Public Health Concerns Justify Compulsory Immunization

Thank you NEG. Extending my case... My value "Public Health" is the basis of this resolution; the resolution is questioning whether public health should be considered in mandating immunizations. Thus without the value "Public Health", there would be nothing to justify compulsory immunization. My VC also is essential; as my contentions have proven, the ultimate goal of compulsory immunization is to protect the welfare of society as a whole, aka public health. Without public health, there would be no fully functioning society, and thus nothing else can exist without it. My second contention first establishes the fact that government is created in order to protect the welfare of society as a whole and ensure its well-being. Thus, rights of the individual citizen must be given up when it is against the interests of other citizens in the same community. A government is obligated to choose and implement policies that are considered the best for society as a whole; if it does not accomplish this (in which negative is suggesting) then what would be the point in establishing a government in the first place? Alas, my second contention leads and proves my first contention which is critical to this debate; that vaccinations are effective in protecting the human population. Vaccines have been proven to protect the welfare of humans, and if required for all citizens, would protect the whole society. An individual might resist against the vaccine, but then he would be seen as a potential threat to society; that particular individual would have the risk of carrying the disease and infecting those around him. Under these circumstances, the individual must be required to be immunized so to protect other people; his individual rights cannot be considered. Now responding to my opponents case and rebuttal: My opponent's value is morality. What is morality based on? an individual's perspective, or society's perspective? my opponent's value is too vague, and thus cannot be considered. My opponent's criterion is human agency, defined as "the capacity of humans to make rational decisions." Obviously "rational" would be influenced by an individual's moral conscience, but what if this indivudal had corrupt or aboslutely no sense of moral righteousness. Then he is free to do whatever he may please, because he considers it to be rational. If this rationality was to be judged by other people in the same given society, then thus he would be restricted by others for his particular actions. In a sense my opponent's criterion is agreeing with the affirmative; if society considers this individual's rationality to be not justified, then it have the right to restrict it. In the same way as my case, an indivudal can not freely roam in this society; they give up some of their individual rights in exchange for protection and security as a whole. My opponent advocates that humans are always unpredictable and we would have to respect that. He criticizes that compulsory immunization would dennounce individualism; Yet compulsory immunziation does not take away all rights and identity of people; it only does so under the circumstance of public health. Also, there is no proof or direct link that a government would abuse its power and create "horrors such as slavery, eugenics, or holocaust." This arguement is extremely flawed, and I would like to point out my opponent does not give any sort of warrant or proof of this. Thus my opponent's criterion is invalid. His whole arguement, and case would thus not make any sense. Responding to my opponent's rebuttals, my case is built on protecting public health, because the resolution is asking whether compulsory immunization can be justified through public health; public health thus is the determining factor, not compulsory. For the given reasons, vote for affirmative. The main arguement is that government is established to insure the welfare of society, and when vaccines have been proven to benefit society, government has to mandate vaccinations so to ensure this beneficiary. thus, public health concerns justify immunization.