Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

OBSV1: Again him saying it's not necessary to immunize people because the illness will not affect the people who didn't get a vaccination will be ok, because others chose to and no longer have the illness to spread IS Herd Immunity sorry to say, but again has offered no warrant to why we should look to the Neg world other than "it's not necessary. " OBSV2: He says people have no wish for the State to get involved in correcting major health concerns, again unwarranted. He's pulling claims out of thin air with absolutely no evidence or even a shred of support of this statement other than of his own intellect. Second I would say his response to my analogy is false, it does force individuals to conform to a certain measurable standard of health when you no longer offer certain products that may have been in the past, this prevents individuals from getting these foods through the same avenues, thus regulating. Again it's not if it is JUSTIFIED it's whether or not it's Justifiable. I've reiterated this numerous times continue it across the flow. OBSV3 is not necessary to be discussed. C1: My original argument is barely even refuted if at all. First to start the Bubonic Plague is an empirical example in which the State exercised power over individuals under its authority in order to protect its citizens. The successfulness of such action is completely irrelevant, because 1 I never claim as the Aff some solvency of any disease or illness, and 2 no such burden is placed on the Aff by the resolution nor can one be by the Neg. Next his response begins with, "I content," still not warranted by ANYTHING, he has provided you with no reason to look to the Neg other than his own opinion on the matter which is nowhere near sufficient for this debate. He next tries to refute my examples of Governmental Regulation of Autonomy, he misses the argument again completely, just because I don't just use specific examples of CI's doesn't mean I can't link it with all other Governmental Regulations as I already have he fails to see the links as what my argument was which again I'll list in my voters at the end. Even the fact that he agrees with just one (Seat Belt Laws) is sufficient enough to not look to the Neg, because it's a Justifiable circumstance in which Autonomy is regulated by the State and he accepts this which directly links to CI's, with this alone you can vote Aff because he's accepting the entire Aff Standard on this one statement. The last part of his argument says the primary obligation is to defend the rights of its citizens is freedom and safety, first again I'd say this is unwarranted, but if you don't like that I'd say you can Turn that standard as the Aff I gain more offensive ground off this argument. Rights cannot be exercised without life, so if the State is concerned with the freedom and rights of its citizens this is best served if the State first looks to protect the lives of its citizens so it can even provide those services after the fact. C2: I'm not denying rights I'm regulating the exercise of such rights as far as they could jeopardize the State's ability to possess Authoritative Sovereignty and maintain Legitimacy. Second ANY poverty is bad, Third he accepts that individuals who do not become immunized may become sick and be subjected to harms that could damage their lives, you can use this to negate his rebuttal of my OBSV1 where he says people won't get sick the simple fact of him accepting that people can suffer as a result of not being immunized keeps this argument as gaining offensive ground for the Aff. C3: I never said the Supreme Court determined justifiability, I simply used an empirical example again of how a judiciary didn't see religious objections as valid, however since you didn't even argue that we must not immunize people due to the fact of their religious beliefs this argument can continue to be flowed as he has yet to actually refute the argument in this contention. He agrees the difference between Justify or Justifiable and Just, he fails to provide a reason for why my definition of an English word is incorrect I see no clear refutation of such. I have a very clear understanding of the resolution, I'd ask that my opponent and judges go back and read his NC he never attacks the fact that the State has SOLE Authority to impose regulations on its citizens, he simply says infringing on rights is bad. Again unwarranted and not weighed by any sort of impact. C4: I'd like to start off by saying wow. "Unless your irresponsible behavior is harmful to others, I would agree. " The sad part is it does harm others, thousands every year in America alone are killed by drunk drivers, and if you think that drug abuse only harms the abuser I apologize that in your ignorance you follow such flawed logic. The ramifications of such abuse to oneself is catastrophic and this is widely agreed upon by many including REHAB CLINICS. My opponent is advocating for a standard that says one should be able to do anything they wish to with their body, under no regulation, so I guess parental laws are out of the question as well? The Neg standard is advocating for a society where prostitution, and narcotic drug abuse is not only allowed, but widely encouraged by the imaginary citizens who don't want ANY regulation or protection from the society they willingly submitted to. He never warrants why this oversteps any boundary nor does he even say why it's bad to prevent people from shooting heroine, smoking marijuana, abuse, and underage drinking. C5: The "grave error" I made is poorly described and supported. First, yes you do submit to the State's laws in which you were born, had your parents wished you not be under regulation by the State then by all means leave and go to another. By living in the U. S. , using the example he provided, you have to follow the laws this is not an option, the same way we have laws against narcotic drug abuse and suicide is to prevent individuals from harming themselves even though they may willingly choose to. Second I'd say he makes an assumption that drug abuse only harms the abuser again this goes unwarranted and is of his own opinion and is false. When you go to get you driver's license you sign a paper that says you agree to follow ALL the traffic laws, not the ones you choose. To sum up the round with voters I'll start with the V/C debate or again lack of which, He never says why the State taking action to maintain legitimacy is bad other than that it "violates individual rights," I'd say that simply the words violating individual rights is not a harm in itself, he never gives any warrant to why CI's step outside of the State's Authoritative Sovereignty nor to why violating individual rights is even bad, or outweighs the State. Second, remember he completely contradicts himself at the OBSV1/C2 debate when he says people won't be harmed then they will, but it's not sufficient to warrant action. This is thoroughly flawed, and again he tries to claim he outweighs, but with what? He never specifies what violating individual rights causes. Third, I don't have to prove that they benefit "ENOUGH," to affirm I simply have to Affirm the Resolution, his solvency burden he tries to place on me is unwarranted and illegitimate. So you're going to be voting Aff for the following reasons: -Every argument my opponent has made just about is COMPLETELY of his own accord and has no warrant and his claim to any such must be ignored (if you don't believe me read the round again) -Second I've proven that it is Justifiable, not JUST (a standard), for the State to regulate Autonomy and to retain any sort of legitimacy must look to protect the lives of its citizens first so as such can follow even the existence of the exercising of individual rights.