Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

Start at O1; his argument is 100% nonresponsive to my argument. Just because you are advocating someting doesn't necessarily mean you can assume the WHO as your solvency mechanism. Extend the argument about how there is no solvency as o why the WHO would be able to pass such jurisdiction nor be able to enforce compulsory vaccination. Off the K, the only response to subpoint A is premised upon O1 so it goes away. Reg the turn, even if the WHO didn't have subjects and the stuff under the 2 and 3 on it, assuming solvency (which he can't under the extension under O1), the WHO would need some international jurisdiction leading to an increase in biopower to that international body with jurisdiction. Go to the impact. The first response is nonresponsive; Foucault's argument comes in the line below what my opponent quotes; this doesn't take out the impact. Off the #2, there is no evidence as to why wars are decreasing whereas I have specific ev as to why wars in the status quo are waged as a result of increased biopower. Foucault also writes about how we had biopower in old days; the method of exercise was sending people to war, gladiator games, bullfights etc. Moreover, extend the logical warrant as to how biopower justifies extermination of races that pose threat to existence which is unjust and leads to genocide. Go to the alternative. Off the #1, the alternative is written in the English language. Extend Chambon which says we should inspect our history and form a "perfect" alternative off of historical trends which solves back the harms of the kritik. One such possibility is informed consent, which has worked and hasn't lead to an increase in biopower because the doctor now controls actions over your life not the state which gets me out of the harms in C2 and all the stuff about voluntary. Go to theory. The argument is nonresponsive to my argument. My arg is that by allowing exemptions it allows him to weasel out of counterplans like Amish people meaning that Amish people shouldn't be vaccinated or if I had run a classism case to exclude entire societal groups. Moreover, the policy argument is nonsense; the implication of debating LD format means we have 1 person and the time frames in LD. Regarding solvency, biopower isn't a solvency disad and he doesn't specify disads I could he made. Vaccine specific disads are within neg ground. I can argue that X vaccine causes extinction and thus we should negate because the impact outweighs all 1AC terminal impacts on magnitude. He could have weaseled out of this disad by using the exemption argument so I wouldn't have run it so you are definitely voting on potential abuse. On (iii), I definitely couldn't have - he would have weasled out of this or could have potentially weaseled out of it with the observation which is theoretically illegitimate. Moreover, this would mean it would be strategically bad for me to go for such DAs if he would just weasel out of it meaning you are definitely voting on potential abuse. Extend the theory shell that he's limiting my ability to make a number of arguments. Him saying that "its not negative ground" is ridiculous because there is no warrant for that argument. This is the first place where you negate prestandard because he is being abusive pre-fiat. So even if I lose every substantive argument then I still win since we don't know what would have happened if this round weren't abusive - like I would not have gone for this theory shell creating space for me to answer his substantive arguments. Finally, structural abuse comes before substantive abuse since it frames how I answer substance so this theory shell outweighs all post-fiat arguments which are necessarily substantive. Go to T. His sole response on T is that "this isn't policy debate" and he is advocating a philosophy. I would argue compulsory vaccination is definitely a policy action meaning that his burden is to prove this action just. Even if you don't buy it, T still applies since the philosophy must be proven just. Extend that for an argument to be proven just, it must be shown to not violate some type of side constraint. Extend that all 1AC links link back to life and do not grant autonomy which is a negative right also. For example, we can have people in cages but alive which is all the 1AC guarantees and is therefore not proving the implicit burden. As a result, the 1AC is not 100% topical meaning that he's not completely affirming. This means that you negate prestandard because he's not giving a complete reason to affirm. Go to C2. I'm advocating the result of a reexamination of history for a CP that doesn't lead to an increase in biopower while solving back some of the harms. That's my Chambon analysis. Cross apply this from subpoint C of the K shell. One example that I gave which could be a result of genealogy would be informed consent which would solve back the harms. Cross apply this stuff again from the K. Go to C1. 1) This isn't sufficient to affirm the resolution. It doesn't show why we necessarily grant autonomy and is therefore insufficient to reduce human suffering. Just because there is increased human suffering in the negative world doesn't mean the affirmative world is 100% just a burden he concedes in the AR. He makes a claim to the contrary but there is no warrant. Prefer my warranted reason. 2) I can definitely solve this with informed consent or the result of genealogy. 3) My argument is it isn't happening in the status quo. Insofar as the poor aren't able to get access to necessary vaccines for schools in the status quo there isn't a warrant why it would necessarily be true in the future. Moreover there is no claim for 1AC fiat so his solvency weasel is insufficient. Go to summary. His only new argument that I didn't cover is that genocides have been empirically denied. This is not true. The genocide in Sudan is happening due to increased biopower. The government has ability to deny people's lives - specifically those of whom Bashir thinks "threaten the state." Even if the legitimacy of that claim is questionable (whether they threaten the state or not), it doesn't matter because Bashir has the power to commit a genocide meaning that there is empirical example why biopower leads to genocide. Now extend the argument about how we can have multiple frameworks which can affirm or negate so we don't need a specific framework to adjudicate the round. Rather, I show how he is not topical within his own framework and how my K shell means that you negate. I'm outweighing on three levels. First on magnitude, since genocide outweighs nonunique AC impacts. 2nd on probability, since we have genocide in the status quo and cross apply the Sudan analysis here meaning that my impacts are more probable since they're happening in the status quo. 3rd on recurrence since my impacts happen continuously, again and again meaning I'm definitely outweighing on his own framework there. This means the round boils down to four main issues. First, he mishandles theory - this means you negate a priori because nothing else even matters; we don't know what would have happened had he not been abusive. I would not have gone for theory meaning I could have made more substantive responses on his substantive responses. His structural abuse prevented me from doing so. Second, he mishandles the T violation. HE IS NOT AFFIRMING THE RESOLUTION. Just because we save lives doesn't guarantee people are necessarily free from suffering. People would suffer in cages but all affirming guarantees is they are alive meaning the entire 1AC is not sufficiently topical. Third, he mishandles the K from which he gets no offense so I don't even need this. Theory and/or T are independently sufficient to negate. I'm impacting in genocide which definitely outweighs his impacts on the three levels specified. Fourth, he's mishandling the defense I'm putting on the AC, specifically solvency about how he poor and minorit