Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations.

I will begin by attacking my opponents case. Value: My opponent is valuing elevation of higher man, individuals with a higher immune system. For this I have 3 responses. 1. My opponent is suggesting that we would have the best society to better the world and better the man, but how can you have the best society when more people are likely to die and not as many will survive? Just because they have a higher immune system, doesn't mean they can contribue more. That's common sense I believe, but if you don't buy that response then there is 2. Just because individuals, who survive, have a higher immune system, doesn't mean they can contribue more and better benefit societal welfare. This lacks proof as well as she doesn't explain how higher naturaly immune people benefit society better than others who aren't. you can't value her elevation of higher man when you can't prove to achieve the best of socieal welfare, which is how she attacks my value in this case. If you don't buy that argument then 3. At the point where she argues that violating her value is bad from immunizations, but then concedes in her C2: "Society will be better off as a whole is the practice of independent decision-making is encouraged, rather than if it is suppressed" here she agrees they should have a choice to be immunized. "if they get to choose, then more information is likely to be made available to the public encouraging them to get vaccinated. " With this she encourages vaccines herself. She isn't even fully promoting her own value in this case, by her not able to uphold her value in all instances of only the man with the with higher immune system (accorind to her VC). You have look towards my value and how I uphold it, since I 100% uphold my value during a public health concern. VC: with her criterion of Darwinism. In her description "while the weak and unfit should be allowed to die. " She is disproved here also. Cross-apply my argument 3. against her value to here making this 1. and according to her VC, we should allow the weak and unfit to die, but we aren't doing that when we even offer immunizations on a voluntary basis as she is suggesting. 2. In her description of VC she states "Higher Man is a necessity to have a strong nation and should be the ultimate goal of society. " She not only disproves it by suggesting voluntary immunization, but there is no way to prove it either when there are more than enough societies that offer immunizations to know this is false. Over my opponents counter definitions. Justice: I can win the round regardless of this definition, but I do need to prove how I stand true to this definition more than her. Again she mentions her V and VC here, you can just cross apply all those arguments, because this isn't a debatable definition as it doesn't matter to my win, but rather how her V and VC are upholding it. Compulsory: Ntice she uses a source and I don't. I have 2 responses. 1. This is a philosophical debate and since when would a society immunize someone when they have a medical issue or are too young? That would be violating my V which is why I offer exemptions for those two reasons only. Also there is herd immunity and that is what the society and others would rely on when giving exemptions. 2. she is suggesting people with weak immune systems should be allowed to die, I have exemptions for people with medical issues which she argues against, does this not contradict herself? RA: She didn't attack my defintion of PHC. and the effectiveness of an immunzation is a PHC itself to the individual when they decide to get a immunization, which may I remind she promotes in C2. C1: there is 2 response for this and that is 1. She again contradicts herself in C2 by promoting choice of getting immunized. it doesn't matter if immunizations are compulsory or voluntary, they still have the same result in a human being, which means the virus could have the same result in a human. This shows that she can't uphold her V and VC in this instance. 2. In her RA she states how the effectivness of an immunization doesn't matter to justify it, when she is arguing what the effect it could have with a virus herself. So you have to conclude that with my definition of PHC and while she argues effectiveness herself, that My case fully supports the justification of Compulsory immunization. C2: there are 2 responses. She stated "Thus making my criterion of social Darwinism and my value of the elevation of higher man very valid", while promoting her V and VC at the same time with voluntary vaccines contradicts herself according to her definition of ehr V and VC. Also in her C1 she stated that "To interfere with this process is bad", with this C2, you see she is interfering with the society herself. therefore it's perfectly fine for me to interfere if she does. doesn't matter if it is compulsory or vouluntary, since they could the same effect on a single human and so it could cause the same effect of a mutation of a virus. I will now be rebuilding my case. V: I have 3 responses. I have three responses. cross apply 1. and 3. against her value to here as 1. and 2. There is also 3. I would like to point out that becasuse she is wanting to promote a better society as well, you have to look to my value when A. I don't contradict myself as much as her, if at all. B. I also pointed out how she can't prove she upholds societal welfare better than me, when higher immune system people don't necessarily contribute more. VC: She argues how Rule util works best for her. I have 2 responses. 1. Cross apply the argument of how she can't prove it is best for society and so she can't prove it is the greatest good for the greatest number either. 2. Does the weak immune people effect the higher immune people? Possible they could contract the disease to each other, which is why compulsory immunizations are justified, since she wants the man with the with higher immune system to live. This also means that she fails to argue against Harms principle under Rule util, which was all together by John Stuart Mill. This wasn't a 2 in 1 VC. This was 1 full VC by the same person. Consider this a drop and and know that the government is legitimate in restricting the rights of individuals when it harms others. C1: I have 1 response. 1. This argument falls do to the fact that she still supports voluntary immunizations in her C2. C2: She stated when attacking my C2. "I promote all 3 in my case and prove this contention wrong. " I have 1 response. 1. This argument also falls when you aren't upholding all three, since your C2 contradicts what you are promoting. C3: I have 2 responses. she stated "Wrong, compulsory immunizations do affect others. " while attacking my C3. I states in my C3 " Compulsory immunizations are justified and do effect others of whether or not you get immunized". 1. She is agreeing with me in this instance and so unless this was a typo or she misunderstood, She concedes the point to me, that it effects others, and that promotes Harms priniciple under my VC. " It allows virus to mutuate and chane see attack on the c1. " alright, 2. also see my attack on C1. Compulsory and voluntary immunizations have the same effect on a single human and so could effect a single virus cell the same way as my opponent is suggesting. She argues about my example of the U. S. She mentions the context of the resolution. and states "Thus, it would be difficult to argue that every government is a legitimate government. " 1. I'm not trying to prove that every government is a legitimate government, because I don't have to. I am arguing that any government is legitimate in restricting rights, when it can effect others, which harms principle states.