Vaccination with the MMR vaccine should be mandatory

To start off my rebuttal round, I will go back to the enforcement issue first. Either my opponent doesn't realize how asinine the " tax penalty" is, or he is purposefully not mentioning how ineffective it really is. If I were to resist getting vaccinated, I would end up with a tax penalty based on my income, but is it always that easy for the feds to recoup the money if I neglect to pay? Read paragraph four under "How is penalty enforcement handled?" (Read the whole article if you'd like, but what I'm trying to elude to is the fact that the legality or the constitutionality of a "tax penalty" is still very much up for debate.) https://www.healthinsurance.org.... Let's say that the tax penalty is legal and constitutional, does that mean that as an antivaxer, all I need to do is pay a "tax penalty" and I get out of having to take your " devil, mind control serum"? Not to mention the fact that the "penalty" seems to focus on those who receive tax returns (lower income brackets). My opponents percentages on herd immunization were very clear and concise, (paraphrasing) if wilfully unvaccinated people are free to roam in public, they represent a significant risk to society!!!! A tax penalty does not remove the "risk" from society, it just forces the offenders to pay a penalty. Now if you want to boil this down, the only way my opponents proposition could truly be "effective" is to force the vaccine resisters to get the shot, or remove them from society!!!! I don't think I saw my opponent come close to that horrific argument, but if he's holding back on that disturbing opinion just for the sake of argument, than I implore him to come clean!! This whole concept of "tax penalty" just seems like a tax scheme to tax a certain population of society that you (or the medical community in general) are annoyed by. Likening freedom of choice to the anarchaic act of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is an obvious oversimplification. Unvaccinated people do not cause public panic simply by being in public. I've tried it. I yelled " unvaccinated family" while in line at Disney world in the hopes that it would make everyone clear out, but to no avail. We had to wait the whole 45 minutes to ride space mountain. My opponent insists there's no freedom of choice in the constitution, but backs that claim up with nothing. Are we not granted the freedom to choose our president, or our choice to assemble peacefully? I challenge my opponent to prove the constitution denies US citizens, freedom of choice!!! I would like to call to attention the fact that my opponent neglected to answer a question I asked of him in my opening argument. Are people who have neglected to get the MMR vaccination more of a risk to public health than car accidents? http://asirt.org.... http://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk.... In the UK, in the years from 2001 to 2013 there was an upsurge in measles deaths to 3. That's 3 deaths in 12 years. It's estimated there are 400,000 deaths per year globally because of car accidents. Measles deaths have not been higher than that number for a decade. https://en.m.wikipedia.org.... In the 90s and 00s, a world wide campaign to increase awareness for MMR vaccinations has drastically reduced the number of deaths globally. The United States and most other developed nations did not need to resort to mandatory vaccination initiatives (maybe no countries did, I don't know. If my opponent finds a country that did, I welcome him to share it). My opponent asserts that the scientific community has tried to convince people for years to get vaccinated, but it hasn't worked, so now we need to make it mandatory. I counter with the claim that public initiatives aimed at convincing people to vaccinate willfully, have had a great track record so far. In fact, public persuasion over brute force has proven to be the most effective! I contend that I did offer a plausible solution to the risk unvaccinated people pose to the rest of society, and that solution is public persuasion.