The HPV vaccine should be mandatory.

That's fine. I appreciate that you've chosen to take part in this debate, and I look forward to reading your arguments. So, as I said, I have two main blocks of argumentation. I will provide those, and, just as a reminder, this round of debate is for argumentation, not rebuttal, so Con should not use this round to debate the merits of my arguments, but rather to make his own points apparent. Of course, as I will do, some of your argumentation can be preemptive or responsive, but it all has to be your argument, not direct response. 1. It's good for health policy I will start by posting much of the information about the disease in order to ensure that we are all on the same page when it comes to understanding what makes HPV so important. HPV, as I stated in the first post, is the most common sexually transmitted infection. There are more than 40 types of HPV, and they infect the genitals of both males and females, as well as the mouth and throat. Nearly all sexually active men and women have this virus, and it is easily transmitted. It can only be transmitted through sexual contact of one sort or another, though it can also be passed on to a growing child in a mother's womb. Symptoms include genital warts, recurrent respiratory papillomatosis (warts in the throat) and, most importantly, certain cancers, though I will get to that shortly. These symptoms don't always occur, and viral infection may be cleared by the patient's immune system alone. As such, we should not consider it similar to herpesviruses or HIV, which also have separate symptoms. [1] There are a number of cancers linked to this disease. This is a very strong relationship - over 90% appear to require this as a necessary factor for their development. [2] This is no small issue, either. With 12,340 new cases in 2013 and over 4,000 deaths, cervical cancer is a significant health concern. [3] This is despite Pap smears being an adequate detection mechanism for this cancer type. Other less common cancers are caused by HPV as well, though some are linked to other factors. 2,100 vulvar cancers, 500 vaginal cancers, 600 penile cancers, 2,800 anal cancers in women, 1,500 anal cancers in men, 1,700 oropharyngeal cancers in women, 6,700 oropharyngeal cancers in men. What's more, about 21,000 of these cancers are potentially preventable by HPV vaccines. [1] So preventing these infections has obvious medical benefits, and as patients often do not realize they are infected, these vaccinations are essential to preventing the spread of HPV, and therefore of these cancers as well. 2. It's morally correct This is mainly going to be my attempt to preempt my opponent's response, though I feel very strongly that this is a morally correct mode of action, for multiple reasons. First, it's not restricted to one individual. My opponent will likely bring forward the fact that this takes away individual liberties. However, as disease is not individual in any sense of the term, individual liberties should not be paramount in assessing the worth of such a vaccination program. When your choice affects other people, your access to that choice becomes less simplistic. The possibility that this individual will engage in behaviors that endanger other people takes the choice out of their hands. Second, we already require vaccinations for children entering public schools through state laws. This isn't just a few outliers, either. All 50 states require these vaccinations, and while almost all of them have medical and religious exemptions, this shows that the kind of law I'm professing here is nothing new. [4] Third, an argument that morality is lost relies on some level of harm occurring to those individuals. A single injection of a vaccine, I would argue, is not facing a major loss of decision-making. And since the health harms have all been variously debunked - the supposed ties between vaccines and autism [5], and the view that vaccines have dangerous levels of toxins in them [6] - the only harm that can be pointed to is one of lack of autonomy. I would argue that they do have a choice between paying a fee and taking the vaccine, so the choice still exists, just not with the one that endangers everyone around them. I would also argue that the harm is not sufficient to counter the health benefits explained above. Alright, that's it for me. I eagerly await my opponent's own arguments. 1. http://www.cdc.gov... 2. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... 3. http://www.cancer.gov... 4. James G. Hodge, Jr. and Lawrence O. Gostin, "School Vaccination Requirements: Historical, Social, and Legal Perspectives," Kentucky Law Jounal, Spring 2002 5. http://www.slate.com... 6. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...