Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

======== Framework ======== My opponent has dropped his value of justice, then criticized me for not having a value or criterion. He dropped his criterion as well. He says of his 3 points under the criterion that: "these three points were just mere observations, and they have no real baring on my overall case." He has given absolutely no justification for his V/C and has dropped the arguments made against them. What's worse, he didn't even attack my frame work. Extend that 'The standard is public health, as explicitly stated by the resolution.' ======== =Neg Case= ======== Overview: Nothing in his case links to the standard of protecting public health. --- C1: "my opponents attack about how Channing says that 'highest function is to protect the weak against the powerful', only helps my case because I would define the government as the powerful and the individual as the weak." 1. He can't just define terms in a quote to make it say what you want. He's no longer quoting their meaning, just text. 2. The way CON defines it is completely incoherent anyway. A government's job is to protect people from itself? Why would we create a government in the firstplace, then? --- C2: "People are not receiving an equal benifit if the government is totalatarean and the government takes away the rights of the individual" This is just an unwarranted assertion. I can't make heads or tails of it anyway. All governments with compulsory immunization are totalitarian? France is totalitarian? America has been? Violating rights somehow makes everyone inherently inequal? What about violation of rights in favor of maintaining equality? --- C3: "Secondly, why are the groups I use any less reasonable than my opponents?" The Supreme Court > 4/5 of anti-vaccinationist websites If you seriously don't believe this, I hope you'll give a justification why. --- C4: "I am showing through him how the government does not have the right to take away an individual's rights." But the government necessarily takes away some rights. How do we punish people? We throw them in jail, violating their liberty. We fine them, violating their right to property. What makes these situations different from immunization. Younkins doesn't say. ========= =Affirmative= ========= "My primary attack is that my opponent offers no value or critereon, so his case has no bearing in this resolution. Since my opponent offers no value or critereon there is no reason to affirm." In my very first sentence I defined the standard for the round, which has gone unaddressed. --- "Secondly my opponent offers no evidence in any of his contentions, and thus he has no warrant. And without evidence his contentions are just claims." Feel free to call me out on any particular point that requires evidence. They are all common sense, for example "[Immunizing an area after a bioterror attack] makes terrorists less satisfied with their results." Terrorists want us to die, thus the reason they try to kill us. If we prevent people from dying through immunization, terrorism doesn't kill as many people, making them less satisfied. --- SCENARIO 1 "I am not willing to give up my rights so that a pet can get vaccinated." Nobody ever said you had to. I'm talking about immunizing pets here. "And secondly, why does this have any bearing on whether humans should have compulsory immunizations?" Who said anything about humans? Your definition of immunization specifically says 'organism,' not 'human': Immunization: Treatment of an organism for the purpose of making it immune to subsequent attack by a particular pathogen, typically achieved by introducing the organism to the living or dead pathogen. This means we can talk about animals, too. --- SCENARIO 2 "this is a wild accusation without any warrant." Feel free to explain why vaccinating felons is a 'wild accusation' and not a reasonable idea. "most people are not felons, so why should they have to get immunized." Ok. You said in your observation that your job is to defend all immunization as bad, not just most. This means you have to defend felons, too. --- SCENARIO 3 "he did not attack the beginning of my case which offers the alternative of an educational system" The beginning of his case is a cute, little anecdote and nothing more. He never draws any conclusions from it. To say that this one example somehow disproves the need for immunization would be a faulty generalization. [1] ======== =Summary= ======== My opponent placed the burden on himself to refute all instances of compulsory immunization. I provided 3 examples, and so far is 0 for 3. ---First, animal immunization--- He doesn't attack this concept whatsoever. He seems to think the resolution talks only of people, but then defines it otherwise. The point that animal immunization is beneficial was dropped by CON, and that alone is enough to vote PRO. ---Second, felon immunization--- He just calls it a 'wild accusation' and drops all of my arguments. No rebuttal whatsoever here. ---Third, bioweapon immunization--- His only claim here is that the anecdotal introduction he provides somehow disproves this. It in no way does. [1] http://www.clt.astate.edu...