Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines.

My opponent is not required to follow the debate structure, but without the structure I provided, there is no structure.Argument 1:1. I didn't realize this wasn't an argument.2. It was phrased as an argument.3. Other than that sentence, my opponent has provided no original arguments, only refutations to my arguments.4. This means that my opponent did not provide a case.Argument 2: 1. On balance, parents do what they feel best for their children.2. Because adults sometimes do crazy things, does that mean they shouldn't have children? No.3. The children, of majority in grades 9-12, can usually be established in a religion the same as their parents. This gives the the majority the right to religious exemption.4. My opponent has not cited any source backing his claim of a supposed "giant outbreak," nor has he proven the correlation - causation model I introduced in the last round.Contention 1:1. It doesn't necessarily prove it's right, but that it's accepted in society.2. It can give hints that it's right.3. My opponent's example doesn't align with the topic at hand.4. Segregation and slavery refer to bondage or discrimination of people of different races. Religious exemption is a way to defer and prevent discrimination against religions.Contention 2:1. I said that most kids could choose a religion.2. This debate has no ties to a debate I completed earlier.3. My views from that debate, however, do align.4. This debate refers to parents giving religious exemption to their children for vaccinations. By default, this is the parents making the decision. This is the same as parents making the medical decision for their children.5. I can make my own arguments regardless of the time. Using other debates against me is a form of misconduct as well as irrelevant to the debate at hand.6. Not everyone gets the same shots at school. Religious exemption exists.Contention 2 (part 2):1. You say it's simple, but you have yet to explain how.2. If the majority of kids at school are vaccinated, that, by definition, protects them from the viruses.3. By this logic, the only individuals to contract the diseases would be the ones NOT vaccinated, which is for religious exemption.4. You mentioned a great outbreak earlier, but failed to provide evidence to back your claim. It is thus irrelevant.5. Personal attacks (ad hominem) are not good arguments. Questioning my ability to dress myself because of my implied stupidity is a fantastic example of ad hominem and misconduct.6. What I am arguing with this point is that vaccinations aren't perfect anyways, so religious exemption does little to change the effect of the viruses. The virus can be contracted either way, but with religious exemption, religious freedom is protected and preserved.7. Cancer treatment is NOT 100% effective, contrary to what my opponent stated. [1] (I think it was simply a mistake)Contention 2 (part 3):1. I never said it can't lead to a child getting sick.2. Faith healing has worked, I've experienced it myself. (However, this is not relevant to the debate)Contention 3:1. My opponents example is extreme and misinterprets my argument.2. As my opponents example obviously is detrimental to my family and I, religious exemption is different. It is not an action, but refraining from an action. 3. Moreover, my opponent has yet to prove that religious exemption causes an outbreak of sickness, or even to establish a strong correlation between the two.4. Furthermore, religious exemption (contrary to my opponent's example) doesn't harm other people's individual human rights.5. I did "try again"Dropped Arguments:My opponent has dropped the following arguments:1. That vaccinations aren't safe2. That anti-vaccination arguments are enveloped by flaws.He/she has also not proved that there is any relationship between religious exemption and the widespread outbreak of sickness in the modern day. He/she has only presented a possibility. Possibilities aren't fact, and can't be proven. Until my opponent can prove that there exists logical and factual grounds to change the status quo, he/she has not fulfilled the BoP that rests on their side.Furthermore, I presented the model of correlation and causation. My opponent has yet to establish a logical correlation, which also means there has been no causation proven either. If religious exemption isn't correlated to sickness, there is no grounds to remove it. If there is no causation of religious exemption to that correlation, there is still no grounds to remove it. Until my opponent establishes BOTH of these links, we must remain with the status quo.Sources:[1] http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com...