Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines.

Before I refute your arguments I want to clarify one thing. You said late in this argument that something I said violated the debate structure you mentioned in the first round and is against the rules. There is no formal debate structure in this debate. I am under no obligation to follow what you proposed. You can structure you arguments in specific rounds how you see fit. However I am under no obligation to do so. If you want a structure that both parties must agree to start your own debate. That out of the way lets get down to business. -Argument 1 I find it interesting you took a quote from my first round when I wasn't trying to make a argument just state my position and then say I didn't back this up as if that's a point. No you took something that wasn't supposed to be argument that I wrote before I knew if anyone would take this debate and acted like it proves your point. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you just overlooked that detail. In future please address an actual argument. -Argument 2 So the summary of your argument was it's the parents job to do whats best for their children and they should do it how they see fit. I agree parents should do what's best for their child. But some people have crazy ideas as to how to raise children. Some people think beating their kid with a belt for a hour is proper. My point is that just because parents think it's good for the kids doesn't make them right. Maybe something you can do to help your kid is get them the shot to stop them from getting deadly viruses. You know what can happen if you don't, just for a example the measles outbreak that happened not very long ago. You want to guess why that happened. Because parent decided they didn't want to give their kids vaccines because they didn't like it. Guess what happened. A giant outbreak of a disease that barely existed in america before. This happens if large amount of parent decide to not vaccinate their kids because a book told them it's bad. On to your arguments -Contention 1 You double down on your position that because most places except religious exemption it must be correct. Well lets put it this way. There was a time that most states in america thought slavery was a good idea. Does that mean it was? They thought segregation was good. Does that mean it was? ( I'm not saying religious exemption is as bad as slavery I'm using it to make the point) So no just because most states except it doesn't tell you anything on if it's good or not. -Contention 2 I find it very interesting that you state that kids in most of those grades can make their own decisions on this matter. Let's take the age group 13-17. The reason I find it interesting you think this is because if you go back in your debate history ColeTrain you will find a debate asking if kids 13-17 should be allowed to make their own medical decisions. You argued they shouldn't and won that debate. So you must have made some good arguments for why they aren't mature enough to make that decision. But now you seem to think they can. So what happened. Can they not make that decision normally but when it's convenient for you they can. My actual argument on it is I don't care what the age is. If you attend a public school you have to get the same shots everyone else does. -Contention 2 (part 2) Lets go through this one by one. First you say I haven't sited a case of someone getting sick because of not getting a vaccine. I haven't done so because I shouldn't need to. It's very simple. If you don't get the vaccine that protects you from the deadly virus, you are much more like to get the deadly virus. If you get the deadly virus you can die from it. If a lot of kids don't get protection from deadly virus some will die from said deadly virus. It's not hard to understand. If you can't work out this simple process I question how you can figure out how to dress yourself in the morning. You also mention that I said that vaccines aren't 100% effective. You use this as if it makes a point for you. Nobody ever said they are 100% effective. Just because they don't always work doesn't mean you should get them. Cancer treatment is 100% effective but you should still get it if you have cancer. Contention 2 (part 3) You basically again just say that kids not getting vaccines just because their parents are offend can't lead to a kid getting sick ( See argument above I'm not typing it out again). Also you believe in faith healing. I'm not going to point out why this is wrong since that isn't part of the argument. But here is a article anyway http://www.alternet.org... Contention 3 You say that there is no evidence that the 1st amendment limits religious practices that harm others. Ok lets take that to it logical extent. So ColeTrain if I come over to your house and kidnap you take you in front of a crowd of hundreds of people and cut your heart out and eat it. And as you die I say, it's ok I did this because it's my religion. Would you think ok this is totally justified then. Would you think that. Because that is the logical extent of what you just said. Yes I know later you say it shouldn't effect other peoples rights but you contradict that by saying I was wrong about that so I point it out. So no I don't think it should be the right of parent to but their kids at risk because their sky book told them to. So now that I have refuted all of your arguments I'd like you to try again.