Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

I appreciate my opponent's response, and hope that this will be a fruitful debate. My opponent was quite ill, so I shall forgive his tardiness...this time... :) -------------------------------------------------------------- On the Standards Debate (Justice vs. Natural Rights/Preservation of Natural Rights vs. Achieving Herd Immunity) 1. My opponent has yet to give a hard and fast definition of our natural rights, with the sole exception that the UN Declaration of Human Rights is the document that lays them out. Therefore, the round will be dictated by the list that I provided in the AC: life, liberty, property, and safety of person. 2. Since I am arguing that what is "due" to people is their natural rights, we are both essentially striving for the same end goal in our standards. Hence, whoever can preserve those natural rights the best will win this round. 3. My criterion is precluding my opponent's standards, as well as any benefits he might be trying achieve in his case. Herd immunity, per the warrants in my case, saves the greatest amount of lives. Since being alive clearly precludes one's ability exercise any other auxiliary right, if I can prove that achieving herd immunity does not violate any essential, natural rights, I will this round. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Negative Case Responses Contention 1 Tag Line: 1. Cross-apply my contention 1, subpoint B to this tag and all its underlying subpoints. When an auxiliary right comes into conflict with another's natural rights, the natural rights will always be preferred. If one's religious doctrine gives one permission to kill anyone who does not believe said doctrine is true, my opponent is claiming that killing in the name of religious doctrine is 100% justified. 2. Cross-apply my entire contention 2 here, but especially subpoint A. This conclusively proves that those who religiously or philosophically object to vaccinations are in little to no mortal danger by being vaccinated. Hence, this proves that an auxiliary right and natural right are in clear conflict. 3. Extend my contention 1, subpoint C impacts here. My opponent is actually costing more natural rights than he is protecting them, in that a lack of herd immunity not only affects the infected individual, but easy affects other communities, cities, and nations. The only way to prevent these deaths (again, dead people can't exercise their individual rights) is to compulsorily immunize. Contention 1, Subpoint A: 1. By my opponent's rationale, we should also abolish traffic laws, as they are a product of a tyrannous state because they are mandatory. Laws in and of themselves are compulsory, even if they were instilled via popular consent (which not all of them are in just governments). My opponent assumes that a single directive constitutes a tyrannical government, when that is clearly not the case. In a democracy such as the U.S., that would make all executive orders signed by the president, or all acts of Congress not directly influenced by the population, acts of tyranny. 2. Cross-apply my contention 1, subpoint A here. The concept of liberty may not be violated if we are expected to live in a free and equitable society. Much like the US Constitution (if I may draw a parallel between a universal and non-universal document), the UN Declaration of Human Rights does outline basic religious and ideological freedom. However, these are not static rights. One may practice one's own religion until it comes into conflict with another's right to life or safety of person, for instance. Unless, of course, my opponent would like to also defend practices such as ritual human sacrifice. Another perfect example is the freedom of speech. I may say whatever I want, but I may not, to use a tired example, yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, as I would be actively violating other's right to life and safety. Contention 1, Subpoint B: 1. This subpoint assumes that religion has the right to freely exercise all of its doctrine in the first place, which is not true. 2. My opponent's card only deals with religious fundamentalists who do not represent the major body of religious persons in the world. Unless my opponent can prove that compulsory vaccination will end the world, the impacts won't outweigh unchecked pandemics. I doubt we are going to nuclear war with a terrorist organization about vaccines. 3. What he is suggesting is that, because a few fundamentalists may object to vaccination, we should disregard a policy that has the ability (as I've clearly shown in my case) to save millions upon millions of lives. By his rationale, we should also discontinue health and well-being projects around the globe, or anything that a fundamentalist would object to, for that matter. Contention 1, Subpoint C: 1. My opponent makes absolutely no link between Chinese suicide rates and compulsory immunization programs. He just states that societal upheaval leads to increased suicide, but can't prove that societal upheaval would ever occur to the extent of driving people to suicide. 2. TURN: with SARS, Malaria, Yellow Fever, Swine Flu, etc. affecting the largest population in the world, alleviating the rapid spread of infectious diseases amongst the Chinese population would do far more to stabilize the society than would a lack of vaccination. Look to the SARS panic of the past decade for all the evidence you need. Contention 2 Tag Line: 1. My opponent's card doesn't actually prove his subpoint at all. The card states that an undetermined number of elderly fell sick from a dose of flu vaccine. Nowhere does he warrant his actual claim, which is that people who are likely to die from vaccination are oftentimes not medically exempted. 2. My opponent's card is incredibly isolated. Since "compulsory immunization" does not imply flu at all, his warrants cannot outweigh those that I provide in the affirmative case. I have conclusive data and expert medical opinion which states that while, yes, there are some rare and serious risks, the benefits still far outweigh those harms. The affirmative readily acknowledges that vaccinations are not perfect. To reuse an earlier analogy, neither are traffic lights. Every once and a while, one might malfunction, allowing for a head on collision at an intersection. That collision will result in property damage, injury, and possibly the loss of innocent life. However, does that mean that we eliminate all traffic safety devices? Of course, the answer is "no." We don't eliminate those other public health preservation measures because every system has inherent risks. However, if the benefits outweigh the risks enough (which they do—check out my contention 2, subpoint B), then the measure is deemed justified.