Modified LD - Resolved:Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

I will begin by addressing the standards debate, and then review the negative case. On the value debate (maximization of natural rights vs. loss of individual freedom): 1. My opponent fails to define this value properly. Is he trying to achieve a loss of individual freedom? Prevent it? Perhaps this is just a phrasing issue, but without giving adequate analysis, he's made himself a moving target. 2. Maximization of natural rights clearly outweighs this value, as individual freedom is something that must be checked at certain times for the good of the society or species. However, natural rights are always guaranteed, never compromised, and considered necessary for human existence. 3. Cross-apply my analysis on my contention 1: liberty compels us to check individual liberty if it conflicts with the natural rights of other human beings. Personal autonomy, in this case, cannot outweigh the right to life, because exercising personal autonomy with regards to immunization achieves no outweighing individual or societal good. On the criterion debate (achieving herd immunity vs. "that government is best which governs least"): 1. My opponent's weighing mechanism is unclear. My best guess is that his criterion is essentially the implementation of a laissez-faire government, but this is not articulated, nor are his criterion and value linked in his analysis. 2. My opponent assumes that directive governmental requests are a bad thing. In this case, the directive will not only benefit societies in general, but would have saved the lives of countless civilians in Nigeria and 10 other African countries, according to my Parks card. Autocratic and directive decisions that clearly benefit human beings are justified. 3. My criterion of herd immunity will be preferred because I can achieve both my value and my opponent's. Since no human being can access any guaranteed or conditional freedom if they are dead, and the affirmative maximizes this right to life via vaccinations to achieve herd immunity, I allow more people access to their individual rights because I keep more people alive. Neg Contention 1: 1. This resolution is not U. S. specific, so arguments about the U. S. Constitution are not valid, as only one country in the world utilizes this document to define its government. 2. Drafts are also compulsory actions, and can be justified by need and cost/benefit analysis. "Compulsory," in and of itself, does not represent an unjust action. 3. Cross-apply all of my principle of liberty analysis. In order to ensure that the natural, guaranteed rights of all human beings are preserved, individual freedoms must be compromised to a certain extent. Unless my opponent to can outline harms of vaccinations that outweigh benefits, this contention has zero offense. Neg Contention 2 tagline: 1. There is nothing particularly ambiguous about this resolution. In fact, I believe that my opponent was able to define every single term, with citations. But, beyond the denotation of these words, compulsory immunization models are employed worldwide, including in his own home country; the U. S. has required public school students to receive compulsory vaccinations for quite some time now. My opponent is being hyperbolic. Subpoint A: 1. This is a little bit strange…the wording of the resolution is "compulsory immunization," rather than "immunizations," so that alone could eliminate my opponent's rationale. However, considering that this is a merit-based debate, and considering my case, the debate is being framed to discuss the concept of immunization. This isn't a policy debate. Hence, without the proper research (and credentials, to be fair), the affirmative would never set down a list of recommended vaccinations. Subpoint B: 1. I toyed with making a piece of resolutional analysis on this point, but chose not to. Luckily, I put it in case. Please cross-apply my contention 1, subpoint B. The affirmative clearly acknowledges the necessity of allowing for medical exemptions, as the right to life is brought into question by expert medical diagnosis. Furthermore, consider any compulsory act that may be justified (i. e. that protects human rights). All of them have exemptions. That is simply a requirement. The draft, for example, in order to be justified, is required to carry with it certain exemptions. Neg Contention 3: 1. Not that numbers/budgetary concerns are the province of LD debate most of the time, but the financial and logistical burdens should be addressed. First of all, I would very much like the direct link to the page my opponent is referencing (as normally I would have an in-context card to rely upon to rebut the argument). Second of all, I maintain that the benefits outlined in my case outweigh the harms of vaccination, even the short-term budgetary concerns. Not only that, but Alice Parks specifically discusses the fiscal benefits to early childhood vaccination: "CDC officials estimate that fully vaccinating all U. S. children born in a given year from birth to adolescence saves 33,000 lives, prevents 14 million infections and saves $10 billion in medical costs. Part of the reason is that the vaccinations protect not only the kids who receive the shots but also those who can't receive them—such as newborns and cancer patients with suppressed immune systems. These vulnerable folks depend on riding the so-called herd-immunity effect. The higher the immunization rate in any population, the less likely that a pathogen will penetrate the group and find a susceptible person inside. As immunization rates drop, that protection grows thinner. " I eagerly await my opponent's rebuttal, but believe that it will make no difference, as the affirmative clearly has the upper hand in the cost/benefit analysis of compulsory vaccinations. I am currently achieving my value as well as his, and in doing so I protect the lives of human beings more than he can, and with comparatively tiny expense.