Resolved: State Mandated Administration of Childhood Vaccinations is Justsified

I used to coach debaters his age and he's certainly been a much tougher opponent than my students. Since the debate's over now, I'm going to go through my opponent's new material very briefly, and explain why I think I've won the debate. My first contention was that you don't solve a lack of herd immunity with a voluntary model. My opponent fails to see how this impacts their case, so allow me to elaborate. Legal guardians aren't, in general, going to be dissuaded by extra paperwork - the fact that my opponent says they are likely to consider the choices carefully affirms this, since considering the choices when it comes to vaccination should take a LOT longer than filling out a form. We must therefore assume that (since this is their legal obligation anyway) legal guardians will act in the best interests of the child, not themselves, when making vaccination decisions. Since the decisions are informed, shifting the burden of proof won't change anything. It won't even promote discourse as that would imply rebuttal happens. Therefore, people aren't going to be vaccinating any more or any less under my opponent's model. My opponent has provided zero evidence that anybody will change their opinions as a result of this model, and since the model is 100% voluntary, the opinions are really all that matters. Since the model my opponent proposed won't actually have any effect, it also lacks any justification. My second contention is that any utopian visions of how society should be are somewhat irrelevant, and thus we should not derive rights from any philosopher's conception of utopia. While I agree society should in general aim for "better" outcomes, my opponent has failed to justify a) why living longer/desease-free is necessarily "better" (there is no single social contract), and b) why vaccination rates will actually increase under his model. Even if the outcome is desirable, the model won't cause it. I made both of these contentions last round, and my opponent has responded to niether directly. He does, however, respond to the peripheral issue of whether vaccination is a moral duty because others cannot get vaccinated. My response was that there is no moral duty because vaccination is a choice, and my opponent responds to that by saying that for some people it isn't. I have a few responses. However, these people are aware of this and recieve additional medical attention as a result. Very often they are proscribed various supplements to boost their immune system and given a much greater amount of medical attention more generally. As a result, society already compensates for their lack of choice. Most of these children are under the age of two, an age where we look after people probably more than at any other stage in our lives. Besides this, herd immunity is not increased by voluntary vaccinations (stop calling it a mandate - mandate implies force). Also if you provide in-text citations (it looks like my opponent is using APA style) then it's necessary to have a reference list at the end as well. My opponent has time and time again appealed to court ruling supporting a mandate, but then his own mandate abolishes any mandated vaccinations - it forces all vaccinations to be voluntary, the very opposite of a mandate. Matters of public health, however, do not depend on the opinions of lawyers, but doctors. That's why most courts use expert witnesses. The personal beliefs of a few rouge justices should never be relied upon to guide such an important element of public policy. I agree that my opponent isn't forcing people to do anything, but his rhetoric always makes it seem like he is - in particular, he keeps calling it a mandate. It doesn't matter what it actually is - if you call it a mandate, some people will think of it as a mandate, and they're not going to like that. As a result, vaccination rates will decrease under my opponents model. That's terrible, particulary when coupled with the fact that my opponent has given zero evidence, other than his own personal opinion, that vaccination rates will actually increase. My next contention my opponent doesn't really bother to respond to, essentially saying "I don't care about this point because I'm reaching herd immunity". My opponent gives no evidence for this, no evidence for why herd immunity allows him to ignore this point, and no evidence to disprove my evidence that immunisation rates will decrease under his model. On my final contention, pro argues that he has no burden to show which vaccinations are mandated. Look carefully at the resolution, voters. Pro has to prove that ALL state-mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. There is no exception for very new or dangerous treatments. My opponent continues by saying that deseases should be stopped now with no regard for the future. This undermines the whole point of vaccination, which is not to treat deseases now but prevent them in the future. In conclusion, my opponent has given you no reason to believe his model will actually work. He has continuously argued for an opt-out clause, which undermines the entire point of a mandate. And that's why the motion falls.