Modified LD - Resolved:Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

The order will be standards debate, affirmative case, negative case. Standards Debate: V: "Freedom of Choice" vs. Natural Rights 1. If "freedom of choice" is now my opponent's value (as he clarified this at the end of RD 3), then natural rights will still outweigh every time, as a person's right to life, for instance, clearly outweighs one's right to choose. If it didn't, I could, for example, murder my opponent without hesitation or fear of punishment. >:) 2. Unfortunately, since we still don't have a clear picture of the negative criterion, which is the mechanism that allows us to weigh my opponent's value and that links his advocacy to his ability to achieve his value, freedom of choice still can't be upheld. C: "Achieving Herd Immunity" vs. "That Gov't Is Best Which Governs Least" 1. Please extend the arguments that I made in RD 2. His criterion is not only unclear and undefined, but I proved that directives from the government are not categorically bad (especially when they protect all citizens' most fundamental rights) and that herd immunity will actually achieve my opponent's case by allowing people to live longer, healthier lives. This, in turn, allows them to actually to exercise free choice. Affirmative Case (Responses Made By Neg in RD 3): Contention 1, Sub A: 1. John Stuart Mill is generally accepted as a highly credible political philosopher who is considered a father of modern equality and democracy. Many claim he was the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the entire 19th century. I think that he can be considered a valuable source when discusses the concept of liberty. (2) 2. The concept of liberty that I am advocating and that I use Mill to support is not breaking news. This concept is part of the backbone of democratic rule. Please extend the analysis I give on just laws (like traffic laws). Laws exist to prevent people from encroaching on another citizen's natural rights (as outlined clearly in my standards). The measure of liberty is highly finite (here's that measuring stick my opponent required): if my free actions violate another's natural rights, then my free actions deserve limitation. This is why we can't murder other people, for example, or steal their possessions, or enslave them. 3. Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Not only is it a hyperbolic argument to put on this particular contention (as this concept of liberty has informed democratic government policy-making for a few hundred years, and we have yet to see any of the harms that my opponent claims will result of "adopting" such policies), but he assumes that sequence is equal to causation, hence the fallacy. For example, let's look at Hitler. Hitler imposed increasingly unjust restrictions on minority populations (such as the Jews) during WWII, up to concentration camps. Hitler, of course, had a number of goals in mind when he did this, one of which was to cleanse his "empire" in order to create his master race. Logic would clearly dictate that each new imposition on these minorities was to further his ultimate goal of that master race. However, if we apply slippery slope, then we equate sequence to causation. We must instead claim that each successive imposition was caused by the one before it, and not by Hitler's ultimate goal. The restrictions didn't get worse and worse because of the step before the last. They got worse and worse because Hitler was working his way toward an end result. 4. I, too, can play the dictionary game. :) This is the definition that I located from Merriam-Webster's Law Dictionary: 1 a : freedom from external (as governmental) restraint, compulsion, or interference in engaging in the pursuits or conduct of one's choice to the extent that they are lawful and not harmful to others b : enjoyment of the rights enjoyed by others in a society free of arbitrary or unreasonable limitation or interference. If we take a look at the legal definition of liberty, we see that, in the sense necessary to this resolution, liberty has limitations to it. In the case of the above definition, actions are limited to that which is "lawful and not harmful to others. " In the second part of this complete definition, we see that liberty, again, is a limited freedom of action, in which one is only guaranteed to be free from "arbitrary or unreasonable limitation. "As this legal dictionary points out, and as my Mill card points out, the concept of liberty is specifically designed to concern itself only with the protection of citizens, and to maintain a clean and appropriate balance between individual freedom and societal welfare. 5. If we accept my opponent's redefinition of "liberty," then we essentially replace the concept with the philosophical concept of "freedom," which is, in fact, unrestricted freedom. At that point, my opponent is advocating for the state of nature, which is essentially chaos. Mill's concept of liberty is that balancing mechanism that I fully articulate above. Absolute freedom cannot promote societal welfare, or even sustain a working society. Contention 1, Sub B: 1. I would like to extend my only response to my opponent's Contention 2, Subpoint B (and extend the analysis on this subpoint). I specifically state that any compulsory system being enacted in a just manner must include exemptions, and give a wonderful example of the draft. I then linked this to my arguments about liberty, as it would violate a citizen's right to life if a trained medical professional attested to his or her inability to receive a vaccine. It isn't extra-resolution; it's simply a reality. Contention 1, Sub C: 1. Well, since my opponent specifically asked me for an LD-style debate, one would assume that he would expect me to write an actual LD case. Hence, I went to print sources for my cards, and did not just use websites. In LD debate, the name of the professional tends to be sufficient. However, if my opponent will give me approximately 14 hours, I can get him the MLA citation for the Parks material (the cards are at school). 2. The fact that I don't give a weblink is not a reason to drop all of the analysis I put on Subpoint C, which were essentially the impacts of the contention. Since my opponent concedes these impacts, please extend the fact that a lack of immunization causes huge and unnecessary losses in human life. This will become an independent reason to affirm, as I am meeting my standards right here, and achieving more good than my opponent can. Contention 2: 1. As directly quoted from the same article: "It is not yet known whether Natalie had an extreme - and very rare - reaction to a standard vaccine, or whether the particular dose she was given was from a rogue contaminated batch. " Natalie's reaction is characterized by the investigators as incredibly rare and extreme. My opponent is basically using hyperbolic "disaster porn" as a direct appeal to pathos, rather than actually answering my warrants, which clearly outline vaccines, in vast majority, as not only safe but highly effective at preventing the loss of human life. 2. Please extend all of the warrants and analysis coming out of Contention 2. Not only do I prove that vaccines present incredibly little danger to the individual, but I also prove that, when large populations are immunized, we not only have the ability to eradicate diseases via herd immunity, but we also protect those who cannot receive vaccines due to medical exemptions. Hence, I am clearly saving far more lives than my opponent. Negative Case: Though my opponent provided a summarizing section to RD 3, he didn't actually refute any of the arguments that I put on his case. Since he has no remaining offense at this point, considering the standards debate at the top of this round, I can confidently say that I believe I have affirmed the resolution.