Ban vaccines

For this final round of the debate, I shall Rebuttal my opponents final few statements and discuss how this debate went.How about acting or performing in a way that is comparatively poor or mediocre? Humans are smarter, so does that give us the right to act selfishly towards those that are less intelligent? Nay, "with great power comes great responsibility.However, if we are talking about giving health to humans it is worth the cause because if we look at what vaccinations have done for us in the past, it was worth it. Examples being polio, hepatitis A, and many more becuase of making one sacrifice (1). So what is so wrong about giving health to humans? Throughout this debate, my opponent has not really proved how a human is not as important as an animal and hence the reason why my opponents argument is flawed.Also, my opponent neglects the fact that with vaccinations can heal diseases that protect many animals; the prime example in this debate being chickens. In the previous round, I mentioned that chickens have tons of diseases and because of this need vaccinations or else all other ypes of animals will suffer. Suffer much more than just a simple shot just to see if the vaccine is reliable enough. In fact, more animals are being saved with vaccinations than without vaccinations (2).Con using religion to rationalize the suffering and killing of a wide variety of animals for vaccine testing purposes. Yet, ignores religious criticism of vaccines. "The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation", the English theologian Reverend Edmund Massey argued that diseases are sent by God to punish sin and that any attempt to prevent smallpox via inoculation is a "diabolical operationStated in 1 Corinthians 10:31 "So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God". God wants us to live in a healthy life, not a life full of illness and vaccinations promote this idea. "The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 10:31 that whatever we do we’re to do it to the glory of God. It also tells us in Isaiah that we were created and formed by God to glorify Him. This is our primary purpose in life – to glorify God. We do that when we care for our body and live a healthy lifestyle" (3).What about the character of God? Mercy seems consistent with the character of God. Acts 3:26 "Even so has the Lord Jesus Christ come from His infinite, far-away throne, on His errand of mercy, to a sinner's soul."We are giving mercy to those who need healing with vaccinations. Definition of "mercy": "Compassionate treatment of those in distress" (4). We are being compassionate by giving the ability of health to humans within the use of vaccinations. In fact, vaccinations have saved 732,000 childrens lifes (5). How is this not compassionate, when we are giving the greatest gift of all; life. With just a small price on mainly testing chickens and mice, which my opponent did not rebuttal this round.Also which is closer to God's way of healing? Does God heal with potions and sharp needles? From what I understand of the Bible God heals with faith. I just don't see how vaccines are consistent with the Bible and the character of God.Once more, stated multiple times, God just wants society to live healthily and take care of their bodies. Not do dumb stuff like jumping off a bridge or getting ran over by a car. Vaccinations are not even mentioned at all in the Bible, except to live a healthy lifestyle.Vaccines are researched and developed by a cult of sadistic witches and warlocks who torture animals. Then, charlatan healers kill or permanently injure babies by injecting these vile toxins into the babies' lifeblood. Big business looks the other way because profit margins are high. The public is brainwashed by teachers who mindlessly reiterate textbooks. All in the name of destroying some invisible force labeled a pathogen, virus, bacteria, and other names.The part I find intriguing about this statement voters is that my opponent makes a crazy claim, yet provides no evidence. This claim is more opinionated than based off the facts and really not a true argument because of providing no evidence.To conclude this debate, I like to state how this debate went. My opponent made strong claims with admitedly lots of evidence, but most of his or her evidence was questionable. I was saving this statement till the end, before I make strong claims and I think the time is now to bring this up. My opponents evidence seemed heavily biased in multiple areas that animals are "tortured". If he provided multiple articles to support this claim, that would be acceptable; but my opponent provided a biased website titled "PETA". PETA is a heavily biased animal rights group, and have been said to be unrealiable with the facts. One example is about animals being tortured, and the "facts" the leader of the group stated were really off (6). Because of this, it was hard to determine whether or not the animal "torture" claims are reliable or false. Also, my opponent used another unreliable source being Wikipedia. Wikipedia is famous for its unrealiability, and should not be truly used in an argument; which my opponent did in Round 4. Moving on from the evidence portion, my opponent dropped many of my arguments throughout the debate. The first being how vaccinations helped many people, but my opponent didn't even Rebuttaled. Just stated at the end of Round 3: "Ran out of characters to fully address each of your points. Since animal suffering is involved, I don't have to prove vaccines are dangerous or ineffective, only enough doubt that they should be banned. That the animal suffering is not worth the benefits of vaccines". The understanding of running out of characters is fine, but he does not bring up this argument any more meaning he dropped this section of the debate. While I provided the facts that vaccines do help people. Another thing he dropped was the economic impacts of vaccinations by not even mentioning it in this round. Because of this, he failed to rebuttal and should result in a victory for me in this debate. And for the religious section, he argues that pain and suffering is bad and I agree, but that is referred to humans than animals. Stated multiple times, God wants us humans to live a healthy life and we can do this without banning vaccinations.To conclude, my opponent makes multiple claims but has questionable evidence. He dropped multiple arguments, while I continued through the debate with my same case from the start. Because of this, the winner should hopefully be easily determinable; and I urge voters to vote Con! I thank my opponent for this debate also.Sources:1. http://www.forbes.com...2. http://www.healinghandsanimalhospital.com...3. http://www.faithandhealthconnection.org...4. http://www.merriam-webster.com...5. http://www.livescience.com...6. http://www.agcouncil.com...