Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

For consistency, I've responded to his argument in the comments in the same place. On Standards: 1. Considering my opponent's response #4, you can ignore everything else he said about his value and/or criterion outweighing or subsuming mine, since he concedes that we are both essentially trying to achieve the same things, but just labeling them with different but philosophically synonymous terms. 2. What exactly a natural right is will become the crux of this debate, I believe. If the point of government in the first place is to protect its society as well as its individuals, there must be a balance between government intervention and individual freedom. The metric for this balance is explained in my first contention. Lest my opponent can prove that it is justified to take one's life involuntarily in order to respect the religious whims of another, you will prefer my interpretation of natural rights and vote affirmative. Bottom line: not every right outlined in a given governmental document, even the UN Declaration of Human Rights (DHR), is to be respected equally. My mechanism provides the most justice (as outlined on both sides of the debate), as it saves the most lives without totally eliminating other rights. My opponent can claim a perfect respect for religious or philosophical freedom, but kills millions in the process. Hence, natural rights should be only those that are most important to ensure a just existence. As outlined in Article 3 of the DHR, those are life, liberty, and security of person. Religious and ideological freedom, while important, are not irreducible at all times. Aff Case: His First Response to Aff 1: 1. Speaking of hyperbolic, let's throw the suicide capsule in that pile. My opponent has yet to even link his unrelated China card to vaccinations at all. Look to my contention 2 for proof of widespread safety and the benefits of vaccinations. 2. This is a straw man. One who objects to vaccines for any reason other than medical violates the principle of liberty, just like any person driving a car violates that principle if they choose to run a red light and put others in danger. 3. My opponent presents the alternative of "staying home sick". .. is that supposed to present enough solvency to answer the harms in my case? His Second Response to Aff 1: 1. My opponent gives a single example, ignores what I've said repeatedly about the danger of vaccines being extremely rare, and then states that doctors and nurses will be dying from vaccines at such an intense rate that none shall be left to treat all of us when we fall ill. Turn? Not so much. 2. Extend the impacts coming out of this entire contention, as my opponent has yet to say anything that will outweigh or counter my Parks card or the analysis in my sub C. Because pandemics spread rapidly and across countries, irrational vaccine fear costs millions of lives. 3. My opponent also effectively drops my sub B, which details why any exemption besides medical is unjust and a violation of other's natural rights. When he concedes this, he highlights his inability to achieve the standards set out for this debate. His Response to Aff 2, Sub A & B: 1. My opponent misses the boat with his argument about general populations and how I do, in fact, end up killing people at the end of the day. I will remind you of my traffic control device analogy. Every single measure of protection that a government can instill can cause the death of human beings. That does not automatically unjustify them. The negative is holding me to a totally unfair burden at this point. Since I prove clearly that I save far more people than the negative can, I am still winning the standards. Even if I can't protect every single life in the world with compulsory immunization, I still protect life way more than the negative does. If we are only affirming or negating based on who saves EVERY human life, then we've both lost this debate already. Neg Case: Neg 1 Tag: His Response to My 1: The right to practice one's religion, as I stated previously, is curtailed when it violates someone's right to life or safety of person. One cannot practice ritual human sacrifice, even if it is entailed in their religious doctrine, because it takes away the natural right to life. His Response to Auxiliary Rights: As I stated in a text message to my opponent, "auxiliary rights" is a descriptive term that I made up to encapsulate those rights which can be curtailed when they come into conflict with the outweighing rights I describe throughout. The term does not represent an offensive argument. Extend the cross-application, however, as that went unaddressed. His Response to My 3: This is a slippery slope argument disguised. My opponent assumes that all freedom of choice will go away with this particular choice eliminated. Not only is slippery slope a logical fallacy, but it is unwarranted entirely. Compulsory immunization programs exist in multiple countries already, including the U. S. for schoolchildren, and no such harms have been witnessed. Sub A: His Response to My 1: My analogy, being an example of autonomy compromised for the safety and health of the general public, is in direct correlation to our debate. Notice that my opponent calls compulsory immunizations arbitrary, but never defends that claim. On the contrary, they are just as arbitrary, according to my case, as traffic laws (which is to say that they are not arbitrary). If we maximize autonomy as my opponent suggests, than all laws which seek to protect the right to life or security of person should be abolished, as all of them compromise autonomy in some way. His Response to My 2: First of all, I can't make new arguments the first time that I respond to your case. Hence, it isn't even slightly new. Second of all, static and non-static rights are, again, descriptive terms for concepts I've already forwarded in my case. As to the actual argument made by my opponent, there must be a brightline if just governments are to exist. Practicing one's religion is not entirely compromised by requiring vaccines. Said government is never saying: "abandon your entire religion. " That government is saying that religious practices which hurt others cannot be practiced. Sub B: His Response to My 1/2: I did give reasons. Religions cannot practice doctrine which harms others. The metric is provided clearly in my case (with reference to all that stuff I said about the principle of liberty). The decision is made by this metric, which my opponent has yet to prove is unjust. Also, liberty has nothing to do with discriminatory practices against ethnicities. His Response to My 3: My opponent again assumes that all rights deserve equal and immutable protection, which they do not. If he feels this way, then he must object to all public health projects, as fundamentalist religious groups tend to object at different times and in different ways to every single one of them. Sub C: His Response to My 1: There's still no link to compulsory vaccinations provided. I get that societal upheaval can increase suicide rates, but there's no evidence to suggest that compulsory vaccinations will cause this upheaval. His Response to My 2: Again, no warrant here. My turn is more evidenced via the vast amounts of panic and media coverage that were given to the SARS outbreak in Asia, which would lead to societal stress and to the harms he outlines in his case. The idea of dying from a mystery disease tends to do that to people. On the other hand, that slippery slope argument is buried in here again, at which point you can cross-apply what I already said about them.