Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory.

Refutations "I may have taken some of my points from a source, however, this means that everything that I say is backed up, whereas your source for the hepatitis B vaccine has yet to be stated, although I requested it previously. That is due to the fact that you plagarized and copied word-for-word every argument and fact from the website I previously listed, which you did not even bother to source because I bet you didn't want ANYONE to know you were even plagarizing! I listed sources. You gave none. I doubt you even looked at my sources for the Hepatitis B argument because the facts are there, in that document. "Excuse me, Strike, but how would one vaccination cover 20 million children? Just pointing that out there." I know that in some countries, parents may not be able to afford vaccines for their children. Nonetheless, if everyone had vaccines, they wouldn't contract the disease. "Also, isn't it obvious why there would be improved hygiene, purification, and other methods? The government set out to improve our daily lives. Thank you for needlessly asking that question." Why would that just suddenly happen in that time period? Why couldn't it happen before? Improved hygiene and such is a valid argument for reduction of germs and bacteria. But I mean, there are still going to be diseases that can be caught, even when they disappear for awhile. The best way to stay protected is to get a vaccine and everyone needs these vaccines. "That signifies that this is in the past. Second, draw your attention to "a year." This does not specify which year, and I can naturally assume that it was in the begginnings of its emergence, back when people did not develop a resistance to it. Also, 5,000 deaths is actually not a lot." Yes, very good job, it was in the past. A year means every year, not just one year. But to be specific, the Pertussis vaccine was developed in the 1930s, and saved those 5,000 to 10,000 lives lost. My opponent decides that 5,000 (the smaller number) is not a big amount of deaths. Pertussis came about in 1906, and hurt people until the vaccine came around. An average of 7,500 people are dying a year. This lasts for approximately 24 years. This is plain ridiculous. It comes out to 180,000 people dying! Tell me that's not big! "The number of problems are pretty big, as I told you already." Sure, as you plagarized already. Anyway, the benefit is much bigger, as I told you already... According to a 2003 report by researchers at the Pediatric Academic Society, childhood vaccinations in the US prevent about 10.5 million cases of infectious illness and 33,000 deaths per year. Look in the previous round for the source. "Thank you for pointing out that they think that they are safer without the vaccinations. Where, in my arguments, do I state that they think they are safer? They merely don't take the vaccinations, believing that it stands in the way of God, Allah, or whatever they believe..." There's absolutely no need to yell. I know you have poor conduct and you're certainly not helping it out here. Anyway, when I pointed out that vaccines are safer, I felt like adding some additional info. Anyway, that's exactly the problem. Children should not be allowed to skip vaccinations because of their religious beliefs. They're putting every single child at risk, including themselves! If this argument "is easily refuted" then why can't you properly refute it? You didn't list any statistics or sources, and you don't show the "moral sense." "Um..as far as I know, stating statistics with the exact wording is not called plagarizing. Thus, I can ignore all your refutation here:" You yourself is not a source. You don't bother to list sources. To plagiarize (I spelled it wrong before) means "to take without referencing from someone else's writing or speech." That is exactly what you did. "However, scientifically unsupportable is not a big issue. There are many things that we do not know in science, and you cannot ignore the fact that 5,500 cases of autism have occurred." Scientifically unsupportable is a big issue. Universities studied it and found that there is absolutely no link to autism and vaccines. Things that we don't know about are things outside of this universe and in the deepest corners of the Earth. Not right in front of our noses. 5,500 cases doesn't mean it truly happened. Some could be false claims and lies, and the others could be true, however, that doesn't mean vaccines are the cause for autism. There is a theory that Ultrasound causes autism, as well. Basically, my opponent argues "human rights." People who believe they have "rights" and decide to skip out on vaccines put their entire environment at danger. They can pass the disease onto other people who will suffer as well. They can die themselves, just because of their "right" to not protect themselves and in turn, harm themselves. People should not have the right to put themselves and others at risk. "However, scientifically unsupportable is not a big issue. There are many things that we do not know in science, and you cannot ignore the fact that 5,500 cases of autism have occurred." "First of all, i would like to point out that if other children are vaccinated, they should be safe...? Also, if their children are at risk, that is their problem. They decided, using their rights, not to vaccinate their children and therefore should be allowed to make that decision for a minor." If you read my entire argument, you would find that vaccines are beneficial, but children aren't 100% safe. They will just have better defense against it and won't be effected as much. "Plagurized... right back at you, hypocrite. Also, using my point, developing a natural immune system is important for other reasons and diseases. Vaccinations include anti-body depressants which allow you to get sick easier. We must allow our own bodies to fight back." It was not plagiarized. I cited my source. Anyways, this refutation is ridiculous. What happens when people try to get a "natural immune system"? They get the disease and THEY DIE. There is no way to develop a natural immune system on your own, or even with help, with the knowledge we currently possess. Vaccinations are beneficial and they prevent diseases from seriously harming your body. "IMPORTANT NOTICE: THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT MANDATORY OR NOT, NOT WHETHER OR NOT IT IS GOOD FOR YOU." This makes absolutely no difference in the debate. Vaccines should be mandatory because they are helpful! It's as simple as that! "Also, in your ridiculous conclusion, I would like to point out that you started first, giving me less time and space to refute your arguments, whereas you had two speeches. And you can only truly claim that after I have finished posting that debate." I would like to point out that you told me to start first. I complied. "Also, you gave a fallacy stating that you have refuted all of my points. However, the fact that it is the parents' rights to choose is untouched." The point was never clear. However, I have now refuted all of your points. "Many people are severely allergic to some chemicals in the vaccine. Doctors may not know this, and the result of the vaccine may be disastrous." According to this site [2], a small percentage of people are at a small risk due to vaccinations. Precautions must be taken if you ever have an allergic reaction, as well. Don't be careless. Arguments: 1. Vaccinations are beneficial and should be mandatory for this reason. 2. People can spread contracted diseases to others and putting everyone at risk. 3. There is much more benefit than harm. I await the response. Sources: 1. http://www.vaccineinformation.org... 2. http://www.suite101.com...