Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations.

Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations Value: Elevation of Higher Man Higher man can be defined as survival of the fittest. Although the phrase conjures up an image of a violent struggle for survival, in reality the word "fittest" seldom means the strongest or the most aggressive. On the contrary, it can mean anything from the best camouflaged or the most fecund to the cleverest or the most cooperative. Higher man is the most desirable outcome from the resolution because we can create the best society to better the world and better man. In the resolution the elevation of higher man refers the man with the with higher immune system. Value Criterion Darwinism Social Darwinism is a belief, popular in the late Victorian era in England, America, and elsewhere, which states that the strongest or fittest should survive and flourish in society, while the weak and unfit should be allowed to die. Higher Man is a necessity to have a strong nation and should be the ultimate goal of society. Definitions Justice: judgment involved in the determination of rights and the assignment of rewards and punishments The value of Higher Man guides this principal and so does Darwinism in determining that has the right to live and be rewarding them with that life and the deciding who should be punished with death by the survival of the fittest. Compulsory -: mandatory, enforced (source: www.merriam-webster.com) If something is mandatory and enforced than it is almost certain that everyone will be receiving the action to say otherwise is a blatant disregard for the definition of compulsory. If things are compulsory they violate Social Darwinism because then the weak and unfit are able to survive and end up causing strife for society. RA: The judge must be we are not here to debate if they immunizations work but whether or not compulsory immunization is justified. So, when aff is quoting blatant facts about them working they should be disregarded as the fact that immunizations work does not affect whether or not a mandate is just. Also, we must look to worldwide situations and worldwide examples because the resolution does not limit the debate to any particular area. Contention 1) Survival of the fittest This is the idea that species adapt and change by natural selection with the best-suited mutations becoming dominant. By 'fittest', of course, Spencer didn't have in mind the commonly used meaning of the word now the most highly trained and physically energetic. The 'fittest' referred to here are those animals which are the most suited to their environment. So, in the resolution Higher Man is the man equipped to be naturally immune or able to survive the disease when it strikes. To interfere with this process is bad because then we have viral mutation and viral adoption. Take polio and smallpox for example these viruses only infect humans, have no intermediary hosts, and they cannot survive for very long in the environment. If a person is infected and survives, they will have life-long immunity. Since viruses have such high mutation and reproductive rates, they can adapt to changing environments, needless to say we could have a big outbreak of a new breed of polio or smallpox if we compulsory immunize. Seemingly as we have a new breed of flu every couple years of so. Bird Flu and Swine flu are prime examples of this. What this ultimately means is that if we mess with the natural order of survival of the fittest, it is quite possible to destroy the human race as a whole just to save a few. That does not seem just at all now does it? Contention 2) Social Mechanisms Human survival seems to be enhanced by evolving both family and social loyalties. The social loyalties are described as "tribal," meaning there is a tendency to develop allegiances above the family level, and to benefit from that. A less strict definition of "social evolution" is to back off from the biological definition and claim that societies evolve incrementally, casting off bad ideas in favor of good ones. For example some claim that slavery was discarded because it was found not to work well as societies advanced. What this actually means is compulsory immunizations cannot be just because every time someone else makes a decision for you, especially by a government mandate, the social mechanisms that control society are diminished. Even if a person wrongly decides not to get vaccinated when he would be better off doing so, he is nonetheless making an independent and courageous decision. Society will be better off as a whole is the practice of independent decision-making is encouraged, rather than if it is suppressed. Moreover, if they get to choose, then more information is likely to be made available to the public encouraging them to get vaccinated. That has the advantage of getting government et al used to the mode of convincing rather than mandating. Society will thus evolve more quickly due to people making decisions and information being more available. Thus making my criterion of social Darwinism and my value of the elevation of higher man very valid. I have 2.5k characters left I wil attempt to attack my opponents case. V: Societal Welfare - well being of society Works for me because people with lifelong immunity are better for society as well as stronger people as a whole. VC: Rule Util - is a form of utilitarianism which states that moral actions are those which conform to the rules which lead to the greatest good Greatest good is that people that are not able to adapt and become stronger die off and the natural immune or adaptable people are able to live and contribute to a better society welfare C1) To attack this I will simply say If said child can not adapt and survive, said child should die. The reason we have strong diseases is because of vaccines, as seen through tuberculous outbreaks in the past. The immunized or vaccinated child got sick and died because the virus or bacteria or whateve you'd like to label it evolved because of the vaccines thus not helping societal welfare at all. C2) No, the greatest good for the individual is death, natural immunity, or adaptibility, Adaptability allows them to survive the ever changing biological outbreak, as well s a natural immunity does. Death, would be the greatest good because in death you are void of everything. Worry, stress, disease, life, everything. So, I promote all 3 in my case and prove this contention wrong. C3) Wrong, compulsory immunizations do affect others. It allows virus to mutuate and chane see attack on the c1. I also want that when my opponent mentions the United States as an example of a legitimate society, we must be remembered that the resolution is not contextual a certain area and thus we must look to worldwide examples and a worldwide scale. Thus, it would be difficult to argue that every government is a legitimate government.