Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Something is I have written because this is my tournament case so it may not apply to this debate. Ok first I will attack his case then rebuild my own. Ok since he has the same value and criterion it would be pointless to show how they aren't good. However I feel that my value of utilitarianism and criterion of public safety better uphold my case. Utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number of people and that is what compulsory vaccination gives, even though some people may face side effects I'm looking for the greatest good for MOST of society. His case doesn't hold up utilitarianism becuase non compulsory vaccination will put society at risk, which kills public saftey as well. Also to vote for the con is to eliminate any possiblity of ever having compusory immunization, even in an epidemic. The government must have all cards on table so to speak, and to take away this option is to take away alot of public safety. His observation of herd immunity falls under my side, the people who slip through the compulsion system will still be safe under herd immunization. Ok his contention 1 There is no practical benefit to compulsory immunization. Not true Vaccinations have undoubtedly saved millions of lives since their inception, the risks are minimal; the benefits are massive. What if the people that didn't take these vaccines did? There would have been way more lives saved into the billions. The benefits are that diseases can be completely eliminated from earth. Also, affirming the resolution doesn't mean that this option will be used it just means that it is a possibility. Like I said before we must have all options available, to vote con is to eliminate any possibility of EVER having compulsion. His contention 2 Compulsory immunization leads to lower quality vaccines. This honestly makes no sense. The quality will be the same, they are mass produced by machine. It sounds like he is saying that a person will get tired of making so many. Also, they will still make these vaccines good, without hardly any side effects because if they are too bad the governments will stop them. The governments know that individuals make up thier country so they wont want to lose them. There will be more safety because more people will be saved from epidemics. Imagine if they had compulsory immunization during the boubonic plague this would have saved millions of lives. Contention 3 of the con Compulsory immunization leads to biopower He says the people who lose there rights are the people who don't want the vaccines, which is the minority. I stated "The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against a few members will, is to prevent harm to the majority of the community. " John Stuart Mill who made the word utilitarianism, made this harm principle. If the minority doesn't get the vaccine because you vote con, then a epidemic breaks out, then the people who didn't get it will spread it to everyone, even with the vaccine. However if you vote pro then everyone is vaccinated and there is no chance of this epidemic to occur in the first place. His sub point 2 is untrue. I believe we are given freedom in our world, but freedom with consequence. We protest against ideas we believe are wrong, demonstrating our right of freedom of speech, and get arrested, we practice our right of freedom in not getting vaccinations, and we see the consequences by directly putting others in danger. So when we exercise our right of freedom in not being forced to get an immunization, we are really taking away someone else's individual right's. Therefore you really can't argue that compulsory immunizations take away your individual right's, if in not getting them you're taking away other's individual right's. It's just hypocritical. His sub point three well its just a qoute to help his case, but it can't because he does not write anything to help us understand how it relates to his case. In conculsion of my attack: His case does not stand becuase I have shown every flaw and way that my case is better. If people will not choose to make the right, justifiable, and sensible choice to be vaccinated, then the choice will be made for them. Vaccinations have undoubtedly saved millions of lives since their inception, the risks are minimal; the benefits are massive. On to my case. My value and criterion are clearly linked. Again My value for this round is utilitarianism because most of my information falls under John Stuart Mill's harm principle, Mill was English philosopher who created the term utilitarianism. My criterion is public safety. Utilitarianism is defined as the greatest good for the greatest number of people and public safety is defined as the quality of averting or not causing danger, or loss to population as a whole, according to random house dictionary. So, If we have the greatest good, we achieve the maximum public safety. My observations are to give you a better understanding, and show you reasons why I the pro obviously win. My contentions all tie to the resolution showing why compulsory immunizations are justified by public health concerns. Finally all my sub points hold up my contentions and value and criterion. With all that said I would like to thank my opponent again, but I clearly uphold my case better and you should see why I have won this debate. Thank you.