Vaccines do not cause autism

Responses: "I do not quite think my opponent understands my debate topic: vaccines do not cause autism. If this is my debate topic then the opposing simply has to prove that vaccines do cause autism. I did not ask whether high fevers in pregnant women cause autism but rather vaccines. I agree we are debating whether or not vaccines "cause" autism. The key word being "cause", which as I previously defined means to bring about and at no point specifies in what manner it needs to bring about. My opponent then present an alternative definition of the word cause: "According to this exact definition by thefreedictionary, the opponent is required to prove that VACCINES are responsible for a result(autism)" However logically we can see this simply supports my previous definition, as this definition in no way specifies that the "result" has to be occur in one single step, rather it simply needs to be the logical resolution(autism) of an event (vaccination) through any pathway(high fever). But for the sake of clarifying the framework beyond all doubt we can look to the definition of "result" as used by Merriam Webster [3]: "to happen because of something else that happened or was done before " As we can see my interpretation of the resolution clearly conforms to this definition as the result(autism) occurred because of and action(vaccination) that occurred before it. So regardless of how my opponent wishes to frame this debate one can clearly see that my interpretation subscribes to the exact wording of the resolution. "Common side effects of vaccines include: injection site reactions (pain, swelling and redness) mild fever. shivering. fatigue. headache. muscle and joint pain. Therefore, we can conclude that a more severe and rare side effect is a high fever." Regardless of how rare high fever may be, it is still a side effect and thus has the possibility of resulting in autism. Note, the the resolution does not ask that i prove that autism is a frequent occurrence, but rather has the possibility of occurring. Moreover, readers should recall the the affirmative agreed to this interpretation of the resolution in round 2. " A pregnant woman would be required or strongly recommended to get these vaccines to protect her unborn child: Rubella, Hepatitis B, flu, and whooping cough. " My opponent is again attempting to shift the framework of the debate. We are not debating whether or not an individual should get vaccinated but rather if there is some risk of autism associated with vaccination, regardless of how small. "According to the opponent's source, high fevers were not listed as any of the side effects for any of these vaccines, but rather simply a fever. Because the fever was listed as a mild side effect, one can assume that it is a mild fever. The opponent's source does not claim that any fever in a pregnant woman is linked to autism, but rather a high fever." I'm not sure why my opponent continues to deny the contents of my sources, but if readers are truly concerned they can feel free to read through them. "Source [1] states: Any medication can cause a severe allergic reaction. Such reactions from a vaccine are very rare, estimated at fewer than 1 in a million doses, and would happen within a few minutes to a few hours after the vaccination. Assume that a high fever is a severe allergic reaction." This simply further supports my position as the net result of this is: vaccines->allergic reaction->high fever-> autism. This is simply another pathway by which the end result can be reached. Again ignore the red hearing my opponent presents in regards to low probability as all the resolution requires is an above a probability above zero. "High fevers are said to be 103 F-104 F. If a pregnant woman goes against the odds and get's a high fever resulting from the vaccine and the baby gets autism, given the slim chance, the fever resulting from the vaccine CAUSED the autism, not the VACCINE itself." Again my opponent is essentially arguing the since the mechanism is indirect is doesn't count, which seems to be the crux of her argument. However, as I have stated ad nauseam, there is absolutely no justification in the definition of the word cause as defined by ANY party in this debate to indicate that the mechanism must be direct. "Since the source did not state that all cases of a high fever in a pregnant woman were due to the vaccine itself, it is safe assume that some of these cases are linked to influenza. According to the opponent's argument that the high fever resulting from the vaccine causes autism, would it also be safe to assume that high fever from the influenza virus is linked to autism as well? How about the fever as a result of a bacterial infection such as strep throat? Would that be linked to autism too?" Yes. Any high fever during pregnancy increases the risk of the child having autism regardless of the source. "Conclusion: An accidental relationship is a correlation that exists without any causal relationship between variables. In this case, autism and vaccines are the two variables and there is an accidental relationship between these two. Does autism not occur in children at a very young age? About the same age that they receive vaccines? If so, it's entirely possible that these two variables have no real relationship and are simply coincidental that autism resulted after a vaccine. Below are credible, scientific studies that show that there is absolutely no relationship between vaccines and autism:" To consolidate, my opponent is claiming that my arguments are entirely correctional and then lists some sources that indicate that there is no DIRECT relationship between autism and vaccination. Her first argument can be dismissed as again it is simply an unsupported claim. In regards to her second claim I urge readers to recall that i am NOT advocating for a direct mechanism but rather an indirect one, and posting a series of articles that advocate ones position and not elaborating on them is generally grounds for ignoring those articles in the context of a debate. I have successfully demonstrate that there does exist the possibility of contracting autism as a result of vaccination and thus urge a negative vote on this resolution. 3) http://www.merriam-webster.com...