Resolved: Vaccination is Beneficial

Pro's arguments have seen to have taken a turn for the worse."First, you don't get to decide what constitutes plagiarism and automatic losses"Plagiarism is clearly defined. Plagiarism can, and is, constituted by incorrectly citing sources. Which you have cleary done in Round 1.My "automatic loss" comment was clearly based on your plagiarism, which you chose to keep as part of your argument. Correctly citing sources after already incorrectly citing them is still plagiarism. It is a cover-up attempt.If you did not proofreed and check your sources before posting, that is your negligence and still constitutes on the clearly defined defintion of plagiarism.http://library.pdx.edu... "Second, I did refute your arbitrary statement, and explicitly stated that I do not agree to those terms. I suggest you scroll back up and have another read."What you actually said was: "I acknowledge that my links became truncated. No, I do not concede my points, and they are not plagiarised, so they are not stricken, and I don't automatically lose." You say you did not commit plagiarism after admitting to incorrectly citing your sources. (Mistake or not, this is plagiarism)"Thirdly, nice try in your concession attempt but I think that our readers are far more intelligent than you give them credit for. Don't insult our audience by pretending that they'll listen to your innane attack."I feel this goes against basic conduct policy on this website when you belittle my argument and assert I am insulting the audience with my argument. This website is made to hear two opposing sides of arguments. You are calling my side of the argument an insult. This is simply not nice. "Fourth, I accuse you of resorting to ad hominem and semantics because you can't win the debate by establishing that vaccination is harmful." Stating you have committed plagiarism, under its defintion, is not ad hominem. And the debate isn't on vaccinations being harmful, it is about them being safe."Fifth, you did provide a source, which I soundly refuted and provided counter-evidence for. I suggest you give your lonely source some assistance."You have later called me to remove this source. I comply and will gladly strike that source from my records and my statement about it. Thus, to no commit plagiarism myself.I have complied with one of your terms in your round. The other, in regards to my Monikor...Monikor: : a name or nicknamehttp://www.merriam-webster.com...My name is Dominic. My nickname is Dom (as stated on my DDO profile).Domr is merely a screenname used to identify myself on this website.These rules do not affect the legitimacy and intergrity of the debate. My term was stated in Round 1 to allow you not to plagiarize yourself. But as I have complied, please remember my statement about disease from vaccination was stricken from the record.Now onto my final argument before my closing statement next round.In R3 I had given the defintion of of safe."Safe: free from hurt, injury, danger, or risk:" (This is quoted from Round 3, and sourced appropriately.)Pro gave no refute to this point, so per his rules of the debate, unrefuted points stand, this definition applies.The contention listed by Pro is as follows: "Vaccination is a critical public health measure and is both beneficial and safe."Per the CDC website, vaccinations can have adverse affects on ones health. This is another way to say a vaccination can cause harm."blood in the urine or stool, pneumonia, inflammation of the stomach or intestines"http://www.cdc.gov...These are examples of some of the harmful side effects of a vaccination.Harm: "physical or mental damage or injury"http://www.merriam-webster.com...I have never contended vaccinations are not beneficial, or a critical public health measure. But they are not safe(per defintion) as they have the ability to cause harm to the individual receiving the vaccination.This has never been a semantics debate. This is a debate about vaccination. You have committed plagiarism in this debate. I gave you the oppurunity to retract your statements because they were incorrectly cited, which is plagiarism.I have refutted your contention/premise.