Vaccination with the MMR vaccine should be mandatory

Much of my opponents entire argument hinges on the concept that what's beneficial for society must be implemented despite the loss of liberty it might represent, but underneath the hard exterior of this argument, my opponent seems squeamish about actually fully implementing such a sterile mandate, and rightfully so. My opponent has stated more than once that antivaxers represent a significant risk to society, a point that I don't dispute, but he offers no practical plan that can be used to remove said risk. Forcibly vaccinating, or forcibly removing that risk is the only effective way a mandate can work, but my opponent falls short of arguing that point. All my opponent offers is a mere deterrent in the form of a fine, based on each individuals income. Outside of paying the fine, antivaxers will still be free to roam and continue to put other unvaccinated citizens at risk. Whether the money raised by the fine goes to medical care or whether it goes to raising awareness for disco bowling related injuries, it does nothing toward removing that risk. And to add insult to injury, my opponent removes the risk an antivaxer might face from a civil case, because he considers the fine to be the only debt to society, which causes the mandate to be even less of a deterrent, because it shields the antivaxers from lawsuits. My opponent assumes that since I don't dispute the safety or effectiveness of the MMR vaccination, than I've dropped most of the points needed to dispute his claims. I firmly disagree with that. I've used my entire argument to focus on the effectiveness of the mandate itself. Calling into question the safety or effectiveness of the vaccination would be a waste of words because this argument has nothing to do with the safety or effectiveness of the vaccination, it has to do with the mandate, so logically that's what I've spent my time focusing on. In my opinion, I've conceded nothing to my opponent that's of any consequence to the argument at hand! One contention that my opponent has not effectively disputed is the effectiveness of public initiatives aimed at convincing people to vaccinate willfully, but we cannot accuse my opponent of neglect of the issue, because there isn't much my opponent could do to dispute it. In fact, it's the most effective tool to date. My opponent himself states that measles was once eradicated from the US in year 2000. The measles vaccination has been available since the 60s, and the US has not had a vaccination mandate in the period in between, and yet we've achieved the goal of eradicating measles without a mandate. My opponent argues that we must implement a non-tested method to get results that we've already achieved without having to resort to a mandate. Furthermore, my opponent has done nothing to show the ineffectiveness of public initiatives aimed at convincing people to vaccinate. Think about the last time you've heard or seen or read a public announcement that urged you to get vaccinated. If you can't remember the last time that's happened, don't think you're unique, there really isn't much being done lately to convince the public to receive the MMR vaccination. It seems to me that the trend in MMR infections and the lack of public awareness has a correlation, another point my opponent did not properly dispute. If we've eradicated measles and rubella in this country, than why are they back? My opponents plan does nothing to address the risk undocumented immigrants and legal tourists pose to us. Measles returned to this country from an outside source, and my opponent offers nothing when it comes to revaluation of tourism. Furthermore, my opponent defiantly proposes nothing to deal with the risk undocumented immigrants pose. My opponent has not proven that we can achieve herd immunization without taking into consideration the many undocumented immigrants and legal tourists we have in this country. I asked my opponent whether he considers MMR to be a greater risk to society than car accidents, he has neglected to answer. In my opinion my opponent has not proven that MMR is at this very moment a greater risk to society than car accidents. Lastly, I'd like to thank my opponent for letting me debate him on this interesting topic. Regardless of the outcome, I was satisfied just being able to make my case.