Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

Observation One: My argument isn't that the WHO will have 100% power, just that whether or not a particular disease is sufficiently a public health concern to warrant compulsory immunization comes down to the WHO. Perfect solvency isn't necessary. Any country at all willing to abide by the WHO would benefit. ==== Kritik ==== A. The Link He concedes that WHO doesn't have "subjects and the stuff under the 2 and 3." This means that the WHO doesn't have biopower over anyone, regardless whether or not it can impose jurisdiction. The World Health Organization can't have biopower if: i. It has no subjects to control. ii. It has no ability beyond compulsory immunization to enforce anything. iii. It has no property or political motivation to 'mobilize armies' or wage war even if it could, which it can't. This destroys his entire kritik right here, because there is no link between giving the WHO the ability to mandate immunization and any sort of biopower on their part. -- B. The Impact "biopower justifies extermination of races that pose threat to existence" If any one race (or anything else for that matter) did pose a threat to existence, it would make sense to wipe it out. I still fail to see why fighting for the common good of humanity's existence constitutes some grave evil that must be avoided. -- C. The Alternative "we should inspect our history and form a "perfect" alternative off of historical trends which solves back the harms of the kritik." Pretty much all his alternative seems to be saying is "to stop biopower, we look for the best option based on history" I see no reason why this 'perfect alternative' is anything other than compulsory immunizations. He claims "informed consent has worked and hasn't lead to an increase in biopower because the doctor now controls actions over your life" i. This claim has no warrant or justification. I gave about 6k characters of evidence in my original speech saying the compulsory immunization has worked in the past. He gives this unwarranted assertion. ii. He said in his last speech, anyway, that "I'm not advocating voluntary [immunization.]" He can't shift advocacy. iii. It seems bad that "the doctor now controls actions over your life" rather than the government. This is a good thing? Even if we look for the best 'historical' alternative, that still leads us to affirming because we would still choose compulsory immunizations. i. Historically, compulsory immunization stopped diseases such as small pox and TB. ii. We haven't seen a historical increase in wars caused by biopower since we started giving shots. iii. My 2nd contention explains how voluntary immunization programs have exploited the poor. HIS ALTERNATIVE IS JUST A REAFFIRMATION OF THE RESOLUTION. ===== Theory ===== 1. Being Amish isn't a medical exemption. I couldn't "weasel out" of anything. All I established is that people who would have severely bad reactions won't qualify for exemptions. 2. It's not policy debate. [1] Lincoln Douglas is a values debate. I'm not advocating a policy, just a philosophy. 3. "Vaccine specific disads are within neg ground. I can argue that X vaccine causes extinction" justifies arguments like "Um, nuclear war stops disease, so it counts as a vaccine. Negate because affirming causes mandatory nuclear war!" It seems common sense, if anything, that we're not going to make vaccines that don't work compulsory. It's unfair for him to say "My opponent has to defend every immunization. Obscure immunization X cures runny nose but causes autism 60% of the time. He has to defend that." ====== Topicality ====== 1. If I were here to debate policy actions, I wouldn't have accepted this debate. LD format is values debate. [1] Find me a source that says "LD is a policy debate." Any source out there will tell you it's a "values debate." 2. "Just because have life doesn't necessarily guarantee we are autonomous" isn't a coherent statement, let alone a side constraint I have to meet. If my opponent had given a legit NC arguing for protection of autonomy, maybe I'd have to cover this. I don't have to 'disprove' a 2 sentence blip argument found under 'topicality'; it hasn't even been proved in the first place! ======== Contention 2 ======== 1. The fact that he is "re-examining history" doesn't mean he is going to come up with some idea later on in the future that might just work better than compulsory immunizations. I gave multiple reasons to believe already that this "genealogy" thing he is talking about will just lead us to compulsory immunizations anyway. 2. He already said he isn't advocating voluntary immunizations; he can't shift advocacy now. It doesn't matter anyway. In 2 rounds, he has given absolutely no evidence at all to say that it works. Read my C2 that says it doesn't. 3. He doesn't actually argue at all that compulsory immunization doesn't lead to benefits under C2, just that his alternative might "solve some of the harms." This means that this contention is still offense for me. ======== Contention 1 (Why are these out of order? I don't know) ======== 1. Sufficient standard Me: "the affirmative's burden is to prove that affirming the resolution would lead to less human suffering than negating. In so far as I meet this burden, I win the round." I gave 3 solid reasons to back this up which he hasn't refuted. He then concedes: "there is increased human suffering in the negative world" 2. He isn't advocating informed consent or giving any reason at all that it would work. I already argued that there is no reason to believe that "the result of genealogy" will be anything other than affirming. 3. "the poor aren't able to get access to necessary vaccines for schools in the status quo" I haven't heard a reason from CON as to why administering basic vaccines would be challenging at all. It doesn't require hospitalization, or often anything but a vial of vaccine and a sterile needle. Some are even inhalable. [2] ======= Summary ======= His theory and topicality arguments are both based on this idea that I have to have some specific "plan" as you would in policy debate. In the 1st sentence of the 1st argument of this debate, my opponent demanded Lincoln Douglas style. I plan to adhere to that, which means arguing a proposition of value, the philosophy that compulsory immunization is justified. He then runs this K/Kritik/K Shell/whatever-it-is that pretty much says "compulsory immunization will lead to global war and genocide which can only be stopped by thinking about history more!" 1. I gave a very clear argument why the World Health Organization can never maintain "biopower" that he conceded to. 2. His only justification that this war will happen is the counter-empirical ravings of some fanatical philosopher. 3. His alternative isn't an alternative. It will just lead to us affirming the resolution anyway. So all of his arguments are a wash, what do you have left, as a judge, to evaluate? Well, there's this: ""the affirmative's burden is to prove that affirming the resolution would lead to less human suffering than negating. In so far as I meet this burden, I win the round." along with the 3 justifications for why that is true, which my opponent fails to refute. Well affirming reduces suffering: 1. by ensuring herd immunity whenever voluntary immunization is insufficient to do so. 2. by stopping the neglect of those in poverty. CON admits that, at best, he could "solve back some of the harms." Then there's my opponent's less than convincing argument for the negative: "there is increased human suffering in the negative world" I'd say that wraps this debate up rather clearly. Vote PRO ====== Sources ====== [1] http://www.joyoftournaments.com... [2] http://www.eurekalert.org...