Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations

I will address my opponent's rebuttals to my case, move on to my opponent's case, and finally move on to voting issues. Observation: My opponent claims that compulsory immunizations are needed to eradicate diseases. However, he fails to note that polio was eradicated through voluntary immunizations. My opponent also claims that people value a good quality of life, and therefore wouldn't object to voluntary immunizations. Just because people value a good quality of life doesn't mean that people aren't going to remain true to their religious beliefs and personal values. Value Premise: My opponent claims that when voluntary immunizations are issued, you are not giving other their due quality of life, and states that voluntary immunizations do not reach herd immunity. However, he gives no examples or evidence to prove this and fails to address the fact that when you do not allow people to honor their own religion, you are not acting justly. Furthermore, wouldn't a good quality of life be the pursuit of happiness? If one wants to worship their own religion, they have that right. Value Criterion: My opponents claims that, by not issuing compulsory immunizations, one is infringing upon other people's right to safety. He then gives the example of small pox being eradicated through compulsory immunizations. However, voluntary immunization rates regularly achieve the Herd Immunity Threshold. This has been proven through the eradication of polio. Contention 1: My opponent claims that disease is so rare, and that you can get an exemption if you have an underlying health condition. This does not explain why everyone got sick and three people died when the people in the nursing home were vaccinated, according to my Jordan card (quote). When my opponent tries to explain my Jordan card, he claims that it wasn't the flu shots themselves. He says "only a couple people would take the flu shots". This is completely incorrect. If you look at the quote, it says "other years, no shots", so no shots were issued to the people in the facility. My opponent also contradicts him/herself here. S/he claims that the people who died from the shots had an underlying medical condition. However, according to my opponent, they should've gotten an exemption. Now, I ask my opponent: Why didn't they? Contention 2: My opponent claims that, because compulsory immunizations allow for exemptions, you can disregard my second contention. This is untrue. The examples I discussed in my second contention were compulsory immunizations programs that allowed for exemptions, and yet these things still happened. Therefore, you can extend my subpoint b in my second contention that compulsory immunizations can cause violence and lower the immunization rate. Because my opponent did not respond to this, we hold this true for the round. This is really important, because my opponent is admitting that compulsory immunizations do not achieve justice (violence is unjust) or quality of life (violence and the lowering of immunization rates leads to a poor quality of life). So, no matter whose value premise you look to, you must negate because compulsory immunizations do not achieve either value premise. Rebuttal Value Premise: My opponent claims that compulsory immunizations prevent deadly diseases from out breaking. However, so do voluntary immunizations, as I've shown with my polio example. Value Criterion: My opponent states three reasons why his criterion is preferable over mine, I will rebut them in the same order. First - ‘Protecting individual rights' includes the right to life. So if a deadly disease breaks out, the government would protect the citizens' right to life. Second – Governments can protect their citizens right to life by issuing voluntary immunizations, which it has done in the past with the outbreak of polio. Third – I don't really understand what he's trying to say here. "and cannot herd immunity" doesn't really make a coherent statement. Not trying to be mean, but I actually don't know what he's trying to say. C1: I've agreed to the fact that vaccines don't cause autism. I've also already responded to my opponent's defense of this. Look above, under "contention 1" C2: My opponent claims that voluntary immunizations are expensive. While vaccines can be relatively expensive in first-world countries where people actually have the money to afford them, this is not the case in third-world countries. What kind of businessman would try to sell $20 vaccines to people who don't have $20? The businessman wouldn't make any money. So, while vaccines can be $20 in the United States, vaccines in third-world countries cost roughly 40 cents. http://wow.gm... <- an article proving my claim that vaccines in third-world countries cost 40 cents. My opponent also asks me to warrant my claim that compulsory immunizations do not reach illegal immigrants. First, they can't reach illegal immigrants because the government does not have any records of them. Therefore, they won't be issued any vaccines. Second, I have another article that proves my claim that voluntary immunizations DO reach illegal immigrants. http://www.alipac.us... Example: My opponent now shows an example of voluntary immunizations not reaching the herd immunity threshold. I could put up a bunch of examples of voluntary immunizations achieving the herd immunity threshold (Finland, Colorado, Sweden, just to name a few), but it doesn't really matter. My opponent and I can trade examples back and forth all day long. However, my opponent AGREED that compulsory immunizations lower immunization rates. So you must look to voluntary immunizations in this debate. =========== Voting Issues =========== 1) My first voting issue is my second contention, which I extended. Because, my opponent failed to respond to this, we must hold the following true for the round: a. compulsory immunizations lower immunization rates b. compulsory immunizations cause violence Neither of these achieve justice or quality of life; nor do they protect human rights or ‘human beings from themselves'. Therefore, no matter whose value premise or value criterion you look to, you must negate. 2) My second voting issue is that voluntary immunizations do regularly achieve the herd immunity threshold, without the controversy and the injustice of compulsory immunizations. By achieving the herd immunity threshold, voluntary immunizations preserve a good ‘quality of life' and ‘protect human beings'. By allowing people to practice their own religion, and giving people a choice, voluntary immunizations also achieve justice and protect human rights. Therefore, no matter whose value premise or value criterion you look to, you must negate. ======== Conclusion: ======== 1)My opponent, with his argument for compulsory immunizations, doesn't achieve ANY of the value premises or value criterions in this debate (voting issue #1) 2)I, with my argument for voluntary immunizations, achieve ALL the value premises and value criterions in this debate (voting issue #2) Because of this you must negate. Thank you.