Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

OBSV1: The claim I made has nothing to do with herd immunity. It has only to do with the fact that it is not necessary for the state to force vaccinations on unimmunized individuals in order to protect immunized individuals. Those who are not immunized do not present a risk to those who are immunized. Thus, the State does not have to make immunization compulsory to protect individuals who are immunized willingly, which I later stated comprise a large majority of the population. OBSV2: My opponent seems to have misinterpreted my point yet again. People may be aware of major health concerns yet have no wish for the State to get involved to correct them. The regulation of fast food chains is a false analogy because it does not force individuals to conform to a uniform standard of health. Would it be justified for the State to mandate a certain diet and exercise routine in the name of protecting its citizens? OBSV3: This literally stated that all statistical information was irrelevant. I had not idea what statistics this referred to but it obviously could not refer to all statistics. In any case it is of no concern to my arguments. C1: I will say this again: this debate is specifically about compulsory immunization. Immunization protects only the immunized individual in question and does nothing for others. Considering the lack of immunization at the time of the Bubonic Plague, the State intervened to protect individuals from others (plague victims). My opponent claims the first and primary claim to any sort of legitimacy in existing as a State is protecting the lives of its citizens. I content instead that the right of a State to exist comes from the consent of the people. A State that "protects" people against their will is not legitimate, it is tyrannical. My opponent offers many examples of State laws that protect individuals, but none of them are a proper analogy to compulsory immunization. I will explain each of them: Health Care Systems - these are not compulsory Local Protection (Police) - this protects you from others, not the consequences of your own decisions International Protection - same as above Regulation of Drunk Driving - same as above Abuse and Murder - same as above Seat Belt Laws - I reject that these laws are justified and there is no evidence provided to the contrary The primary obligation of the State is to defend the rights of its citizens to freedom and safety from others, but it is not under obligation to take the away the right to do something simply because it may be a bad idea for the individual in question. C2: Apparently my opponent once again does not understand what I am arguing for. If someone chooses to get an immunization than their education will not be compromised. If someone chooses not to get an immunization and they get sick, compromising their education, they are simply suffering the consequences of their own decision. My opponent also claims not to have argued that disease would become widespread. If disease is not widespread, how will it result in poverty. Surely a small number of people who chose not to get an immunization will not cause poverty to increase throughout society. The possible impacts of a few people getting sick are too small to outweigh the egregious offense of taking away the rights of the entire society. My opponent claims I have offered no impacts but systematic denial of individual rights seems to be a large impact in and of itself. C3: I apologize for mislabelling my opponent's claim as a strawman argument. What I meant to say here was that my opponent presupposed an argument and presented a case from there while I had offered no such argument. I did not state that laws should not be obeyed because they have been unjust in the past, I simply said that appealing to the Supreme Court to determine justice is illogical considering its poor record. Furthermore, I urge my opponent to reread the resolution. This debate is about whether public health concerns justify compulsory immunization, not whether compulsory immunization is justifiable. Justified and Justifiable are very different things, they refer to the state of being just and the potential to be, respectively. Again, the State does not have to protect its citizens from themselves in order to justify its existence, I have offered a better criteria to determine whether the State has the right to exist. I may not understand the LD format properly, but I fail to see how the Authoritative Sovereignty went unrefuted. I raised numerous cases against the authority of the State throughout the round. C4: My opponent says, "If this is so I should be able to shoot up heroine, snort cocaine, smoke marijuana, drink underage and in excess, and the State can say nothing about it. " Unless your irresponsible behavior is harmful to others, I would agree. My opponent has not provided an adequate reason to believe that the State, rather than the individual, should be responsible for personal health decisions. The States does not have any more of a right to say that you cannot take harmful drugs than it does to insist you eat fruit every day simply because it is better for your health. This oversteps the bounds of protecting citizens and takes away the right of an individual to control their own body. My opponent does not seem to understand that the ramifications of this extremely authoritarian view are a negative consequence. C5: My opponent makes the grave error of assuming the State was submitted to willfully by all of its citizens. Simply by being born in the United States one becomes a citizen. Does that mean that the newborn babies in US hospitals have knowingly and willfully submitted to the rule of a government they cannot even comprehend? The State determines who is and is not a citizen so that citizenship represents consent to the State is completely illogical. I did not make myself a citizen, the State did. Using citizenship as a justification for control is therefore completely irrational. To address the heroin argument again: provided a heroin user does hurt anyone else (as my opponent stated in OBSV3, this is irrelevant) than the State would have no right to intervene. That person has the right over their own body, not the State. Furthermore, I doubt the heroin user submits willfully to the State if the State wishes to infringe on his right of self hood. The belief that my arguments go unwarranted stems from automatic assumptions about the rights of States and a failure to understand that a violation of rights is a consequence in and of itself. Conclusion: My opponent has proposed that the State, not the individual, should have the right over the body of said individual. This is a flagrant and extreme violation of human rights that steps outside the rights of the State. My opponent has not shown that compulsory immunization offers enough of a benefit to society to warrant this extreme abuse. I have demonstrated that without compulsory immunization, only a small number of individuals would be harmed. My opponent conceded that he never argued widespread disease would result if immunization is not compulsory, so we can see that the any negative impact on society that may occur would be negligible compared to the human rights violation. Furthermore, the only individuals that would be hurt by optional immunization would be those who willingly refused immunization and thus suffered the consequences of their own actions. Apparently my opponent did not understand that a gross violation of human rights is a negative consequence. I apologize if my lack of understanding of the LD format interferes with this debate. This is my first LD debate and I was not entirely certain about the rules.