Public Health Concerns Justify Compulsory Immunization

Alright. At the top starting at the Neg. First on the values. The purpose of a Value in LD debate is to establish something (e.g. Justice) that is valued for intrinsic goodness. LD is a values based debate, one that appeals to meta-ethical standards like justice. It is thus apparent that justice is a prerequisite to other values. If we value equality, there is nothing good about equality unless it is equally just. People can be EQUALLY oppressed. My opponent argues that "Although a lateral derivative, the term justice is not synonymous with justify" Two Responses. 1. If it is indeed the lateral derivative it is the only implied value in the resolution and thus becomes the resolution question. 2. My opponents own definition of the term "justify" was to prove to be just. Meaning the goal of justifying an action is the prove the action to be just making Justice the resolutional value. My Opponent made no attacks on the Criterion of deconstructing biopolitcal classism. Dont let him bring it up in his next argument since I dont get a chance to defend that section of my own case at all. He cold dropped it. In other words signaled his agreement with it. The implication of this is that because I won the Value Debate that it becomes impossible for the AFF to win unless he can show an active way he deconstructs biopolitcal classism better than I do. Also the ONLY attack my opponent made on my case was "People still have the same access to medical care. Although they may have to travel further or wait longer, the opportunity still exists." However this is the very statement that I disproved in my case. Extend my entire contention. Heres the argument once again: Compulsory Immunization requires a punishment. The lowest socio-economic classes will not have access to medical care. This is empirically proven. Thus we place them in an endless cycle of punishment AND they wont be able to get the vaccine. None of the warrants were attacked to again this is cold dropped by my opponent. On to the Aff Case. My opponent dropped my attacks on both his Value and Criterion meaning that you as the judge have to use mine for evaluating the round. Once again here were my arguments on the Value and Criterion. "n the value of sensibility. 1. No warrant. Sensibility is not an important value. Justify according to my opponents definition of justify he has a burden to prove an action to be just or right. Thus justification requires an appeal to meta-ethical values. 2. To justify an action is to prove an action to be just. Thus my value justice is textually warranted over my opponents. On the Criterion: 1. Not defined. The aff did not present a criterion that was clearly articulated. If there is no explicit criterion it becomes impossible to impact back to anything. 2. Medical professionals disagree, there is no clear standard of medical "rightness" we can appeal to. Thus the Criterion lacks any sort of brightline. If both my opponent and I quote a medical professional regarding the issue of compulsory immunization who wins? Thus not only does the criterion lack a brightline, weighing mechanism but also a link back to the value." The implication of this is that his "source quoting" offense falls. I establish that we cannot decide who is a more "credible" source on each particular issue. Also within such organizations as the WHO have internal disagreements and are no more qualified than any medical researcher. So lets go onto contention 1 A: my previous analysis on this wipes out this argument. There is no such thing as "most qualified" in the medical field. B. However they bite into the harms of the NC. That proves from a different angle that they are just justified. Bioethics is not just what will save the most people. Also may I remind everyone that people have adverse reactions. Vaccines are cultured in eggs and if someone has an egg allergy they will be affected. If someone has an immune deficiency, they will be affected. Also the voluntary Immunization rate is tremendous. My opponent brings up Polio. Polio is now dead thanks to immunization. I admit this. HOWEVER it was voluntary immunization. Obviously compulsory wasn't necessary. Contention 2: Not cost prohibition per se. Availability of Medical facilities. This is not something that can be fixed. This is an inherent problem with society and the medical system. Immunization WOULD NOT fix this. Also my opponent never explains why they would "take poverty into account" because honestly do any of you see the government really doing that now? Sanctioning off once eligible welfare recipients. A race to the bottom for welfare spending just so the poor dont move to their states? This is not a government who always takes the poor into consideration. Also the people I am alking about are not Nurses or doctors that could get Jobs in medical facilities. Also my opponent drops my marginalization point. B. I will talk about the punishment factor in C3. Contention 3: Nothing prohibited Hitler from killing his own people. Also choice is not a factor. The Prohibition would be not get vaccinated and the lowest classes don't have access to medical facilities. THEY CANT GET IMMUNIZED. They are breaking a law, and thus get punished. Summary and Voters My opponent did not attack ANY of the warrants in the NC. I proved that in the case of Compulsory Immunization Poor would not have access to medical facilities. And could not Get vaccinated. Proved and not refuted. MY opponent dropped his Value and Criterion meaning we default to mine. I empirically prove and is un-refuted that this will increase classism not decrease it. So thus The resolution is negated right there. My opponents only offensive arguments regard general welfare. HOWEVER, LD is not about impacts that dont relate to a criterion. All impacts must relate to a criterion that relates to a value. Also I have proved it is not for the general welfare as well. There is no offense coming out of the AC. THE NC remains largely unattacked and thus the resolution ought to be negated unless my opponent can magically provide a proactive reason the resolution is just. not unjust=/= Just. This is a Burden he gave himself dont let him ignore it. Good Debate tws, Metz