Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory.

Refutations: "I listed sources. You gave none" a. My opponent has stated that I have not given any sources - The US Court Federal Claims Office of Special Masters - National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims - a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan. b. I would not call the above no sources c. My opponent has falsely accused me, and should therefore have conduct points graded off. d. I did not copy word-for-word from a website - I had read it, and then typed all their arguments by hand. - another false accusation: "I bet you didn't want ANYONE to know you were even plagarizing!" - My opponent is constantly assuming things and falsely accusing me, this should be graded off. "'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." I asked: "...how would one vaccination cover 20 million children?" - my opponent replied "i know that in some countries, parents may not be able to afford vaccines for their children - completely irrelevant to the question. "Why would that just suddenly happen in that time period?" - maybe it was a coincidence...? - contradiction: "why would that suddenly happen in that time period?...even when they dissapear for a while" - you denied the existence of the improvement in hygiene, etc, yet acknowledged it a couple of sentences later. "saved those 5,000 to 10,000 lives lost" You cannot save lives that are already lost. "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!" Frankly, if that number is big, then vaccines don't work. If you consider the number that vaccines fail to save "big," you are saying that vaccines do not save this "big" amount of people. "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." This amount of deaths is because we are too reliant on vaccinations! A recent study in 2006 conducted by Dr. James Marswell, quotes: "...[vaccinations]can cause many deaths, not because it isn't used for some people, but because it is used by the majority. I recently conducted a study and gave two people the influenza vaccine. I gave another [pair]of people no vaccine. Two weeks later, I infected them with chicken pox bacteria...The latter proved to fight against bacterial germination better..." "There's absolutely no need to yell" There is no way to italicize nor bolden, so I must (sadly) sustain to capital letters. According to the Constitution, (to refute your later statements,) people have the right to: a. express or perform their religion b. parents are allowed to treat their minors as they please, not to the extent of child abuse How is one person not being vaccinated a risk to others? If they are vaccinated, they should not be in danger! you don't show the "moral sense." Thank you for your wonderful conduct. To plagiarize (I spelled it wrong before) means "to take without referencing from someone else's writing or speech." However, listing statistics is not plagiarizing. You even plagiarized yourself from the same source! Also, I listed tons of sources, just not in the same way that you did. Do I have to bother to do it? Also, your entire speech is without sources! "Things that we don't know about are things outside of this universe and in the deepest corners of the Earth. " Can you scientifically explain how we got our consciousness? How minerals, unliving elements, can create a living being? Life is right in front of our eyes! There are many things that we do not yet know. "People should not have the right to put themselves and others at risk." As I stated a myriad of times, if the others are vaccinated, they should be safe! "'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." They will not have better defense against it and will be affected as much, if not greater, according to the study I quoted above. "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." Hm...then how come our own history teacher last year stated "I don't believe in Western Medicines. I believe in Chinese Herbs, to build up our own natural defenses?" Putting personal experiences aside, I have a source to back this up: "to work boosting your immune system at the same time." -http://probiotics.mercola.com... "Immune boosters..." -http://www.askdrsears.com... All these sources talk about making your immune system stronger. Can you deny that there are ways do it? Plus, consider the source above that I stated, the experiment in 2006 "Vaccines should be mandatory because they are helpful" If they are helpful, they are a good way to help prevent sicknesses! That doesn't mean that it should be mandatory. If you read above, you would've seen me say that some people are allergic to chemicals that can cause bad effects on a person. Therefore, those people should be allowed to not vaccinate! THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ALLERGIC SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A CHOICE TO NOT VACCINATE, WHICH THEREFORE WINS THIS DEBATE! I did indeed tell you to start first, but you cannot take that to your advantage and say that I didn't touch some of your arguments. Taking it from there, please forfeit the last round, making us both go three times, stabilizing this debate. IF YOU DO NOT READ THIS, STRIKE, THE READERS WILL NONETHELESS NOT GRADE YOU FOR YOUR FINAL SPEECH. Your meager two sources are not linked up with any of your refutations or statements I must add, your three last points are not allowed to be brought up in the final round. REaders, I have refuted his points and he has brought up illegal points on the refutation round. [1]Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children.31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan. [2]Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to free exercise of their religion. [3]Vaccines are often unnecessary in may cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically BEFORE IMMUNIZATION BECAME AVAILABLE. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification,effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition. For these reasons, I have clearly won this debate.