others.

If the majority of the people get the vaccination then the disease could almost completely be eliminated from the society. Then why in the world do we need compulsory immunization? Since most of the people are smart enough to get immunization, why does every one need to get it? There is no reason to that therefore this "Yes" argunment is just plain dumb. Also, by herding everyone into one group, you are regarding the human race as one giant population of animals, stupid and brainless. On the contrary, we are quite intelligent and most of us do posses a brain. Therefore, we must also remember to protect the rights of each individual to freedom of thought and to choices. We already have a brain, so why shouldn't we be allowed to use it and make the smart decisions for ourselves? The only answer I can think of is that you want the human race to turn into giant vegetables that cannot think for themselves. That does not sound pleasant at all to me. So, protect the individual right to choose our own courses in life, because I do not want to become a vegetable.
Tyranny of the Majority

There are already required immunizations that are taken to lessen the effects on communities and schools. This is not tyranny of the majority for it is looking at making sure the greatest good is given to the greatest number of people.John Stuart Mill is one of the founders of utilitarianism, so the facts should not be disregarded that the affirmation of the resolution would in fact be a utillitarian act. Thus just by not only the resolution but in the philosopy of J.S.Mill. Whoever wrote the above is right, tyranny of the majority would not (according to me) be considered a negative point as immunizations help the people more than harm them, if you think I am wrong, say why. Also, there could be more than one purpose and stats show that the diseases prevented by vaccines are far worse than the diseases caused by them.
It eliminates diseases and prevents them from returning

In countries where there is compulsory vaccination of children, the argument presented by governments is that the mass vaccination of children from birth will help to eradicate and prevent various diseases from existing in the country. There is certainly strong evidence from the United States to suggest that compulsory immunization is justified, and is perhaps better demonstrated by looking at several examples of how diseases have been significantly reduced as a result of compulsory immunization. Firstly, prior to a vaccine for polio, between 13,000 and 20,000 cases were reported in the USA annually. In 1988, the World Health Organisation decided to try and eradicate polio worldwide, and as of today the disease has been removed from the USA, Western Pacific and Europe. Only four countries (Afghanistan, Nigeria, India and Pakistan) are endemic, and there are just 2000 cases reported worldwide annually as of 2009. But by stopping vaccination before the disease is widely eradicated leaves countries susceptible to future unexpected outbreaks. Another common disease – measles, affected nearly everyone in the United States prior to the vaccination being introduced. Between 1953 and 1963, there were 450 deaths each year from the disease. Currently in the US, three of every 1000 people who contract measles will die, whilst in the developing world, one in 100 will die. It is estimated that 90% of people who are exposed to the virus will get infected if not vaccinated against it. In 1999 according to the WHO, there were 900,000 measles related deaths worldwide. Measles can spread rapidly amongst unvaccinated populations, and if vaccinations were stopped, the WHO estimate there could be 2.7 million measles related deaths worldwide annually. Type B meningitis was prior to the vaccine the most common form of bacterial meningitis in US infants, with 20,000 annual cases, with one in 600 proving either fatal or leaving the child with some form of disability. Since the vaccine became available in1987, the number of cases has reduced by 98%, with fewer than ten fatalities a year. These are just a few examples of how vaccines can prevent and eradicate diseases that have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths throughout the past century. Although some may argue that with diseases such as Polio wiped out in most of the world a vaccine is not necessary. However any reduction in the number of people vaccinated against the disease would leave a window of opportunity for the disease to rear its head up once again. In many ways vaccinations have become victims of their own success. People under estimate the dangers of disease as they have not experienced the effects.
government liability

The government should not force someone to be vaccinated if the person does not want to be vaccinated. I say this because, if a person doesn't want to be vaccinated and the government forces them to be vaccinated and that person dies from a side effect of the vaccination then the immediate family of the victim could sue the government for killing their loved one. This could cost the government millions of dollars which could be used for other purposes and it could make the people distrust the government on the basis that if you don't want to do something the government will force you to do it anyway and you could die. Therefore I disagree with the resolution. You must also look at the argument that the social contract is not one thing. Different philosophers have different views. John Locke's social contract states that the government should do all possible to protect us, but Rousseau's states that the government should allow the individual to keep any and all rights. Because the argument given was on the U.S., a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, then Rousseau's social contract theory takes precedence. This reason for this is that Rousseau gave the most commonly used idea of democracy.
Compulsory Immunizations are necessary to protect the right's of others.

The good thing about immunization, is that if a majority of the people get the vaccination, the disease can almost completely be eliminated from society. If the population is immunized under that amount, it is still possible for diseases to have significant outbreaks. This concept is often referred to as herd immunization. Herd immunization is important because it minimizes the chances of those not vaccinated or those not able to vaccinated chances of getting serious diseases. If one person’s choice is not to get immunized they are directly harming another’s freedom from the disease. They are putting another at risk because of their own selfishness. People in society ought be required to get immunizations because is protects the rights of others. When we put the choice of being immunized into someone’s hands. I believe we are given freedom in our country, but freedom with consequence. We protest against ideas we believe are wrong, demonstrating our right of freedom of speech, and get arrested, we practice our right of freedom in not getting vaccinations, and we see the consequences by directly putting others in danger. So when we exercise our right of freedom in not being forced to get an immunization, we are really taking away someone elses freedom. Therefore you really can't argue that compulsory immunizations take away your freedom, if in not getting them your taking away other's freedoms. it's just hypocritic. (Just adding my input on what the Neg has said. Everything you have come back to say is idiotic and makes no real connection to what the Aff is saying. The Neg obviously does not understand what the Aff is saying. Ignorance... They should make a vaccine for that. -___-)
It gives up your indvidual rights as a united states citizen

First of all if you don't like the way things are run vote to correct the situation otherwise leave. By living in the United States you abide by the social contract. You live in a democracy so you must be vaccinated if it is what has been voted on and approved. You state that vaccines can and will be harmful, this is a blanket statement. First focusing on the can, getting out of bed can be harmful, walking downstairs can be harmful, eating can be harmful. There is harm every where and every day. Just because there is a small risk does not mean we should pass vaccinations by and risk coming down with something that has the potential to kill. All your stats you give, there is no evidence to back it up so there is no point in believing it. Also what question was the government asked when they said we need to reduce population, and which government was questioned. The goal of humanity is to preserve humanity this means that by giving vaccinations we are lowering the risk of infectious disease. Thus protecting humanity, not lowering population. TO BE HONEST- wouldnt you rather have a few minor rare side effects than having widespread diseases all over the world resulting in people dying in their thousands and there being unfair suffering??!
Tyranny of the Majority

Compulsory vaccination is an example of the tyranny of the majority even if it is made by a democratic government. John Stuart Mill “the majority… the people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this, as against any other abuse of power… In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.[[ Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. London: Longman, Roberts & Green, 1869; Bartleby.com, 1999. http://www.bartleby.com/130/. 2nd October, 2009, Chapter 1, paragraph 9 ]] The state (or the majority) can only dictate to the individual is if that individual’s actions adversely effects the collective. John Stuart Mill “the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.”[[ibid, C1, P9]] Therefore the question is ‘what is the purpose of the vaccination?’ if it is to provide individuals with their own protection then autonomy of decision-making and individual liberty should predominate as guiding principles. Under these circumstances there can be little justification of any coercion on the part of public health officials, in particular the use of mandatory vaccination legislation. If it is more based upon public harm i.e. the more chance of the virus infecting from one human to another then the less this defence can be used.[[University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, Medical ethics experts identify, address key issues in H1N1 pandemic, FirstScience News 23rd September 2009 http://www.firstscience.com/home/news/breaking-news-all-topics/medical-ethics-experts-identify-address-key-issues-in-h1n1-pandemic-page-3-1_71059.html%5D%5D
Compulsory Immunization will create a herd immunity to protect those who cannot be vaccinated.

What if a majority is not allowed to be vaccinated due to some particular reason? If we get rid of the lower soicety than we are saving the higher gened people thus making me save more lives than you Also, the herd theory only works in an ideal situation, where none of the unimmunized people get sick. This is not an ideal world and the reality is that they will get sick. You cannot ignore that fact by trying to cover them in vaccinated people. Instead, tell the world what's going on, give them the pros and cons, don't lie and falsly publicize, and be honest. I believe that we are smart people, smart enough to realize what the right thing to do is. That is the best way that everyone can get immunized with the least amount of casualties. We are not all the same, and you must acknowledge the fact that some are different. Think in terms of clothes. You cannot force a size 5 on everyone, for it will fit some, but not all. This is the same. Do not try to make it fit, or someone will get hurt trying. If you have compulsory vaccination, there is NO NEED for herd immunity at all. herd immunity is a voluntary structure, and compulsory immunizations are not voluntary, hence: COMPULSORY. Therefore, herd immunity does not work for the affirmative.
Moral Obligation

I respectfully state that we have a moral obligation to our own lives first. We have an obligation to choose exactly what we do with our lives, for it is quite a simple concept actually. It is our own life, and if we allow anyone else to decide what we do with it, then it is no longer ours. To have a compulsory immunization would take away our moral right to choose what gets put into our bodies, and what doesn't. Sure, we probably would choose to get a vaccine that could save our lives, but you cannot take away the choice merely because you assume that we will pick one over the other. Your assumption could be wrong for no one truly knows me better than I do, so why should I leave that choice up to a stranger that knows nothing about me and what that vaccine could do to me. The important point in all this is that before we help others, we must help ourselves first. That is our moral obligaiton. To allow someone to requires us to do something is like living under a dictatorship. Granted it's supposed to help you, but is loosing the freedom of choice worth something you could get on your own, a decision made in your own free will, regarding your own life? I don't think so.
It gives up your indvidual rights as a united states citizen

saying the government can do whatever they want is not right its like telling them ok heres my body inject me with what ever you want. You are being injected with some thing that can be or will be harmful. in 1950 the Polio Vaccination was infected with a virus called Simian Virus 40 (SV40). SV40 caused Lung and Brain cancer to most of the recipricants of the vaccination. in 1976 the swine flu vaccine was given out and caused a little less than 50% to become paralyzed and die. when questioned the government stated that we needed to reduce population. What if you where the so called population needed to be reduced???
Adverse side effects

Many parents are worried that there are side effects to vaccines, particularly fears over some vaccines being a contributory factor to autism.Most side effects from vaccines are relatively minor and do not last long. For example DTaP/IPV vaccine for diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough) and inactivated polio can in about one in ten people result in swelling and redness where the injection took place. Less regularly there can be a slightly raised temperature, sickness, tiredness and headache. And sometimes swollen glands (lymphadenopathy) and a severe, but temporary, swelling of the upper arm. Worst case but very rare can be a severe allergic reaction.[[http://www.immunisation.nhs.uk/Vaccines/DTaP_IPV/Vaccine/What_side_effects_may_be_seen]] This has long been recognised. There has however been a change in recognition of more severe side effects. In the 1990s the view of the medical community was that there were no serious side effects to vaccinations. Such reported side effects were complications like seizures, encephalitis, autoimmune reactions, bleeding disorders, and neurological injuries. This has however changed to recognising that while such side effects are extreemly rare they do exist. [[Dr. Bob Sears, Vaccines And Autism: What Can Parents Do During This Controversy?, The Huffington Post, 9th September 2009, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-bob-sears/vaccines-and-autism-what_b_279745.html ]] Dr Andrew Wakefield provided evidence in the lancet journal that there is a link between vaccination and autism. “We saw several children who, after a period of apparent normality, lost acquired skills, including communication. They all had gastrointestinal symptoms, including abdominal pain, diarrhoea, and bloating and, in some cases, food intolerance.” As an example Wakefield lancet article He [child four] received a dose of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine at age 4•5 years, the day after which his mother described a striking deterioration in his behaviour that she [child four’s mother] did link with the immunisation. Previous studies had found problems with the intestine within children with autism, these support the hypothesis that the consequences of an inflamed or dysfunctional intestine may play a part in behavioural changes in some children.[[D'Eufemia P, Celli M, Finocchiaro R, et al. Abnormal intestinal permeability in children with autism. Acta Paediatrica, vol.85, 1996, pp.1076-1079.]] Those children that Wakefield looked at in the study had such problems with their intestine (each remarkably similar) where previously they did not. In the conclusion the authors state Wakefield lancet article We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation.[[Dr Andrew J Wakefield et al, Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children, The Lancet, Vol.351, no.9103, 28th Feb 1998, pp.637-641. ]]
Compulsory Immunization will create a herd immunity to protect those who cannot be vaccinated.

Owing to vaccination campaigns, smallpox is no longer a disease that threatens man and polio, diphtheria and measles are rare in developed countries. However these diseases with the exception of smallpox still exist in other parts of the world. The aim of most developed countries including the USA is to create a “herd immunity” where those who are not vaccinated against these diseases are still protected, due to protection by “the herd.” This is the idea that if you immunize as many people as possible, then they will protect the not vaccinated. When the vaccination levels drop, so does the protection. In the UK, the debate over the MMR jab resulted in just 65% of London school children receiving the jab. The required level for a herd immunity to be successful in preventing a major measles outbreak was 95%. The consequence was that London experienced a massive rise in measles cases. It is therefore important that the numbers of those left unvaccinated remain low, as to lower the threat of a disease spreading through contact. This also shows that by vaccinating the required percentage of those who can have the jab allow means those who cannot for various reasons receive the jab will more or less be protected from such diseases. For instance, most jabs cannot be given to a child until they are between two and twelve months old. Prior to this age, these children are entirely reliant upon the herd for protection.
Waste of Money

Compulsory vaccinations are a myth in America and are not mandatory. But the laws and exemptions of every state are written to confuse and make the general public believe that immunizations are mandatory. This is simple legal trickery to get your uninformed consent to be vaccinated. The uninformed are victimized by the current laws by the untrue perception that vaccinations are mandatory. And the informed who are against vaccinations are victimized by the laws by requiring them to spend their time, energy, and money to be exempt from vaccinations. This is true madness in America where "free choice" is only allowed through an extensive governmental application process of time, energy, and money. This perception of mandatory vaccinations is in fact truly dishonest and places the burden of responsibility for highly questionable immunizations on the general public and not the manufacturers of the vaccines. By doing this most people who are uninformed or have little time and means to question supposed "mandatory vaccinations" are victimized by an institutionalized system of medical exploitation. It is time to end this legalized medical victimization of the general public and place all immunizations and vaccines firmly in the area of free choice. To do this federal and state laws must be rewritten to ban all mandatory vaccinations from the United States and make this the law of the land and widely and publicly known to all. Local and federal officials require ordinary citizens to spend large amounts of time, money, and energy to exempt themselves and their family members from vaccinations that are known to be highly toxic and dangerous. They do this because most of these officials honestly believe immunizations are useful. They are grossly uninformed and should not be ridiculed for their uninformed beliefs. It becomes your duty to protect your family from their uninformed beliefs and the current laws of the land and do the required paperwork to exempt your family. A national ban on all compulsory vaccinations as the law of the land will end this unfair nonsense and burden on the general public and allow those uninformed citizens to continue receiving immunizations as they believe. A national ban on all compulsory vaccinations and immunization would also keep uninformed citizens from being grossly misinformed by local officials who state that vaccinations are mandatory. A national ban on all compulsory immunizations will give true "free choice" to vaccinate or not and restored true fairness under the law in the community. The legal system will no longer be the tool of the drug and vaccine manufacturers who benefit from the current legal confusion and perception by the public. And many thousands of children and adults may be saved from gross lifelong physical harm by the reduction in immunizations nationwide. Let free choice be the law of the land not legalese and mandatory vaccinations for profits. -- J.E. Ante http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/Immunization.pdf
Moral Obligation

John Mill's harm principle states, "The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against few members will, is to prevent harm to the majority of the community." All freedoms are limited, we must have the basic supplies of what we need and a safe environment to live in, without these things freedom could not be exercised freely. When members of society go without immunization, it is dangerous for society as a whole. They are potential hosts for disease and allow the disease to be spread. When more lives are saved, there is more happiness to the society, which is minimizing suffering and in turn achieves societal welfare.
A child has a human right to be protected from preventable diseases from birth

Yes, but that is only if they want to, what if children don't want to be vaccinated, if compulsory immunizations are carried out, there could be major strikes by kids and teens, also, what if the child becomes autistic due to this? As of now, people are allowed to decide whether or not they get vaccinated. If your value is Justice, this is a major question. If this law is carried out, who knows what terrible things could happen? Also, the resolution is not asking about whether or not vaccination is a bad thing, but if the government should have to FORCE the child to be immunized. Parents should be the primary decision-makers of their child's life, as they know whether or not the child will actually be exposed to the virus. Vaccines usually are not free, they cost money, and may actually risk the baby's life by exposing the virus. Thus, parents must make the child's critical decisions. If they are inadequate at doing this, we do have a thing called child custody requirements.