Vaccines do not cause autism.

I would like to open again thanking my opponent for this debate. While I am sure it did not go as he originally pictured, it has been a fun debate. Gratitude aside, my opponent opened up his argument to attack on several fronts in his last round, and so I shall try to capitalize on as many of those opportunities as possible. =====Rebuttals===== "Although it is always tempting to dismiss arguments one cannot refute as irrelevant, my examples in this case are completely relevant, because they reveal where the burden of proof lies." Disregarding the presumptuous nature of this first statement, my opponent seemingly has yet to grasp the fundamental basics of the debate structure. Pro has the burden of proof unless the debate is specifically set up with other conditions. This debate was not set up with those conditions, thus my opponent must take on the burden of proof. "These examples explain exactly how ridiculous it is to place the burden of proof on me to disprove the link between autism since as yet none has been observed, and so the link takes its due place among the invisible unicorns, teapots, and Flying Sphagetti Monsters of the universe." Once again, no matter how "ridiculous" it may seem to place the burden of proof on the person making the claim, the burden remains the same. Furthermore, my opponent has brought forth a logically flawed argument on two fronts. First, simply because a connection has not been observed does not negate the existence of such a connection. "In common usage, existence is the world of which we are aware through our senses and persists independently without them." [1] The classic example of my opponent's logic failing is the lack of knowledge in regards to the harms and dangers of smoking. For decades, the problems of smoking were not understood or ever realized. It was until further inspection that a connection was revealed. Second, my opponent's connection from vaccination side effects to invisible unicorns and other such examples is equivocation in that they are not relationally the same, thus rendering his comparison is void making is initial examples non-topical. Now moving away from the more semantical working of debate to the substance of the debate, my opponent presented three studies regarding the lack of observable link from vaccination to autism. While they are neat reports, my opponent's argument here is far from sound on many fronts. First, my opponent's reports only address the MMR vaccination. This limitation in study simply underscores the lack of information in regards to the studies of vaccines and their potential link to autism. Due to this lack of information, no conclusions can be drawn from the existing information, rendering my opponent's arguments immaterial. Second, assumptions are the single greatest flaw in any sound argument. "... it should be assumed that this link does not exist." Until it is scientifically proven that no link exists between vaccination and autism, it cannot and should not be assumed that there is no possible link. Third, two of my opponent's sources are far from conclusive by their own admission. From my opponent's second resource; "No consistent significant associations were found between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes. Conflicting results were found at different HMOs for certain outcomes. For resolving the conflicting findings, studies with uniform neurodevelopmental assessments of children with a range of cumulative thimerosal exposures are needed." [2] In the report's synopsis, it is concluded that more reports are needed to reconcile the conflicting data that was found. Then, in my opponent's third source, it is brought forth that autism and it's risk factors are not completely understood and that while genetics seem to play a significant role in the onset of autism, a number of other factors may also be involved. [3] Furthermore, the third study is a population based study, meaning that the data was collected from patients that devolved autism and their vaccination status. This again underlines the fact that no study has been undertaken to seriously consider the potential of vaccines causing autism. This lack of information and the conflicting information all serve to render my opponent's claim baseless and thus void. Finally, from the Autism Society of America, "There is no known single cause for autism..." "...It also appears that some children are born with a susceptibility to autism, but researchers have not yet identified a single "trigger" that causes autism to develop." "Still other researchers are investigating problems during pregnancy or delivery as well as environmental factors, such as viral infections, metabolic imbalances, and exposure to environmental chemicals." [4] It is clear that despite our current level of medical science, we are still unable to determine the cause(s) of autism. It is again this lack of understanding that simply demonstrates that no conclusions can be drawn as to the potential link between autism and vaccination. =====Conclusion===== Disregarding the first two rounds in which my opponent begrudging took up his role as the affirmative in this debate, when the debate boiled down to actual information, my opponent was unable to present a solid argument to support his claim. It is the lack of information coupled with conflicting results and assumptions that prevents my opponent from creating a sturdy backing for his resolution. Due to the lack of support for my opponents claim, it is only natural for it to fail, and thus the resolution "Vaccines do not cause autism" is negated." [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... [3] http://books.google.com... [4] http://www.autism-society.org...