Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

I had a few sentences left on my Aff however I will not post them as I'm sure my opponent would not see it fair to do such. I'll provide the analysis for the round and work down the flow......... First- OBSV1:The Neg is trying to claim some kind of herd immunity here and it completely fails, he provides no warrant that herd immunity is even successful as to what he claims for one, and two never proves why it's not necessary for the State to intervene and this is largely his sole argument against the AC. OBSV2: His first sentence proves the AC true, people may be concerned with their health however they will not act to do so, however I'd even claim his statement about American Obesity is false since certain incentives were given to many large fast food chain restaurants we've seen ads about calorie crunching and the "Drive Thru Diet." 2nd the AC specifies the State's mandated obligation as set by every major State theorist in history including Locke,Hobbes,Nozick and more that a State's primary duty is to protect the lives of its citizens. If does not do such it cannot legitimize its very existence which is why the AC says it is JUSTIFIABLE in acting. I'll further specify this later on.... OBSV3: He mishandles this completely I was talking about statistics that say CI's cause harm after the fact, since he didn't post any in his original arguments it shouldn't be necessary to bring this up again no one gains any offense off this. C1: He claims this argument is largely irrelevant. I say this is false for many reasons starting with one, he mishandles the Bubonic Plague example completely where I'm stating that not until the State's got involved, already too late, and enacted quarantines there's nothing to say that anything would have stopped this disease from wiping out more people than it already did (Third of the World's pop). It is completely relevant to the fact simply because I'm again showing how the State is justifiable in infringing on Individual Rights, to protect the lives of its people. He questions whether or not a mandate even exists, yes. The first and primary claim to any sort of legitimacy in existing as a State is to protect the lives of its citizens, if one does not hold this as a primary value it is impossible to do anything that is even relevant to citizens entering the State because they will be dying off. If he claims this is arbitrary once more here's empirical examples of how States do such....Health Care Systems, Local Protecting (police), International Protection (Military), Seat Belt Laws, Regulations of Drunk Driving, Abuse and Murder. All State mandates that show the State is concerned with protecting its citizens as it should be since it is its primary obligation again linking back to my rebuttal of the OBSV1. C2: The Neg drops this and submits to the harms he says first sentence again, Disease damages those who get the disease. This accepts the harms posed in the Neg world by the AC. The Neg is also advocating for a disgusting hierarchy in which he says ones who choose to are the ones who will receive the education and its okay if others suffer as a result of not getting immunized. Second his arguments are still completely UNWARRANTED his statements are "unlikely to happen." This is another argument with nothing backing it if he is trying to claim some outweighing mechanism on the Neg he has to provide some actual warrant to why this is so on Probability. I never claimed "widespread disease," however my impacts outweigh in the round regardless because my opponent has provided you with none. C3: First off I'm not sure my opponent knows what a straw-man argument even is in the first place, regardless he says an individual can refuse vaccines for ANY reason. If this is the case whats to prevent citizens from doing so to other mandates the State sets forth? Should we stop obeying laws simply because others in the past have not been moral, which is irrelevant to the round since we're not debating morality, no we subject ourselves to regulation that infringes on our Autonomy willingly. The State saying you can't drink and drive is not a bad thing, he provides no impacts again for an unwarranted claim. Second, this is not whether or not they are JUST. JUST is a standard, Justifiable is completely different as it varies on a situational basis. This is not a blanket claim as I specified in the AC. Which again in case you've forgotten is the State is Justifiable in acting to make CI's due to the fact that to maintain any kind of legitimacy in existing it must protect the lives of its citizens. It posses the Authoritative Sovereignty as well, which went unrefuted, that it is the sole power that can regulate Autonomy, and if any Individual was to deny the State it's right to do so negates its Legitimacy in existing and advocates for a free society also known as the State of Nature according to Locke, also known as Anarchy. Now to his arguments... C4: I'm going to sum this up quickly as I've already answered much of this, "There can be no further exercise of government power of individual freedom then to deny an individual the right to determine what does and does not go into their body." C5: I guess this is an argument so I'll answer it....He says Legitimacy is determined before the State can even act. First off, why? Second, it already was when it was created, and submitted willfully to by its citizens. I'm pretty sure preventing people from shooting heroine isn't a bad thing, he says he suggests its not and thats its not a JUST use of power. If there was actually an argument behind this I might handle it more professionally however this again like many of his other arguments goes unwarranted. He simply suggests.....Since this again is an LD STYLE DEBATE ONLY as I specified at the top I'd suggest that he adhere to the rules and not post any new arguments as they will be invalied in judging however if he chooses to, I'll gladly answer as I have his many unwarranted claims against the AC. So you're voting Aff again for the following reasons: His sole argument is the State is not JUST in regulating Autonomy of individuals, it not only goes unwarranted and carries no impacts if it is regulated, but I've given answered this in 3 different places again OBSV2, and C1/3. Second, he mishandles the resolution completely in saying I have to provide a JUST standard that's is right in every circumstance which is false again I've proven why the State's justifiable, in many instances again the C1/3/4/5, and why the State is being able to maintain its legitimacy in even existing it must protect the lives of its citizens, and posses the Authoritative Sovereignty to do so which went unrefuted. Third, none, again, none of his arguments have any impacts, you cannot look to the Neg for Two main reasons, he has no weighing mechanism in the round, and two no warrants for any arguments. The Aff has linked back to the resolution and through the V/C debate, since their wasn't a rebuttal of the V/C, shown you various instances as to why Full Autonomy is bad, and provided various impacts as to what will happen if the State cannot regulate the Autonomy of its citizens, and refuted all unwarranted Neg arguments that hold no offensive ground. So even if you don't like any of the arguments I've made in the Rebuttals or against the NC you have to default to Aff because he never even gives you one single impact as to what happens if you don't vote Neg, or as to why you even should.