Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

My opponent simply made a ton of 1-2 sentence arguments addressed at who knows what, so I'll address and rebut each one in the order that he gave them. === "The reason I said that my value and criterion are linked was to show the voters how my value and criterion better link to my case. " - I don't care if you're from Texas or Pluto, that doesn't make sense. Criterion --> Value in no way means Affirmative --> Criterion === "Again with my observations, they were to give voters a clearer understanding of what is happening. " - I understand what PRO intended for them to do. The fact of the matter is, I rebutted them and this is the second time that he's ignored my rebuttal. === "Everything I put in my rebuttal is a rebuttal, remember this is Texas debate so our styles my vary. " - Again, I'm pretty sure logic doesn't change from state to state. Texas or not, claims need to be backed up with warrants, or atleast reasoning. The ENTIRETY of his defense of your 3 contentions was: "My contentions all tie to the resolution showing why compulsory immunizations are justified by public health concerns. Finally all my sub points hold up my contentions and value and criterion. " PRO hasn't 'proved' anything. He's 'claimed' that your contentions tie to the resolution, and even if that were true, he hasn't explained why that matters at all. === "My arguement was not plagurized. A sentence was and that was a councidence. " - You're telling me that you happened to use this EXACT wording, copied word-for-word, entirely of your own accord: "vaccinations have undoubtedly saved millions of lives since their inception. The risks are minimal; the benefits massive. Besides, without compulsion those benefits aren't seen. " It'll be up to the voters to decide, but I'd be hard pressed to believe someone could accidentally copy that word-for-word. === "Vaccines do save millions of lives and more could be saved if people were to take compulsory immunizations. " - Wrong. PRO agreed to the observations I gave that: 1. We already eradicate diseases with voluntary immunization because we achieve well above herd immunity. 2. Compulsory immunization rates aren't much higher than rates of voluntary immunization to begin with. === "The black death thing had nothing to do with your contention two, but it did tie to your contention one, and made it fall. " - PRO wrote that directly beneath 'Contention 2. ' There is no way he could construe that to be addressing my C1. It doesn't make anything 'fall' anyway. PRO didn't prove anything. He just said "Imagine what would happen if. .. " === "The pharmacies will recieve pay still regardless with the govenment forcing these immunizations" - Erm, this is exactly my point? There is no profit motive because we have to 'buy' the vaccinations whether we want to or not. The pharmacies get paid regardless. I fail to see how this helps my opponent's case at all. === CON: I might have gotten all vaccinations in the past. That doesn't mean that I'll do so in the future, or that I don't deserve the right to refuse immunization. PRO: How so? - I'd say this one's pretty cut-and-dry. === "to exercise your rights, when it takes away some one elses is wrong. " - 1. We aren't debating whether exercising your rights at another's expense is wrong. We're debating whether the government can violate your rights to stop that. 2. PRO doesn't say what 'rights' are being taken away. 3. No rights are being taken away, because as I've argued (and PRO has completely ignored) diseases are being stopped either way. === "I was refering to his quote and again this can't possibly help his case because he doesn't explain how it can. " - Read the paragraph before the quote or simply the quote itself. It's pretty clear. PRO claiming that it doesn't make sense doesn't get him out of rebutting this. === "the government won't be managing life, just one thing, something small at that" - And that's how the whole issue of biopower started. .. and snow-balled. .. === "they control everything else anyways like laws, what you can do where and so on? " - Um, they don't? They still allow us to drink beer, sky-dive, smoke cigarettes, etc. All are hazardous to us. All the government SHOULD do is lay down laws that protect our rights, e. g. "If you violate a person's right X you deserve punishment Y. " The problem is when they start pushing their power beyond that. === "I didn't deny volentary vaccination because it should be alvailable, until compulsory vaccination is neccasary. " - PRO has never given a reason why compulsory immunization would EVER be necessary. === "To vote Con is to completely elminate any chance of my idea of compulsory vaccination. " - And to vote PRO is to completely eliminate any chance of my idea of solely voluntary immunization. === "benifit of compulsion that voluntary vaccination does not serve is that what ever epidemic is at bay, everyone will becime safe" - I've already addressed the issue that voluntary immunization stops such epidemics more than well enough. === "He's arguements of less effective vaccines and biopower are obserd. " - If they're so 'obserd' it would make sense that PRO could easily rebut them. He certainly hasn't. === "We already have the government making all aspects of our lives under their control, so why not something important? " - 1. The government doesn't currently control our entire lives. 2. That's not a good thing; PRO has never argued that it is. He's essentially saying "We're so sc*ewed up already, one more problem couldn't make it any worse. " === "you must vote Pro to save more lives and let the government have all options" - Corrected: "you must vote Pro to let the government have all options to control our lives. " ====== Summary ====== My opponent has continuously hard on the benefits of compulsory immunization stopping disease, epidemics, etc. He has also continuously ignored every argument I've put forth saying voluntary immunization does this equally well. He dismisses my 2 major arguments as 'obserd' without ever giving a rebuttal. He miscontrues them and totally twists them on multiple occasions. We agree that you, the voter, should weigh decisions through a utilitarian standpoint (greatest good for the greatest number) so let's consider the 'good' each side has going for it. PRO All the benefits he claims are pretty much 'stopping disease. ' He ignores the argument that voluntary immunization does this equally well. There are no benefits to affirming that won't be achieve either way. CON 1. Lower quality vaccines As PRO (for reasons unbeknownst to me) reaffirmed in his last speech, the pharmaceutical companies now get paid regardless of the effectiveness of their product. 2. Biopower a. PRO concedes that the government will be running our lives. b. PRO concedes that the government running our lives is a bad thing. This one is a very clear and very major issue.