Resolved: Vaccination is Beneficial

Pro is misinformed about my debate, He has selectively quoted me to state I have no made any argument towards his debate. I agree with the first half of his premise that vaccinations are a critical public health measure and that they are beneficial. My quote in Round 4 clearly goes on to say that I do not believe vaccinations are safe. This is part of the premise listed by Pro. This was a clear argument against your premise of vaccinations. You, for some reason, believe I have not made any arguments because i struck my earlier sourced point from the record. The safety of vaccination is and has been my argument since Round 2, as stated in my "Side Notes" section. You have chosen not to refute this point. There was a rebuttal to be made, and you chose to ignore it. "He then misattributed statements to me. Could you kindly supply evidence of where I said "unrefuted points stand"? "I did not quote this point in Round 4. I merely italizcized it to signify a paraphrase. Here is the direct quote. In round 2, Pro stated: "Naturally, my opponent has gotten himself into very deep water. As he has made no point of refuting any of points, so they stand" You have stated points that are not refuted by the opposition stand. This rule must apply to both debators. Therefore, points that are not refuted are agreed upon in this debate. Therefore my definition of safe, listed in Round 2, was accepted. "Safe: free from hurt, injury, danger, or risk"As you did not refute this. I retract the automatic loss, as Pro has indirectly agreed to strike his Round 1 argument from the debate. Since Pro has resubmitted his "Round 1" arguments, (which he should have done in Round 2) he is clearly agreeing they are to be stricken from the Round 1. Therefore, Round 1 arguments for Pro cannot be considered in this debate as they are posted in Round 4. This is after the agreed upon definition of safe, as it went without rebuttal. Pro's premise: "Vaccination is a critical public health measure and is both beneficial and safe. "Therefore the premise fails the safe criteria. In the Round 4 arguments, Pro stated: "no biological agent can ever be considered 100% safe, and all types of medicine have side-effects"Per the definition of safe, harm in inflicted upon someone who is vaccinated by side effects. Pro has argued against his an important part of his own premise. In conclusion, this debate started off with plagiarized material. They were incorrectly cited. Regardless of the reason, you made an argument using sources in which you could not find the material. This is clear cut plagiarism. If a debator does not deserve a loss for plagiarism, then no debate can technically be settled as each person can make up their own point. I was protecting the integrity of the debate by asking you to strike Round 1 arguments from the record, otherwise you are discrediting this debate with plagiarism (even if indirect). I gave the clear option for you to retract Round 1. This did not prevent you from posting them in Round 2, you just chose to wait until Round 4. This is not semantics. You plagiarized your initial argument, and I allowed the debate to continue, as long as that Round 1 could not be used as part of this debate. It is not my fault you waited to post your arguments in Round 4. You made the rule that points that go without rebuttal stand, or are agreed upon. You also made a clear premise that relied upon vaccinations being safe. You have argued that they are not 100% safe; or not always safe. I have argued in Rounds 2,3,4, and now 5 that vaccinations are not safe. I have cited the definition of safe, and listed a CDC source to state side effects caused by vaccinations. This constitutes as a clear argument against your premise, which you did not refute. Instead, you argued that point with me, by saying they are not 100% safe. You have gotten lost in the comments you feel i directed at you for semantics, when really I was protecting the integrity of your debates by not allowing you to incorrectly cite your sources, thus committing plagiarism. You are welcome. Thank you for the debate.