Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

I'll first be going over standards, then neg, followed finally by aff. Standards: As far as Values go... 1.) First and foremost, my proposed value of justice is really what's being weighed in this debate, per the resolution. Is compulsory immunization JUSTIFIED (implying the value of justice). 2.) Second, my value of Justice pretty much subsumes the value of Natural Rights, as the right to life, liberty, property, and safety of person are all elements of a just society. Furthermore, natural rights is my CRITERION, the mechanism in which I achieve justice! 3.) For clarification as to our natural rights... they are all rights guaranteed by the UN Declaration of Human Rights... how is that unclear? For convenience, I will provide a link to the actual document to prevent further confusion: http://www.un.org... I refrained from listing all of them originally because there are over 50, well over my character allotment :) 4.) As my opponent states... "Since I am arguing that what is "due" to people is their natural rights, we are both essentially striving for the same end goal in our standards. Hence, whoever can preserve those natural rights the best will win this round." I will accept this as fair. But by natural rights, I expect my opponent to uphold all natural rights, as all natural rights are due to people, not just the few listed by my opponent. On the Criterion side of things: Seeing as I can achieve both my opponent's value and my own, my criterion of the protection of natural individual rights is clearly the preferred. There is no way I can possibly achieve herd immunity, and therefor my opponent's criterion is also abusive. Aff Contention 1: 1.) Basically what my opponent is saying is that anyone who is sick is automatically violating the principles of liberty! This is absurd and hyp. Not only are there alternatives to vaccination (like "staying home sick", or basically separating yourself from others until you get better), but hyperbolic. In addition, cross-apply subpoint A of Contention 1 (on neg), which explains how taking away the right to practice one's own religion undermines liberty. More importantly, cross apply my second contention. When an individual is forced by his/her superior to essentially take a suicide capsule to the arm, the superior (or in other words, the government) is threatening the rights of the individual-the right to life! This is effectively a turn, in which the government is not upholding the principle of liberty, and therefor compulsory immunization undermines the principle of liberty. 2.) When medical doctors and nurses are killed as a result of forced inoculation (as in example one), there is no one left to treat citizens with the disease, therefore violating the 3rd article of the UNDHR which grants all the right to life. This is effectively a turn as well. Cross apply the aforementioned rebuttals to subpoints A, B, and C, as the responses are all relevant. Aff Contention 2: Subpoint A and B: GENERAL populations is the key here. As my opponent does not deny that people HAVE indeed died from getting vaccinated, this statement in no way supports her value of Natural Rights, or mine of Justice. Just by killing one person from a vaccine, you are taking away their natural right to life- one of the main rights my opponent is trying to PROTECT! Contention 1 tag: Even if compulsory immunization could prevent an epi/pandemic, this is only protecting the majority of life, not EVERY life. The government, by not enforcing compulsory immunization, is not killing any individual. However, by enforcing compulsory immunization with no guarantee of epi/pandemic prevention, the government is actively killing people. Onto the Negation... Contention 1: My opponents first response to contention 1 tagline really doesn't address the fundamental issue! She is advocating upholding natural human rights, but a huge natural right- probably the most conflicted in history- is the right to practice religion. By not upholding this natural right, you are not upholding natural rights as a whole. Feel free to link this back to (4.) ) on the value standards debate ;) Unfortunately, I can find no definition for "auxiliary rights" so cannot answer adequately. Auxiliary, most commonly defined as "assisting", makes very little sense in this context so I must ask my opponent to specify to avoid confusion and allow for an accurate response. On her third rebuttal, my opponent forgets that those infected can easily choose for themselves to get vaccinated and therefor protect human life. Freedom of choice allows us to make this decision. Freedom of choice also allows us to practice religion. As you can see, without freedom of choice much of whats good in life no longer has meaning. Contention 1:A: My opponent completely misinterprets my contention! Traffic laws are not arbitrary in the least, and for obvious reasons. Allow me to clarify for you. I simply mean that, keeping the philosophic framework of my value and criterion in mind, the more autonomous a society, the more legitimate the system of government. By affirming compulsory immunization, you are decreasing the autonomy of society, because, as proved in contention 1 and 2, compulsory immunization is illogical. Autonomy, by definition, is immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority. I do not contend that traffic laws are arbitrary :) Cross apply all my responses to my opponent's contention 1, as she is essentially saying the same thing as her contention. I shall not bore you by restating my arguments. In response to her slightly new response of static vs non-static rights, what makes religious freedom any less important, or non-static, than any other right? If you care to note, many people have sacrificed their lives to protect this freedom. Obviously, these people valued the right to freely practice their religion as important or even more important to the right to life. Furthermore, people also devote their entire lives to the practice of religion, and denying them of this right (the right to religion), you are essentially denying them of their lives. Contention 1, B: My opponent's first response is logically flawed. Religion does have a right to practice all of its doctrine in the first place. Who says which religious practices are okay and which aren't? Provide some reasons to support your argument please, as I can simply state that you're wrong and we will still be on the same level (providing a conclusion with no warranted premises). Again, I wish to ask, should the major body of religious persons more important than the minority? Are Caucasians more important than African Americans or Asians, for example? Yes, you are correct, I AM saying that forcing people to be vaccinated when they religiously object is wrong. Thanks for paying attention. BUT, my opponent has this vain idea that by my logic I'm also objecting to health and well being project around the world. However, my opponent conveniently leaves out the fact that you are harming people through compulsory immunization, whether religiously or physically! If these "well-being" projects end up harming people, or violating their natural rights, then yes, I do not support them. 1, C: The upheaval within society is the result of constant revolution. The constant revolution has led to pressure economically and educationally. This excessive economic/educational pressure, while benefiting the country as a whole, has also adversely resulted in increased suicide rates. Regarding her second response, keep in mind that disease is not the cause of societal upheaval in this example, but oppressive government control and reform. Meaning another mandate from the government would empirically lead to more societal upheaval, and in turn increased suicide rates.