Public Health Concerns Justify Compulsory Immunization.

========= CON Case ========= My opponents sole contention is a prime example of how debaters engineer slippery slopes to prove absurdities. My opponent attempts to link compulsory immunizations to compulsory sterilization to eugenics. However this link story has no credibility, for the following reasons: 1) My opponent bases the entire story on a supreme court justice, who has no warrants to what he says. (This meaning their is no scientific evidence to support that compulsory vaccinations actually encompass compulsory sterilization) 2) The argument is U.S. specific, the entire argument assumes that compulsory vaccination policies worldwide would replicate those of the U.S. . This is unfathomably false, obviously different cultures will go about compulsory immunization differently. 3) Now as i've begun to see the burden to the PRO comes from the line "Justifying compulsory vaccinations in the resolutional and legal context means that by affirming, you must also justify compulsory sterilization." However as i have proved this may be so in a U.S. context but not universally therefore i don't have to prove unless the resolution is in a U.S. context which it is not. Also just because someone says compulsory immunization in the same line as compulsory sterilization does not mean that the words are synonymous. Furthermore the statement released does not actually explicitly link compulsory sterilization to compulsory vaccination rather compulsory vaccination to abortion, and seeing as that is completely non-topical and their is no evidence to support this claim we may dismiss the contention. Finally, still conforming to the definition of immunization (also ironically released by the U.S.) we can see that the cutting of the fallopian tubes is not an immunization therefore whatever possible ground may be held by the CON is lost. 4) My opponent cites Bruinius, 2006, now their is no reason to even trust this last name and date, and do not allow the submission of new evidence in this round because it violates the rules of Lincoln Douglas. And this source being the only way that I can even see a possible notion of how compulsory sterilization leads to eugenics, and that it is unwarranted, as well as untrustworthy, there is no link between compulsory sterilization and eugenics in this context. 5) On the subject of warrants my opponent gives no information to support the claim about these scientists who started a mini eugenics program. Also from the meager information presented it would wholly right for one such as myself to assume that these scientists are a renegades who were most likely fascist seeing as they conformed to the fascist Hitler Ideal. Also never is there even a number of how many individuals are killed. 6) furthermore the story is a blatant lie. The supposed group of scientists is not where Hitler first became interested in enacting a Eugenics Program. It was Nietzche's Ubermensche theory that sparked Hitler's desire to enact a program of this sort, the following link supports this. (http://www.trutv.com...) 7) Finally my opponent provides neither solvency nor impacts off of why eugenics is bad, or how compulsory immunizations of individuals who as he says who cause trouble is bad. As a matter of fact the impacts listed are actually further reason to support compulsory immunizations (If we are to assume that the fictitious link story is slightly credible). For instance the "compulsory immunizations" of alcoholics, petty criminals, seem quite positive to mean seeing as they would no longer be able to wreak havoc. 8) Furthermore my opponent has misconstrued the resolution and as a result i feel the need to structure a theory argument: The interpretation of the resolution is clearly whether or not the government should act when their is a disease that could be solved by compulsory vaccination. And my opponent has misinterpreted this he says that individuals who are clinically insane constitute a disease that could be solved by compulsory vaccination. As a result my opponent has committed a blatant textuality violation, he has misinterpreted the resolution and attempted to alter it to fit his agenda unfairly. As a result the voter of this theory argument would be fairness, I came into this debate with the mindset that this would be a fair and enjoyable debate, not an unfair one, and if individuals like my opponent get voted up with cases such as these the entire enjoyability of this website becomes destroyed. So we must vote PRO. all in all it is more that safe to assume that the CON case has no credibility and therefor ought to be dismissed meaning the only case to look to in the round is that of the PRO, so once again we should vote PRO. ============ Extentensions ============ Framework Observations Defintions Apriori* in a true debate round when left un attacked an Apriori instantly guarantees the win to the individual using one. Because my Apriori is showing how directly throughout he wording of the resolution's wording how compulsory immunization is justified, and it was left unattacked, we have to vote PRO. Refutations: ========= PRO Case ========= ========== Contention 1 ========== Compulsory efforts violate privacy with surveillance. Regardless of the truth of this statement it has no effect of my actually contention. Also privacy is given up upon entering the society so truthfully their is no attack. But due to the fact that we are upholding the Social Contract we can see that it is warranted to take away autonomy in order to provide protection, and seeing as that this is the purpose of compulsory vaccination, we have are not obligated to respect the nonexistent "right" to privacy. Therefore this "attack" falls. Compulsory immunizations violate religious freedom. two attacks: 1) Religious freedom is meaningless if you are in an unfit state of body or mind to enjoy it therefore protection surpasses it in order of necessity. 2) No where in the Rousseau's Good will is their a clause guaranteeing citizens religious freedom. My opponent says in his case that compulsory immunizations violate autonomy, so there is another contractual obligation harmed in the affirmative world. Actually i point out in my case how we have given up autonomy upon entering society therefore, there is not autonomy really to harm My opponent makes the point that the only way we can uphold the social contract is by protecting our right to safety, and the only way we can uphold this right is through compulsory immunizations. But we do not have to harm all these other contractual obligations to uphold the right to safety. My opponent never proved that voluntary immunizations are ineffective. If voluntary immunizations prove to be effective, then the social contract would only justify VOLUNTARY immunizations. My opponent never proved they w