Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

OBSV1: Since it is apparently not clear to my opponent what herd immunity is, I will explain what it is and why I am not arguing for it. The principle of herd is that if you are not immune, you will not get sick if everyone around you is immune because there will be no one to spread the disease. This is not my argument because it does not matter to me either way if the unimmunized people get sick, it is their risk. My point is that the people who are NOT immunized won't spread the disease to those who ARE, thus my opponent cannot argue that unimmunized people are a risk to others. OBSV2: I never stated the people never want the State to get involved in health concerns, I merely provided an example to suggest that this is not universally true. Furthermore, regulating the fast food industry is not equivalent to compulsory immunization because it simply encourages certain choices, it does not force them. My analogy more accurately describes the involuntary nature of what my opponent is proposing. C1: I apologize if my use of certain phrases has apparently detracted from the significance of my argument. Let me reiterate in a more objective tone. My opponent has described a historical example of State intervention to protect the health of citizens which is not directly related to the debate and which ended in failure. I don't see how this supports the resolution that public health concerns justify compulsory immunization, but apparently that's just my opinion. It seems my opponent was trying to prove that the State can justly act to protect the health of its citizens, but this is a terrible example and in any case I never argued against all forms of protection, just those which were forced on people against their will. To clear something else up, I did NOT agree with seat belt laws. To quote myself: "Seat Belt Laws - I reject that these laws are justified." My opponent may have misread this but it's fairly clear that I disagreed with every one of his examples or proved it to be a false analogy. The last part of this is rather confusing. My opponent says my claim that the State has an obligation to protect the rights of its citizens is unwarranted, but his assertion that it's purpose is to protect citizens is equally unwarranted. I could engage in mindless appeals to authority but both are valid viewpoints. Rights may not be exercised without life, but that does not turn the State into some kind of babysitter protecting people to make sure they stay alive to exercise those rights. Perhaps, again, this is just my opinion, but my opponent has not offered anything concrete either. C2: My opponent's argument here relies on his misunderstanding of my argument in OBSV 1. I will reiterate this again more clearly and objectively since I seem to be having trouble getting my point across. A small minority of people will not get immunized. They may get sick, and I never argued otherwise. Anything that happens to them will not have a significant effect on society as a whole. Their own suffering would result from their decisions and the State is not responsible for creating "Don't Run With Scissors" laws to maintain legitimacy. C3: Apparently I failed to refute the argument in this contention because I did not argue that religion justifies exemption from compulsory immunization. Let me once again try to be clear. If I say people should have the right to refuse immunization for ANY reason, that includes religion. I'm not going to continue with the semantics argument because I see no adequate reason why it matters. To continue on, I would like to address one statement in particular: "he never attacks the fact that the State has SOLE Authority to impose regulations on its citizens, he simply says infringing on rights is bad." Why should I argue about whether or not the State has the sole right to impose regulations on its citizens? I am not arguing for anarchism; I am only arguing one case from an anarchist perspective. This debate is about one right: the right to choose whether to accept immunization. I am only arguing for that right. It is in no way necessary for me to discredit the right of the State to regulate citizens in all cases. C4: My opponent's response here is frankly rude and condescending and seems to show an intentional misinterpretation of what I believed to be plain English. Let me yet again reiterate: In no way did I say drugs were not harmful to others. In no way did I say drunk driving was not harmful to others. In no way did I say prostitution was not harmful to others. I said that IF something is harmful only to the individual choosing to do it, it should not be regulated by the State. I already explained in OBSV1 why refusing immunization is ONLY harmful to the individual in question. I profess my apology for the ignorance I showed by not giving in to this ridiculous false analogy. This is simply an alarmist and exaggerated attempt to paint my point of view as encouraging chaos and disenfranchising all order when I do no such thing. Person X refusing immunization does not hurt Person Y or Person Z, except perhaps by some indirect, hypothetical, and negligible drain that Person X might put on society (which I understand to be the point of C2). C5: I'm going to once again apologize for how confusing my statements seem to be and reiterate them since they seem to have been ignored or misconstrued. "First, yes you do submit to the State's laws in which you were born, had your parents wished you not be under regulation by the State then by all means leave and go to another." Because I was born in the State (a factor we can agree I had no control over) I therefore have willingly submitted to the State. Needless to say, this is a contradiction. The statement that I can go somewhere else seems to mean that the justification for the State's control over me has shifted from the fact that I gave my alleged consent to the fact that I am located in a certain area. "By living in the U.S., using the example he provided, you have to follow the laws this is not an option, the same way we have laws against narcotic drug abuse and suicide is to prevent individuals from harming themselves even though they may willingly choose to. " Again, being located in a certain area is now the criterion to justify control. Needless to say, it is I who makes unwarranted statements. "Second I'd say he makes an assumption that drug abuse only harms the abuser again this goes unwarranted and is of his own opinion and is false." Once again, I never said this. I said IF. Impacts: My opponents main argument seems to be that I never offered "impacts." I believe that the impacts were very strongly implied, but I will spell out what I thought was obvious: Unjustly denying rights is a negative impact. If a person is subject to the humiliation of no being the master of their own body, that is a negative impact. My opponent does not seem to acknowledge that this is a negative consequence. I have shown that there are no positives to compulsory immunization anyway ('protecting' people against their will does not count for the reasons I described) so I don't see how my opponent has the advantage of weight. Conclusion: My opponent describes nearly all of my arguments as simply being my own opinion and not supported by fact which cleverly disguises the fact that his are much the same. He has offered no evidence of his opinions being more valid except his own presumptuous diction. I have dismantled the logic of all three of his contentions and his own argument has been to say that my reasoning is automatically invalid by virtue of being my opinion. His own attempts at refuting my contentions were completely illogical and based on intentional misunderstanding. Mindlessly subordinated your opponent's opinion to your own without reasoning is no argument.