recent health concerns justify compulsory immunizations_ld format

First of all, I will point out that there are two different resolutions listed. I will debate the resolution that my opponent mentions in his case. "The accident of where one is born is just that, an accident. Recognizing this, we should not allow differences of nationality or class or even gender to erect barriers between us and our fellow human beings. We should recognize humanity wherever it occurs and give all equal respect. We should give our first allegiance to no mere form of government, no temporal power, but to the moral community made up by the humanity of all human beings. One should always behave so as to treat with equal respect the dignity of reason and moral choice in every human being." Martha Nussbaum [Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism, The Boston Review 1994] It is because I agree with Mrs. Mussbaum, I must affirm the resolution resolved: public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. Before I begin, I would like to define a few key terms. Public Health Concerns: according to Yale University of public health – are matters relating to the overall health of a population in a general sense, such as the flu Justify: having a reasonable cause for doing so Compulsory: mandatory unless exempted from Immunization: to render immune to a certain disease or diseases Because I agree that a person should be protected from the harmful diseases of today's world, no matter their socio-economic status, I will take up the value of Utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number. This will be supported by the value criterion of upholding human rights. These rights are defined by several philosophers. The most common rights named are those of life, liberty, health, and property. Observation 1: Immunization no longer requires the use of injection nor the use of a needle. Due to recent scientific advancements, we now hold the ability to immunize people from sickness and diseases with a simple nasal spray bottle. The influenza nasal spray vaccine is now a safe and valid alternative to the flu shot. The only nasal spray flu vaccine side effects include slight runny nose, and slight headache. The spray vaccine is also preservative free. The use of the spray eliminates all concerns about previous immunization methods. According to the WHO, these vaccines are currently in production for almost all of the common diseases. Because of the advancements of science, you are free to disregard whatever harmful information my opponent brings up about inoculation, since we now have a virtually side-effect free alternative. Contention 1: Compulsory immunization maintains the herd immunity threshold. According to the CDC, the herd immunity threshold, or HIT, is the proportion of individuals in the population above which a disease may no longer persist, and so long as we maintain an immunization rate above the HIT for a particular disease, it becomes impossible for that disease to spread. The CDC has accurately determined the HIT for almost all of the most dangerous diseases. It varies by disease based on the virulence of that particular disease, as well as the effectiveness of the vaccine. For example, the herd immunity threshold is 94% immunization for Measles and Pertussis, 86% for Polio, and 85% for Diphtheria and Smallpox. The Michigan Law Review argues: In the past decade, personal belief exemptions have increased [by 200%] nationally, This trend is troubling—even a small increase in the use of exemptions translates to a higher percentage of unvaccinated individuals, which threatens "herd immunity." Consequently, recent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease throughout the country have been directly attributed to the use of personal belief exemptions. For example, according to the CDC, cases of measles have reached a ten-year high; with over half of the cases involving children whose parents were unable to immunize their children. This was largely due to financial shortcomings. There is a strong public health argument in favor of strengthening existing measures to obtain the highest vaccination coverage rates to ensure community protection. As long as we maintain appropriate levels of immunization, outbreaks of dangerous disease do not spread, because they are confined by the natural boundaries that heard immunity sets. When levels of immunization dip below the herd immunity threshold, there is no longer sufficient protection to stop the disease from spreading; this can turn minor outbreaks in small communities into cross-country pandemics. This is completely unacceptable given our technology. Judge, how can we sit back and watch as the world erupts into modern-day pandemics? This is why we must adhere to my value and criterion. Utilitarianism here would protect all people, as well as protect their human rights. If you vote affirmative, you are voting for the protection of people and their rights. Contention Two: Compulsory immunization saves money and boosts the world economy. Harvard Professor and Chairman of the Department of Global Health and Population, David Bloom, explains: "The World Health Organization, for example, has estimated that polio eradication will save governments $1.5 billion per year in vaccine, treatment, and rehabilitation costs. Estimates are that the $100 million invested in eradicating [smallpox] in the ten years after 1967 "saved the world about $1.35 billion a year". And the US Institute of Medicine reports that for every dollar spent on the MMR vaccine, $21 is saved." Contention Three: Compulsory Immunizations look out for the poor. However, despite the clear economic benefit, these vaccines are not being implemented in the indigent, third world countries that need them most, because the citizens are too poor to afford the vaccinations themselves. Bloom continues: "Moreover, doses of the DTwP vaccine offered to UNICEF declined from 600 million in 1998 to 150 million two years later." In the Status quo, the poorest, most disease-ridden countries are being given the least protection. This only exacerbates the suffering in those who are already suffering most. Judge I hope you can see that we are denying people their inalienable rights. They are becoming everything but inalienable! By not providing compulsory immunizations, we are actively denying people their right to health, and even to life. It is estimated that over 500,000 deaths occur worldwide every year from the flu alone! Imagine how much good we could do, how many lives we could save by providing compulsory immunization. It is my belief that no one should suffer more than another simply because of where in the world they were born. In conclusion, I strongly urge you to vote for the affirmative. Compulsory Immunization: - protect everyone from disease, not just the wealthy -upholds human rights -even helps the world economy. With all of these great attributes of compulsory immunization, I can see none other than an affirmative ballot. I will now move on to attack my opponent's case. His Value My opponent's core value is defined way too loosely to be used as a valid value. If we achieve his defined value of liberty, we will have achieved anarchy. No restrictions mean no order in society, partly because there would be no society. His criterion is simply a restating of his argument, that we shouldn't let the government give compulsory vaccinations. His first contention My opponent brings up a few side effects of vaccinations. First of all, consider my observation 1. Secondly, the risks of getting the disease far outweigh the virtually absent side effects of receiving a vaccination. I would rather get a slight headache than contract polio. His second contention My opponent makes no arguments of his own here. He simply quotes a couple people. Unfortunately, I have run out of characters. I will address both of his contentions and his entire case in much more detail in the next round.