Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory.

Refutations You just now listed 3 sources with no links for the audience and me to make sure. I listed links so that you can check my sources. "My opponent has falsely accused me, and should therefore have conduct points graded off. " This is completely ridiculous. You're the one who is screaming by writing in caps, I did most certainly not "falsely accuse" you, and you only listed these sources now. You insulted me by calling me a hypocrite. "another false accusation: "I bet you didn't want ANYONE to know you were even plagarizing! " Well, I mean, why didn't you bother citing your source? Citing your source is a good thing! But those were not your words and it was complete plagarism. "completely irrelevant to the question. " Is this honestly your response? If everyone was vaccinated, then no one would be dramatically effected by any of these dangerous diseases. You gave no refutation and this point stands. "contradiction: "why would that suddenly happen in that time period? .. .even when they dissapear for a while" you denied the existence of the improvement in hygiene, etc, yet acknowledged it a couple of sentences later. " What are you talking about? There was no contradiction and no refutation here. You even said "coincidence? " You have no evidence to back up this point. "You cannot save lives that are already lost. " Vaccines didn't exist back then. If they vaccines back then, then those lives would have been saved and people could have lived much longer. "Frankly, if that number is big, then vaccines don't work. If you consider the number that vaccines fail to save "big," you are saying that vaccines do not save this "big" amount of people. " That number is extremely big for a disease. Vaccines do work. That's why all those deaths have been stopping. "This amount of deaths is because we are too reliant on vaccinations! " No. .. Vaccines prevent many illnesses and prevent deaths as well. .. How does it make any sense that vaccines would cause that much damage? ". .. [vaccinations]can cause many deaths, not because it isn't used for some people, but because it is used by the majority. .. " - Dr. James Marswell Are you kidding me? Everyone, type this name in Google. The guy doesn't even exist and the argument isn't even thoroughly explained! "How is one person not being vaccinated a risk to others? If they are vaccinated, they should not be in danger! " Once again, one person contracting a disease can spread it to more and more people through germs. Vaccinated people can still catch it, but they will have smaller symptoms. "However, listing statistics is not plagiarizing. You even plagiarized yourself from the same source! Also, I listed tons of sources, just not in the same way that you did. Do I have to bother to do it? Also, your entire speech is without sources! " You listed 3. In the final round. If you even have been looking at my argument, I have given numerous sources. Copying arguments word for word without citing them is plagiarism. "Can you scientifically explain how we got our consciousness? How minerals, unliving elements, can create a living being? Life is right in front of our eyes! There are many things that we do not yet know. " This is more complicated things and is irrelevant to the matter at hand. "They will not have better defense against it and will be affected as much, if not greater, according to the study I quoted above. " Fake study. Never sourced. No website. They will be affected a little less, according to the site you plagiarized from. "If they are helpful, they are a good way to help prevent sicknesses! That doesn't mean that it should be mandatory. " People will not take vaccines if they are optional. But vaccines are good for everyone. You need to take them so that your body will be benefited and there will be good. "For these reasons, I have clearly won this debate. " Obviously, I disagree. You had poorer conduct by constantly using caps, meaning you are shouting, you plagiarized from sites, and you insulted me. Spelling and grammar was okay. I saw a few errors, but I guess that's okay. Arguments are poor and will soon be refuted. Sources is what I dominated in, seeing as I listed more and you only mentioned yours in the last round. Refutations of CON Main Arguments 1. My opponent has stated that people have religious rights and should be allowed to not be vaccinated. This is a very ignorant move. They are putting their entire society at risk of contracting a virus or disease and putting everyone's lives at stake if there is a life-threatening disease. I have never heard that it is a sin to take a vaccine and my opponent has never explained this. 2. Vaccines can be harmful. No, this is wrong, vaccines saves many lives and prevents many diseases. The vaccine causes more benefit compared to the harm done and helps many people in the world right now. It has prevented disease breakouts and we know lives are safe. These are the main arguments that I got from the Opposition. Proposition's Arguments 1. The vaccine is good for everyone. It has saved lives, stopped diseases, and helped everyone. Not taking it means you are missing out on something very good. Many people have died before vaccines were invented and when they were, all those deaths dropped a huge amount. 2. People who are un-vaccinated can obtain harmful diseases and spread it to their families and friends who will suffer because of ignorance. You are putting everyone at risk and you should not be doing so.