Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory.

I may have taken some of my points from a source, however, this means that everything that I say is backed up, whereas your source for the hepatitis B vaccine has yet to be stated, although I requested it previously. "If not, you still produced many statistics that require a source;..." "Measles is a much less serious circumstance, however, there are 20 million cases each year when children get them. That could be stopped with one vaccination!" Excuse me, Strike, but how would one vaccination cover 20 million children? Just pointing that out there. Also, by exclaiming that I "plagiarized," you directly contradicted your statement "Where is the source for this?" At the end of the same exact paragraph. Also, isn't it obvious why there would be improved hygiene, purification, and other methods? The government set out to improve our daily lives. Thank you for needlessly asking that question. "Whooping cough (pertussis) was the cause of 5,000 to 10,000 deaths in the United States a year." First of all, let my draw your attention to "was." That signifies that this is in the past. Second, draw your attention to "a year." This does not specify which year, and I can naturally assume that it was in the begginnings of its emergence, back when people did not develop a resistance to it. Also, 5,000 deaths is actually not a lot. Influenza kills just as many people. 5,000 people, out of the massive amount of citizens in USA, is not a lot. "The "risk" is most certainly worth taking, as the percentages of problems are very, very, very, very small. Most diseases cause huge amounts of suffering among children, and all that could be ended with a vaccine." The number of problems are pretty big, as I told you already. [1]over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have been filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims between 2001 and 2009. [3]The US Court Federal Claims Office of Special Masters, between 1988 and 2009, has awarded compensation to 1,322 families whose children suffered brain damage from vaccines. [4]About 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, defining serious as "associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, lifetaking illness, or death. That point is pretty much useless, based on the statistics above, WHICH YOU DID NOT REFUTE. "They think they're safer off without the vaccination, however, that is untrue. They will obtain diseases, spread it onto other children who think they're safe without the vaccination, and then spread it to the kids who were going to get a vaccination" Thank you for pointing out that they think that they are safer without the vaccinations. Where, in my arguments, do I state that they think they are safer? They merely don't take the vaccinations, believing that it stands in the way of God, Allah, or whatever they believe, NOT THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE SAFER. STATING THAT THEY ARE SAFER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DEBATE, that argument is easily refuted by the statistics above, and, in the moral sense, by your basic human rights. Um..as far as I know, stating statistics with the exact wording is not called plagarizing. Thus, I can ignore all your refutation here: "Plagarized. What's the argument here? "Over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have been filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims between 2001 and 2009. Plagarized. However, vaccines do not cause autism. Researchers at the John Hopkins University School of Public Help and Centers for Disease Control reject the idea that vaccine and autism are linked. The US Court of Federal Claims has said that, "theory of vaccine-related causation [of autism] is scientifically unsupportable." " However, scientifically unsupportable is not a big issue. There are many things that we do not know in science, and you cannot ignore the fact that 5,500 cases of autism have occurred. ""All 50 states require vaccinations for children entering public schools even though no mandatory Federal vaccination laws exist." Plagarized. What's the argument here?" If you had kept on reading, they still forced them nonetheless. This is abolishing human rights. You stiill haven't refuted my point about human rights. I consider this untouched. Refutations: 1. Because of a few ignorant parents, their children are at risk, putting even more children at risk of being infected with a horrible disease. First of all, i would like to point out that if other children are vaccinated, they should be safe...? Also, if their children are at risk, that is their problem. They decided, using their rights, not to vaccinate their children and therefore should be allowed to make that decision for a minor. 2. Most childhood vaccines have a 90-99% success rate in stopping disease [5]. When children who have been vaccinated do get sick, they usually have milder symptoms with less serious complications than an un-vaccinated child that gets the same disease. For example, an un-vaccinated child with mumps can become permanently deaf and spread the disease to more students, but the vaccinated child won't. Plagurized... right back at you, hypocrite. Also, using my point, developing a natural immune system is important for other reasons and diseases. Vaccinations include anti-body depressants which allow you to get sick easier. We must allow our own bodies to fight back. 3. Children especially need to get vaccinated. Children have weaker immune systems than adults and thus, are more susceptible to various diseases than adults. Tell this to the parents. It is their choice, and this debate is about mandatory or not, not whether or not it is good or bad for you. IMPORTANT NOTICE: THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT MANDATORY OR NOT, NOT WHETHER OR NOT IT IS GOOD FOR YOU. THEREFORE, MOST OF MY OPPONENTS POINTS CAN BE REFUTED BY THIS. ALL OF THEM ARE IRRELEVANT. IT IS THEIR RIGHTS TO CHOOSE FOR THEIR CHILD, AND THEY CAN MAKE THE DECISIONS BASED ON WHETHER THEY THINK IT IS GOOD OR BAD. THESE MAJOR POINTS HAVE BEEN UNTOUCHED BY MY OPPONENT. Also, in your ridiculous conclusion, I would like to point out that you started first, giving me less time and space to refute your arguments, whereas you had two speeches. And you can only truly claim that after I have finished posting that debate. Also, you gave a fallacy stating that you have refuted all of my points. However, the fact that it is the parents' rights to choose is untouched. According to the above notice, most of your major points are fallacies, giving examples of the benefits of vaccination. However, the fact remains that their parents have the choice to vaccinate or not to vaccinate, and they can make that choice based on those statistics. However, in this debate they are irrelevant and are present as a red-herring fallacy. New POints: 1. Many people are severely allergic to some chemicals in the vaccine. Doctors may not know this, and the result of the vaccine may be disastrous. Again, it is very evident that CON should win.