Public Health Concerns Justify Compulsory Immunization

========== How V/C works ========== Here is a great explanation of how values, criteria, and contentions function in a debate round, complete with an excellent analogy to basketball: . http://www.nflonline.org... The contention does not explain why your criterion is good, it explains why your criterion is benefited by your side (affirming. ) For example: INCORRECT V: Justice C: Utilitarianism C1: Utilitarianism is good C2: Deontology is flawed C3: My case supports Util Your contention needs to be a unique voting issue for your side. Let's say I accepted utilitarianism, would those contentions 1 and 2 even be relevant? NO. The contention is not the place to justify your value or criterion, it is the place to explain why accepting your V/C means we would affirm. Because of this, all of his 'My contention proves public health is the criterion' is nonsensical. ====== His Case ====== None of his logic for the Value or Criterion makes sense whatsoever. First, his value is public health; his criterion is public health. I get the message: He really likes public health, but that doesn't excuse him from providing a functioning value and criterion, and just saying the same thing twice is not any sort of framework. Second, "Thus without the value "Public Health", there would be nothing to justify compulsory immunization. " This is exactly my point. If you don't accept the value of Public Health you negate because "there would be nothing to justify compulsory immunization. " That being true, you would think that PRO would have a very strong backing for his value; he doesn't. The extent of his argument is pretty much "I'm going to lose if the value isn't public health. " Third, "the ultimate goal of compulsory immunization is to protect the welfare of society as a whole, aka public health. " His case should justify affirming, not the other way around. He is saying "we should have my criterion, because compulsory immunization dictates that," when he should be saying "we should have compulsory immunization, because my criterion dictates that. This logic is completely circular: We use is criterion because compulsory immunization says so. We have compulsory immunization because his criterion says so. ====== My Case ====== "My opponent's value is morality. What is morality based on? an individual's perspective, or society's perspective? my opponent's value is too vague, and thus cannot be considered. " Morality is indeed vague. .. thus the reason why I provide a specific criterion for achieving morality. --- "In a sense my opponent's criterion is agreeing with the affirmative; if society considers this individual's rationality to be not justified, then it have the right to restrict it. " Um, in case it wasn't clear. .. that's the exact OPPOSITE of my argument. My argument is that we CAN'T restrict their ability to be rational, even if society thinks it's for the "greater good. " He's pretty much argued against the opposite of my criterion throughout his entire rebuttal. --- "compulsory immunziation does not take away all rights and identity of people; it only does so under the circumstance of public health. " So? Negating = no violation; affirming = violation when there are public health concerns (which is fairly often) Negating is still better --- "there is no proof or direct link that a government would abuse its power and create "horrors such as slavery, eugenics, or holocaust. " This arguement is extremely flawed, and I would like to point out my opponent does not give any sort of warrant or proof of this. " Besides repeating himself, "There is no proof. .. I would like to point out that there is no proof. " He is also wrong. The mindset that we can violate rights for this so-called notion of 'common good' is what Pro is using to justify immunization. It is that same mindset that justifies slavery, genocide, euginics, forced sterilization, holocaust, and any number of atrocities. They are all committed, just like compulsory immunization, in the name of the common good. Pro can't draw a bright line somewhere between compulsory immunization and these other atrocities because there is none. It is the exact same mindset, applied to different situations. ======= Conclusion ======= This is how you vote: First, I gave 3 specific justifications for accepting my criterion. Pro dropped all of them, twisted my criterion around 180 degrees, and attacked some claim of individualism that I never made. You clearly defer to my criterion. He doesn't deny that our rights are violated, just claims that they are only violated 'sometimes. ' Therefore, I win the debate right here, because he has conceded to disrespecting human agency. If you don't buy that, then second, he also has no case. His contentions are based on a value/criterion structure that is circular, unjustified, and logically incoherent.