Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

As a brief road map, I will first attack my opponent's case and since she did not have enough characters to attack my case, I believe it is unnecessary for me to go over my case until she attempts to refute my case. Let's begin with her value of natural rights such as life liberty and property. Negating the resolution actually violates these rights. As I had mentioned in the affirmative constructive, the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen, "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights." By negating the resolution, one is violating the limits of natural rights and thereby infringing on another person's natural rights. For example, let us consider the natural right of life. By not immunizing and thereby facilitating the spread of deadly diseases one is infringing upon another's right to life. Therefore, negating the resolution cannot and does not ensure natural rights, it in fact compromises them. And so, since affirming upholds both values in this round much better than negating, I win right here. I do not have to argue anymore, but for the sake of debate I will continue. Moving on to her value criterion of limited government. My value criterion of utilitarianism take precedence over her value of limited government because ensuring the greatest good for all people is more important than the size of the government. Limited government tend to support the wealthiest people of a society and so hurt the rest. For example, in a limited society, there would be no healthcare for the poor or welfare. So limited government is a form of discrimination against those who have small means, and therefore it is not just. On the other hand, my value criterion of utilitarianism, ensures the greatest good of the greatest number, not just the wealthy or the poor, for all of them, and therefore it is just. Also, the first part of her definition of justice can be used in conjunction with the definition I provided. The second part (regarding the assignment of rewards and punishment), however is irrelevant in this debate, since we are not discussing rewards or punishment. On to her Contention 1. I agree with her when she says, "As free people we have the right to pursue happiness as we see fit insofar as this behavior doesn't injure innocent bystanders." Affirming the resolution ensures that the "innocent bystanders" aren't injured. Not immunizing is the same as driving down the freeway blindfolded (which was the example that she gave), in that one is facilitating the spread of diseases. The mere airborne particles from sneezing, coughing, spitting or just speaking, can effect an "innocent bystander" and cause him or her to contract that disease. Immunizations prevent this from happening and therefore they protect natural liberties much more than negating. So it is not true when she states that affirming infringes upon our "unalienable rights". In fact, negating infringes upon these rights that we hold as self-evident. Her subpoint a: Affirming ensures these equal liberties much better than negating. Let's look at this simple logic: If you are immunized and your whole society is immunized your rights of life and liberty are compatible with everyone else. Someone else cannot infringe upon your right of life by spreading a disease that can be fought by immunizations. Similarly, you cannot infringe upon another's right of life. Therefore, affirming upholds equal liberty. Her supoint b: Affirming promotes individual autonomy and negating endangers it. According to her, "autonomy is the right to set your own agenda to conduct your own affairs with a minimum of outside interference." Affirming minimizes the "outside interference" mentioned in that definition. The spread of diseases through the lack of immunization is one of the interferences that hinders autonomy. Therefore, cross apply what I mentioned while refuting her subpoint a over here. By affirming, one is minimizing "outside interference" by minimizing the spread of diseases while negating helps maximize these interferences. Her contention 2: Once again, as I have stated, affirming protects natural rights. I have provided ample evidence for this above and therefore, will not repeat everything yet another time. As to her point of safety and security, nobody will deny that immunizations make us safer and more secure by minimizing the spread of diseases. Therefore affirming promotes safety and security while negating doest he opposite. Her contention 3: Government has the consent, rather it is charged with the duty of protecting natural rights (just as my opponent stated) and by affirming, government is fulfilling its duty to the people. Therefore, affirming fulfills the government's duty to the governed and by negating, government is not fulfilling its duties. Basically, affirming the resolution helps protects natural rights and therefore it upholds her value AND my value much better than negating. All her contentions focus over protecting natural rights and affirming is the only way of doing so. Therefore, her entire case falls (all of her points) and so you must vote affirmative.