Resolved: State Mandated Administration of Childhood Vaccinations is Justsified

So sorry that I missed the last round, it was a genuine mistake. I hope that voters will not consider my mistake an attempt at cheating or forfeiting and I hope that voters will judge this debate mostly on the content of our arguments. Thanks you. Moving on, I will provide rebuttals to my opponent's observation and contentions At the beginning of his/her argument, my opponent claims several untrue things. First of all, my opponent states that everyone has the ability to provide any argument against vaccination, so long as it is valid. This may be true, but it does not mean that everyone will refuse. Many people will be informed that childhood vaccinations are mandated, will consider their choices, and choose to vaccinate as opposed to filling out forms so they can be exempt for beliefs that they do not necessarily believe in. Vaccinations are easy to administer, so most people should have no trouble vaccinating their children. Since every child is required by law to go to school, and since public school offer vaccinations to students and facility, it would simply be a matter of sending your child to school. Parents who make up religions or beliefs in order to avoid vaccinations are entitled to do so, but these "free-riders" will not impact society as a whole - herd immunity will still be reached. In my opponent's first contention, he argues that consent process should be left up to the legal caregivers of minors. I fail to see how this argument impacts my case. Even under a government mandated, the caregivers still have the ability to decide what vaccinations to give to their children. Government vaccinations aim to increase herd immunity and the safety, not to infringe upon the rights of the individual. Every legal caregiver (and therefore every minor) has the right to choose, provided they supply sufficient reason. Therefore, my opponent's first contention is void. In his/her second contention, my opponent argues that "no government in this world is, or can ever be, a John-Locke-utopia." I once again agree with my opponent in that sense - no government can ever be perfect. Voltaire once said "The perfect is the enemy of the good" and can be applied to vaccinations. Just because we will never achieve a utopia does not mean that we cannot advance our societies. Just because we will never eradicate all disease does not mean we cannot save lives. The point of a mandate is not to make everyone do something - even my opponent agreed with this -, but rather to achieve the most good for the most number of people. Vaccinating everyone is not only unreasonable, but impossible. However, as I have stated over and over again, we cannot let perfect be the enemy of better. Even if not everyone is vaccinated, herd immunity will still be reached. In the final part of my opponent's contention, s/he argued that "non-vaccinated people pose no threat to vaccinated people, because they're vaccinated. Once you have a vaccine you can't get the desease, that's the whole point. So the whole idea is false that you're "doing harm to others" by not vaccinating." While vaccinated people cannot become sick from unvaccinated people, there is a category of people who, for some reason or another, cannot receive vaccinations and are therefore completely dependent upon herd immunity. This group includes "children [who] cannot be vaccinated against one or more diseases because of medical condition..." and "... vaccinated individuals [who] will either remain or become susceptible to disease despite vaccination" (Diekema, 2009). Also, "most vaccines cannot be given until a child is two to twelve months of age" (Diekema, 2009). Clearly, herd immunity is necessary to protect not only those with medical conditions, but also the next generation of children. By opposing mandated vaccinations and therefore high levels of herd immunity, my opponent is arguing that children under the age of two to twelve months should face the risk of infection, and that we should abandon hopes of advancing society because we can never achieve perfection. In their third contention, my opponent attacks court rulings. S/He claims that "there is no justice in simply asking lawyers whether soothing is just or not". By my opponent's logic, every single case in world history that has been argued by a lawyer is wrong. My opponent argues that since my sources were lawyers, they are not just or credible, even though my contention deals with justice and the court system. Clearly, that segment of the contention is illogical. In the remainder of the contention, my opponent argues that my model of vaccinations is inconsistent with US precedent. The court case mentioned within was included to deal with debate over the definition for "mandate", as was the quote. However, the contention still stands because of the statement " Courts have repeatedly upheld compulsory vaccination laws in the United States as a reasonable exercise of the state's police power, even in the absence of a disease outbreak." This contention proves that mandated vaccination laws do not impede on the rights of the individual. In summary, I have refuted my opponent's third contention. My opponent's fourth contention states that "If you force them to do something, instead of asking them nicely, they're likely to not co-operate." I will concede that, yes, people do not respond well to being forced to do something. However, under my plan, people will have the opportunity to refuse vaccinations, and are therefore not being forced to do anything. This contention does not impact the resolution at all. My opponent's final contention is that the government must watch over every child in the world. S/He argues this because some people will always flout the law. However, since herd immunity is still being reached, the government will not be concerned with a few "free-risers". Since most people will not forgo mandated vaccinations, a sufficient proportion of the population will be vaccinated. My opponent's final contention is that I have not specified which vaccinations will be mandated. However, the resolution states "Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified.", and therefore, the burden of the PRO is to prove that vaccinations are justified, not to specify which vaccinations should be mandated. While I am very sorry to hear about the rest of your preschool's unfortunate illness, that particular anecdote has no pertinence to the resolution. My opponent ended the fifth contention by stating "I'm not saying vaccinations should be avoided outright - I'm saying that this law applies even to very new vaccinations that cannot reasonably have undergone sufficient long-term scientific testing." Before any vaccinations can be released, it must undergo a vigorous three-step examination by the CDC. While several vaccinations' longterm effects are still not known, there is little chance that they will be severely detrimental. Also, it is important to value the quality of the lives of those living now more than those who will be born in the future, or the quality of life in the future. If vaccines prevent about 10.5 million cases of infectious illness and 33,000 deaths per year, but might cause adverse effects in the future, they ares still justified. Since my opponent has attacked my contentions of justice, righteousness, and reasonability only with his contentions, and since I have effectively refuted all of them, all my contentions still stand. In conclusion, I have rebutted and refuted all my opponent's arguments. I hope that voters will not judge me harshly on my honest mistake, and that they will consider both my and my opponent's arguments more important than my mistake. I look forward to my opponent's final round, and once again apologize for my blunder. Thank you, ledgy