Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

====== His Case ====== "My value and criterion are clearly linked" PRO spends about a paragraph explaining this. I already agreed to his V/C. This seems pointless. --- "My observations are to give you a better understanding, and show you reasons why I the pro obviously win. " This isn't a rebuttal to my original point at all. This is just a blind assertion. --- "My contentions all tie to the resolution showing why compulsory immunizations are justified by public health concerns. " Um, I'm pretty sure this doesn't suffice as a rebuttal. The argument was that voluntary immunization, just like compulsory immunization, garners well over the amount of vaccinations necessary for herd immunity. This means that all the good things about vaccination PRO is talking about are going to happen either way. Saying his contentions 'tie to the resolution' doesn't respond to this in the slightest. ====== My Case ====== ======== Contention 1 ======== Ok, so he agrees to both of the observations I gave, which were that 1. We only need to reach the Herd Immunity Threshold for a particular disease to stop it, not 100% immunization. 2. Voluntary immunization reaches well over herd immunity. My opponent then gives the plagiarized argument that: "Vaccinations have undoubtedly saved millions of lives since their inception, the risks are minimal; the benefits are massive. " (You can find it here: . http://www.debate.org... and here: . http://debatewise.com... and here: . http://decorabilia.blogspot.com...) Yes it's true, vaccines save millions of lives, but we aren't debating "Resolved: Public health concerns justify immunization. " Negating the resolution won't get rid of all vaccination, it will hardly get rid of any. Just reread both observations, which my opponent does not contest, that say that voluntary immunization is more than sufficient to solve all of the problems that the affirmative is complaining about. ========= Contention 2 ========= "Imagine if they had compulsory immunization during the boubonic plague this would have saved millions of lives. " What does this have to do with my Contention 2? This is just an illogical appeal to emotion. Millions of lives would have been saved from the Black Death if they had immunization, compulsory or otherwise. "The quality will be the same, they are mass produced by machine. It sounds like he is saying that a person will get tired of making so many. " That's not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that without the ability to reject the vaccination, there is no profit incentive for pharmaceutical companies to make vaccines better. ======== Contention 3 ======== "He says the people who lose there rights are the people who don't want the vaccines, which is the minority. " This is the exact opposite of what I said. I said it's not just the minority that loses their rights. Everyone loses their right not to be vaccinated. My opponent has taken the exact opposite of what I've said and argued against it. He hasn't addressed the point that I actually made. "His sub point three well its just a qoute to help his case, but it can't because he does not write anything to help us understand how it relates to his case. " 1. I don't even have a 'sub point three,' I'm not exactly sure what my opponent is talking about here. I'll assume that he means the quote by Michel Foucault. 2. The argument is pretty clear that when the government starts to manage life, it causes atrocities like genocide and war. My opponent has simply ignored that. ====== Summary ====== For the 2nd time, my opponent has simply preached of the benefits of vaccines. He hasn't denied that voluntary immunization solves all of the problems that he gripes about because it reaches near the same level of immunity. He hasn't given any benefit of compulsory immunization at all that we don't also achieve from voluntary immunization. But what's worse: there are harms to compulsory immunization that we solve with voluntary immunization. 1. Effective Vaccines Rather than arguing against my point that there is no profit for drug companies to make efficient drugs, my opponent somehow distorts my words into "he is saying that a person will get tired of making so many" and argues against that. My actual argument has gone uncontested. 2. Biopower My opponent again argues against the opposite of what I'm saying: I said: "Affirming means the government violates the rights of all of the population, not a select few. " He says: "He says the people who lose there rights are the people who don't want the vaccines, which is the minority. " I'm not sure how someone could possibly get my words more backwards than my opponent has. He has again argued against a point that I did not make and left my actual point unaddressed. --- You have no benefits to compulsory immunization that aren't also solved through voluntary immunization, but there are 2 major harms.