HANDICAP DEBATE: Mandatory vaccinations.

Contention 1: The ConstitutionMy opponent brings up that the Federal Government issuing the Manditory Vaccinations is unconstitutional due to the grounds that it violates the freedom of religion. Though this may infringe on some of the religions in the US it's not outside of what's not already being done. It is also still well within the bounds of the Constitution. There are many instances of where the Constitution allows for a great deal of leverage throughout. There are multiple places and areas in the Constitution that actually limits much of the freedoms that it gives. For this first piece of evidence I would like to quote Supreme Court Justice Oliver Holmes's statement in the ruling on a Supreme Court Case over the limitations of free speech. "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. […] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. " [1]In the classic case about the Freedom of Speach we can still actually see that this very Ruling from a Supreme Court Case in 1919, can actually affect the debate here today in 2015. The key part of this is that when there is a clear danger then Congress must step in. In this debate I have already shown the severe issues that have occured in if the proper precautions are not taken by the public. We can see that since the public has been unable to fulfill their duty then it is the Government's job to step in. For this I bring in Philosopher John Locke. One of John Locke's greatest ideas was that of the Social Contract. The Social Contract is an argument for the establishment and a purpose for government. John Locke argues that the people must come to an agreeance to give up some of their rights to their government and in exchange the government must protect it's citizens. [2] Under this system the government has the right to protect their citizens and John Locke had a huge influence on the Founding Fathers. Much of the ideals of Locke are ingraved in our Constitution and one can see that with our government having the right to protect our citizens it is already justified and Constitutional to actually go through with this plan as outlined by the Supreme Court. My opponent then goes and states how the Government cannot "impose" anything on religious groups. This is completely false in today's soceity. There are several places in the US that are open on Sunday, Serve meat during Lent, serve pork, allow women out in public unaccompanied by men, etc. .. The point here is that my opponent's contention is not true and really points the other way then what he is really wanting to argue. We can see that if my opponent's view of the Constitution is correct then every single Kentucky Fried Chicken in this nation would be sued for violating just about all of those points. A great deal of those religious beliefs that I have brought up are from completely different religions to show just how exactly the issue is. This would also lead to a Plurist problem as the Country would have no choice, but to end up siding with one religion over another if we were to actually follow the religious beliefs down to the wire in order to not "offend" nor impose on them. Some religious organizations believe that some women turn into adults at age 12 and they can be polygamy. Though the US law strikes this down as it still recognizes the age of 18 as a fully legal adult. Here we can see that if we are to actually follow Con's line of thinking then the US would instead have an official church and move towards a theocracy in order to attempt to follow the religion to not offend it down to the wire. Thus Manditory Vaccinations are not only Constitutional, but are almost called for by the Constitution. Contention 2: The Necessity of Mandatory VaccinesHere my opponent does concede that vacinations are a good thing, but there is a massive issue that my opponent's stats happen to bring up. That is the 90% vaccination rate. In my last round I have shown the Herd protection rate to be between 92-94%. [3] This means that the my opponent, by the numbers themselves, show that the US is still not up to par in order to protect our citizens from death from these easibly preventable diseases that a simple vaccination could have prevented. I have shown in my last round the problems that this has caused as the massive outbreaks can still occur as we are under this thresh hold. There were tons of different situations that I have given much like the instance in San Deigo where there was a massive outbreak due to the lack of the Herd Threshold or like the Whooping Cough outbreak that occured since 49 states failed to meet these standards. This is something that is a HUGE issue in the modern day as a simple mishap can lead to an ultamate disaster in an area of the nation since we would be unprepared for an epicdemic that would break out. This is a key thing that the federal government must enforce or our nation will be held hostiage. The Manditory vaccinations would greatly reduce this risk and for this portion of the argument I would like to bring in the Harm Reduction Ethical Argument. The Harm Reduction Ethical Argument is just as it sounds in that the company's number one priority is to mitigate any and all harm there is in order to help the customer and consumers. In this case we are taking this theory and applying it on the grand scale. As I have shown in my previous argument in the Social Contract argument that the government has the right to protect its citizens. This can be seen as a very paternalistic nature that the nation must have in this case as they have to protect their people. [4] This is important as if the government fails at this they would then begin to violate the ethical rights of individuals as the government would be failing to uphold it's end of the Social Contract and due to this failure the government would thus be jepordizing the very foundation that it was created on by failing it's duty to protect their citizens. In my last round I have shown that when this doesn't happen then we see a massive fall out when it comes to that of an economic factor where if this is failed then the economy suffers in a massive way wheather it is productivity or market participation. When it comes production we can see that it has a great deal of a positive effect amongst the community. Here I like to think of the allusion of, "For whoam the bell tolls, it tolls for thee. " The allusion means that no matter who dies or how the death is still felt by the entire human population. Revealing that there is a clear issue at hand with my opponent's plan as if manditory vaccinations are not implamented then we will see a dramatic increase in the loss of life not to mention the great effects that it would have harming the US economy and individual family unit. It is not an issue to be dealt lightly with as this plan has serious implacations at steak. This is seen by the healthy individual being able to work and participate in the work force as well as each dollar put into vaccinations we can see that there is a dramatic hike in profits that occur back to the soceity through the savings that comes out of it. ConclusionOne can see that my opponent's point of view on the matter is incorrect as manditory vaccinations are very much Constitution as even the rights that he outlined are limited and the Congress has the right to step in when there is a presedent danger that faces the public. The government has a duty to protect it's people which is one of the key reasons why the government actually exists in the first place. In the end we can see that the current status quo is not enough to protect our nation from illnesses as it causes a massive harm on the American family and the American economy. Sources1. (. https://www.orthocuban.com...) 2. (. http://www.iep.utm.edu...) 3. Mark Fishetti, "Too Many Children Go Unvaccinated," www. scientificamerican. com, May 14, 20134. (. http://www.publichealthreviews.eu...)