Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

I will defend and then attack. First off my opponent attacked my three points on Governmental Legitimacy. I will defend his attacks which say my three statements have nothing to do with my case. I only used these three statements to show that in the Aff case the government is the only entity with the right to compel people to do some things. Secondly these three points were just mere observations, and they have no real baring on my overall case. --------------------------- My opponent attacked my first contention by saying the words were not my own and Channing argues differently then my case. First off at least for my contentions I offer some bit of something to back them up, my opponent just makes claims. Secondly why does it matter if I use the words of others to further push my point? I am sure that Lincoln and Jefferson have been quoted in debates before, so any of my opponents claims of quoting someone else should not have any relevance. Also is it wrong to quote a person who probably has more experience then me with this area? Thirdly 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. So in that sense Channing would aprove of the government not being able to take away the rights of the individual. --------------------------- First off in my opponents attack on my contention 2, he claims that I have not read the book (when actually I have) because Rawls says that we ought to redistribute wealth so that everyone in society has equal benefit, when actually this is in favor of my case. People are not receiving an equal benifit if the government is totalatarean and the government takes away the rights of the individual. -------------------------- My opponents major attack on my contention 3 is that "who cares what these groups think?". Well I 'll tell you who cares, how about the government because our government was founded on the principals of a democracy, and in a democracy the government listens to the individual and these 'groups', who play a major role in our government. Secondly, why are the groups I use any less reasonable than my opponents? -------------------------- Yet again my opponent attacks me in my contention 4 for not using my own words, but in a defense I will reuse the one I gave in defense for my first contention. Also my opponent attacks me because Younkins did not mention immunization, but all I am showing through him how the government does not have the right to take away an individual's rights. ------------------------- ATTACKS ------------------------- 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. 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. In his first contention he states that we must have compulsory vaccination because of our pets. This is a usreasonable assumption. I am not willing to give up my rights so that a pet can get vaccinated. And secondly, why does this have any bearing on whether humans should have compulsory immunizations? In his second contention he states that we should have compulsory vaccinations because of felons, but once again this is a wild accusation without any warrant. Secondly, most people are not felons, so why should they have to get immunized. For my attack on his third contention all I need to say is that he did not attack the beginning of my case which offers the alternative of an educational system, which he did not attack, (which leads me to believe that he agrees with it) will solve this.