Question: Should any vaccines be required for children?

Children should receive vaccinations. In an ideal society, everyone would be healthy. Vaccines prevent sickness, and therefore work at this goal. In addition, childhood is the most important time to get vaccinated to build strong antibodies and be able to fight off disease in their adulthood. Parents shouldn't be able to stand in the way of their children's good health because of radical and incorrect suppositions. Another reason would be herd immunity. Everyone has the right to protect everyone else by being vaccinated. That way, if someone who physically cannot get the vaccine (such as someone with an allergy, an elderly person or a baby) is almost as immune as everyone else because nobody else has the sickness. This only works if everyone around them is vaccinated, so in order to protect this, we need to keep people vaccinated. Vaccinations work well. A couple of diseases that are no longer majorly present in first-world countries because of vaccinations are smallpox, polio, tuberculosis, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough and so on. There is proof that vaccines are the reason: Recently, in California, there was an outbreak of measles because so many people there are not vaccinated and in a crowd. The measles disease rapidly spread and now many people are infected. This is another example of why herd immunity is so important. In conclusion, children indisputably need to get vaccines. They promote health well, and provide herd immunity.

Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. I'd like to start right away. Refutations "However, only the parents who do choose to not vaccinate their children will find that their child has the sickness. According to my opponent himself, the children who are vaccinated should be okay. Therefore, the parents' decisions will not impact other children, if vaccinations are as useful as my opponent suggested." Exactly. That's the problem. Their child will have the sickness. 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. One child can get infected, due to a careless or careless parents, and then spread the danger to all his classmates or friends. The argument is not that the vaccinated kids will be sick, it's that one child can spread it to many others. The only ones who, in a sense, "benefit," are the vaccinated ones. "Thank you for giving us a lecture on the usefulness of the Hepatitis B vaccine. However, judged by your [#] symbols that is not normal for you, I believe that you have copied and pasted this from a website. If not, you still produced many statistics that require a source; Readers, please grade accordingly" Who are you to judge me as such? If you did research, you would have found that in many of my recentd debates, I decided to use the brackets and the number. I found it a very useful tool to ensure that you are not lying, and I am not. So please refute my argument that vaccinations actually benefit people, as seen in previous argument. "Vaccines are often unnecessary in may cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically BEFORE IMMUNIZATION BECAME AVAILABLE. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification,effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition." Plagarized from here [4]. Vaccines are very necessary, even if percentages of death is small. Vaccine deaths are even smaller. The sicknesses I previously listed out are all very harmful and potentially death-threatening diseases. They cause an extreme amount of suffering. Imagine if you were a child, suffering from a very horrible disease, and you know you could've been saved if you just took one needle in the arm. That's it. Whooping cough (pertussis) was the cause of 5,000 to 10,000 deaths in the United States a year [1]. Tell me that's not small. As my source states, pertussis was a deadly killer BEFORE VACCINES WERE CREATED [1]. The annual amount of deaths are now only 30 [1]. Measles is a much less serious circumstance, however, there are 20 million cases each year when children get them [2]. That could be stopped with one vaccination! Also, this rash is contagious and can be spread among kids. Why would these diseases just suddenly decrease in numbers before vaccines became available? Why would there suddenly be improved hygiene, purification, and other methods? Where is the source for this? "Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening." Plagarized. 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. "Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), and other disorders." Plagarized as well from previous site. However, no vaccines means a child can obtain these numerous diseases: Anthrax Chickenpox Diphtheria Hepatitis A and B Hib HPV Japanese Encephalitis Lyme Disease Measles Meningococcal Mumps Pertussis Pneumococcal Polio Rabies And many, many more [3]! "Vaccines clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients contained within vaccines) which may lead to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma." Plagarized from the same site, as well. I have to once again weigh down on this one refutation. The good of the vaccination far outweighs the bad of the vaccination. There is a very small chance you will obtain such diseases. "All 50 states require vaccinations for children entering public schools even though no mandatory Federal vaccination laws exist." 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." My opponent has listed several facts to "support" his case. They are all plagarized, but nonetheless, they are very strong supporting evidence... until you read the fifth argument from the site he copied from. "According to a 2003 report by researchers at the Pediatric Academic Society, childhood vaccinations in the US prevent about 10.5 million cases of infectious illness and 33,000 deaths per year. [4]" Clearly, this benefit outweights so many of the numbers my opponent has listed. Arguments 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. 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. 3. Children especially need to get vaccinated. Children have weaker immune systems than adults and thus, are more susceptible to various diseases than adults. The Proposition should currently be winning this debate due to the reason that I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments, and he has never completely refuted all of mine and some were left untouched. All of my opponent's arguments are plagarized and they are not his own work. Sources: 1. http://kidshealth.org... 2. http://kidshealth.org... 3. http://www.cdc.gov... 4. http://vaccines.procon.org... 5. http://www.healthychildren.org...

Mandatory childhood vaccination Vaccinations should be mandatory to eligible children before reaching adolescence not just to protect them, but to protect the health within the community. Vaccines are safe and effective. They are cost-effective compared to medical treatment. Severe reaction from vaccines occurs rarely. Deaths due to vaccine-preventable diseases are undeniably high. Preventing this deaths through vaccinations does not only save lives, but it is also beneficial for the growth of the community. Stories that lacks scientific evidence continues to spread and if this continues to happen, future generations will be unvaccinated and can lead to a big outbreak. Take an action. Parents will do everything to keep their children safe. Protect them. Vaccinate them.

Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Thank you, Strike, for responding I would like to set a road map: First, I would like to refute my opponents points Second, I would like to bring up my own points I do realize that the road map is quite useless, however it is a nice addition to organization, and I hope you grade accordingly. [1]My opponent has consistently stated that "without vaccinations diseases will spread. " However, only the parents who do choose to not vaccinate their children will find that their child has the sickness. According to my opponent himself, the children who are vaccinated should be okay. Therefore, the parents' decisions will not impact other children, if vaccinations are as useful as my opponent suggested. [2]Thank you for giving us a lecture on the usefulness of the Hepatitis B vaccine. However, judged by your [#] symbols that is not normal for you, I believe that you have copied and pasted this from a website. If not, you still produced many statistics that require a source; Readers, please grade accordingly [3]To defend myself, the fact that vaccines frequently cause unintentional deaths is a well known fact that has been proven by many scientists. However, to support this, over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have en filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims between 2001 and 2009. Also, 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. To top it off, 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. I would like to bring some of my points into this debate. [1]Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children.31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan. [2]Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to free exercise of their religion. [3]Vaccines are often unnecessary in may cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically BEFORE IMMUNIZATION BECAME AVAILABLE. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification,effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition. [4]Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening. [5]Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), and other disorders. [6]Vaccines can cause brain inflammation (encephalopathy) which can le to death or permanent brain damage and disorders such as autism, ADD/ADHD, and other developmental problems. In addition, the vaccine additive thimrosal (found in most pre-1999 vaccines) has been associated specifically with the development of autism and is still found in certain meningococcal, tetanus, and flue vaccines such as the H1N1 vaccine. [7]Vaccines clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients contained within vaccines) which may lead to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma. [8]All vaccines cause immune system suppression, and can permanently damage the natural immune system. Unvaccinated children build and strengthen their immune systems through fighting off infection and developing natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox. Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections. I would like to top this off by giving some facts and statements to support my points. [1]All 50 states require vaccinations for children entering public schools even though no mandatory Federal vaccination laws exist. All 50 states issue medical exemptions, 48 states (excluding Mississippi and West Virginia) permit religious exemptions, and 20 states allow an exemption for philosophical reasons. [2]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.

Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. I would just like to note, for absolutely no relevant reason, that he is my classmate and that I was very excited to take this, due to the previous fact. I am on the Proposition, arguing that, "Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. " Many thanks for allowing me to go first. I will begin with a refutation of the first, small quote my opponent has stated, which, to my disappointment, does not have a source. Refutation "This quote is from a man whose daughter suffered devastating side-effects from the mandatory Hepatitis B vaccination on his 5-week-old little girl. " This Hepatitis B vaccine is still good, no matter how many deaths (very small amount) occur. Would you rather like to possess this horrible disease. If so, the very small bacteria of this disease will cause liver inflammation, vomiting, jaundice, and, sometimes, death. Chronic Hepatitis B will result in liver cirrhosis and liver cancer, which means the chances of death are greatly increased [1]. A third of the world's population, more than two billion people, is infected with this disease. The most infection occurs within areas in Asia, mostly China, and Africa. There are also 350 million carriers of chronic Hepatitis B [2]. Chinese vaccinations are not mandatory. They are voluntary or optional. If more of the Chinese were treated with a Hepatitis B vaccine, then most would not have this disease. Africa is a very poor country. Many families can't afford vaccinations for their children and thus, get sick. Arguments 1. Vaccinations help children. Vaccinations help children. There can't be any doubt about it. Without vaccinations in America, many children would be sick and subject to violent diseases. Diseases will simply make children suffer more compared to a small dose of that disease. Diphtheria is an small respiratory sickness where a membrane forms that covers the throat and then makes it very hard to breathe. Whooping cough is named after the whooping sound that is made by its victims during one of their coughing periods. Mumps is another disease that can cause swollen glands on the face, but can be prevented with a vaccine. Tetanus is a horrible disease due to the fact that if obtained, you can die. You have a 50% chance of survival if you contract this sickness. There is also Rubella, Polio, Chickenpox, Measles, and Meningitis. All of these diseases are life-threatening and can only be stopped with a vaccination. There will be dangers when parents don't get their child vaccinated. In Boulder, Colorado, half of the 292 students attending Shining Mountain Waldorf School did not receive all vaccinations, with some not receiving any. The result of this has been a case of spreading whooping cough. In Colorado, all a parent needs to do have a child exempt from vaccinations is to sign a sheet of paper. 2. Vaccinations should be mandatory because diseases can spread. Children can get diseases that they could have prevented with a vaccination, and spread it to others who think they are safe without a vaccine. Children touch many things, such as park structures, and then others will get sick. There are some diseases that seem very small at first, but then develop to be potentially dangerous. The only ones that can be free of this disease are the vaccinated children. Just look at countries in Africa. They have numerous children with diseases, not because bacteria separately went and touched them all, but because they spread it among each other by playing, working, and using the same supplies. An African child dies every minute due to Measles [3]. This could be stopped with vaccinations. I eagerly await for the response. Sources: 1. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2. . http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com... 3. Cuttino, Phyliss A. "Where a Child Dies Each Minute. " UN Chronicle. June/August 2002:26.

State-mandated administration of childhood vaccines is justified. Vaccines, granted, do have side effects, but what doesn’t? For example: annually, 350 people die from bath/shower related incidents, 200 are killed when they choke on food, and 100 are killed by lightning [1]. On average, data from 1988-2008, a 20 year span, annualy 335.1 people are compensated for injuries because of vaccines by the government [2]. Furthermore, they don't all neccessarily die because of vaccines - compensation is also given based on factors such as medical costs, lost of productivity, etc. Childhood vaccines are 90-99% effective in preventing diseases through immunity [3]. Most of the time, children with vaccinations have less complications then children without vaccinations. Vaccinations are successful in reducing human suffering and death. Past examples show that vaccines are efficient. Cuba have literally eradicated measles and polio due to compulsory immunization. Vaccinations have saved an estimated 250000 lives every year there [4]. "Vaccines are among the 20th Century's most successful and cost-effective public health tools for preventing disease and death. Not long ago, diseases such as polio, measles, pertussis, diphtheria, and Haemophilus influenzae type b (known as Hib) were commonplace. Today, cases of most vaccine-preventable diseases are at or near all-time lows, and childhood immunization rates have never been higher. In less than a decade, the use of Hib conjugate vaccines nearly eliminated Hib invasive disease among children. During the course of the century, we have eradicated smallpox worldwide and, as of 1991, have eliminated wild polio virus from the Western Hemisphere. School laws requiring immunizations are effective in ensuring that high numbers of children are immunized" [7]. Quite recently, vaccines have saved countless lives and advanced living conditions. Therefore, vaccines help individuals and prevent diseases C2: Community Mandatory vaccinations protects societies, because our community would be ravaged by dangerous diseases if we don’t develop enough immunity. Herd immunity is a form of immunity where a certain percentage of the population is innoculated agaisnt a disease, hence stopping the spread of it and saving the community. In order to protect public health, up to 95% of our population needs to be vaccinated [5]. "The CDC has determined that "nonmedical exemptions to vaccinations are a factor in the development of. .. diseases outbreaks" -[6]Measles outbreaks in New York City, San Diego, and other communities around the US, involved children whose parents refused vaccination, and another CDC report released in 2008 found that rates of undervaccination are even greater than previous studies showed and have a horrible impact on herd immunity [6]. In Colorado, vaccination rates started to lower, and when they did, the whooping cough worsened and spread. At the end of 2004, there were 1,200 cases of disease - higher than any year since 1964 [4]. The return of whooping cough shows the importance of constantly maintaining herd immunity. Mandatory vaccination has also protected societies from polio and small pox. Childhood vaccinations stop around 10.5 million cases of infectious illness every single year and save 33,000 lives annually [3]. Since the introduction of routine childhood vaccination, Diphtheria has dropped from a peak of 206,939 cases in 1921 to only four cases in 1990 [11]. In conclusion, mandatory vaccination protects the community and improves public health. C3: Money With the prevention of 6.4 million childhood deaths, 2 studies report a $231 billion dollar gain over the next 10 years due to routine vaccinations. Childhood vaccinations also reach out to poor families and women, with some vaccines such as the HPV vaccine. HPV leads to cervical cancer, and poor families as a group usually don't see doctors as often and get scanned for cervical cancer, and were also unlikely to give up $50-75 for the vaccine [4]. However, vaccine mandates were able to protect these women at the most cost-efficient way. The CDC also estimated that every $1 spent on the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine saves the heatlh care system $21, and every $1 spent on oral polio vaccinations save $6; and for every $1 spent on the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine saves $30 [9]. C4: The State has the AuthorityIn the past, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of vaccine mandates. One historical case would be Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, where the Supreme Court stated that states have the right to enforce compulsory immunization, and that these were reasonable measures to protect public health and safety [10]. The restraints put in place are for the common good of the people. Furthermore, the police power of the state must protect the public. In the 1922 case of Zucht vs. King, the Supreme Court once again adressed the constitutionality of childhood vaccination mandates, stating that "these ordinances confer not arbitrary power, but only that broad discretion required for the protection of the public health" [10]. The Arizona Court of Appeals denied the argument that the right to education would defeat the state’s need to protect against the spread of infectious diseases [10]. Individual rights do not include liberty to expose the community or the child to transferable diseases and sabatoge the well-being of others. Individuals themselves have the moral obligation to vaccinate their children. Generally, individuals are free to make decisions that impact their own lives, but in the case of vaccinations, your actions affect other individuals, removing this freedom [12]. The failure to vaccinate your children results in unintentionally passing on contagious diseases. On the grounds of potentional harm to outside parties, parents must vaccinate their offspring. Conclusion:The government has the right to enforce mandatory childhood vaccinations, along with a compelling state reasons. Vaccines, also, generally saves more lives than it harms, and provides monetary benefits to the people who use vaccines. The ultimate conclusion is that the government should force vaccinations, in order to maximize public health and do what is best for the common good. Sources:(Please forgive me, because I don't have the links to some of the sources. )[1] Dr. Paul, Univ. of PA Medical & Dr. Louis, Pediatrics Chief, Children’s Hospital of Physicians. Last accessed April 11, 2012. [2] . http://www.immunizationinfo.org...[3]American Academy of Pediatrics, "Why Does My Child Need to be Immunized? ," www. healthychildren. org (accessed Dec. 17, 2009) . http://vaccines.procon.org...[4] Arthur Allen, Author, Vaccine: The Story of Medicine’s Greatest Lifesaver (2007)[5] . http://www.nytimes.com...[6] Nancy Berlinger & Alison Jost, Hastings Center & Researcher in Bioethics at Yale, 2010, Three Shots at Prevention: The HPV vaccine and the politics of medicine’s simple solutions, eds. K Wailoo, J. Livingston, S. Epstein & R. Aronowitz[7] Alan R. Hinman, et al. , Professor of Global Health, Emory University, 2002, “Tools to Prevent Infectious Disease: Child Vaccination: Laws that Work,” 30 Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics[8] . http://www.medscape.com...[9] . http://www.willamette.edu...[10] Kevin M. Malone & Alan R Hinman, 2003, Vaccination Mandates: The Public Health Imperative and Individual Rights” in Law in Public Health Practice[11] Thomas May & Ross D. Silverman, BioethicsProfessor – Medical College of Wisconsin and Southern Illinois University, 2005, “Free Riding, Fairness and the Rights of Minority Groups in Exemption from Mandatory Childhood Vaccination,” Human VaccinesREMAINING SOURCES IN COMMENTS

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization A child has a human right to be protected from preventable diseases from birth

It eliminates diseases and prevents them from returning In countries where there is compulsory vaccination of children, the argument presented by governments is that the mass vaccination of children from birth will help to eradicate and prevent various diseases from existing in the country. There is certainly strong evidence from the United States to suggest that compulsory immunization is justified, and is perhaps better demonstrated by looking at several examples of how diseases have been significantly reduced as a result of compulsory immunization. Firstly, prior to a vaccine for polio, between 13,000 and 20,000 cases were reported in the USA annually. In 1988, the World Health Organisation decided to try and eradicate polio worldwide, and as of today the disease has been removed from the USA, Western Pacific and Europe. Only four countries (Afghanistan, Nigeria, India and Pakistan) are endemic, and there are just 2000 cases reported worldwide annually as of 2009. But by stopping vaccination before the disease is widely eradicated leaves countries susceptible to future unexpected outbreaks. Another common disease – measles, affected nearly everyone in the United States prior to the vaccination being introduced. Between 1953 and 1963, there were 450 deaths each year from the disease. Currently in the US, three of every 1000 people who contract measles will die, whilst in the developing world, one in 100 will die. It is estimated that 90% of people who are exposed to the virus will get infected if not vaccinated against it. In 1999 according to the WHO, there were 900,000 measles related deaths worldwide. Measles can spread rapidly amongst unvaccinated populations, and if vaccinations were stopped, the WHO estimate there could be 2.7 million measles related deaths worldwide annually. Type B meningitis was prior to the vaccine the most common form of bacterial meningitis in US infants, with 20,000 annual cases, with one in 600 proving either fatal or leaving the child with some form of disability. Since the vaccine became available in1987, the number of cases has reduced by 98%, with fewer than ten fatalities a year. These are just a few examples of how vaccines can prevent and eradicate diseases that have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths throughout the past century. Although some may argue that with diseases such as Polio wiped out in most of the world a vaccine is not necessary. However any reduction in the number of people vaccinated against the disease would leave a window of opportunity for the disease to rear its head up once again. In many ways vaccinations have become victims of their own success. People under estimate the dangers of disease as they have not experienced the effects.

Mandatory Childhood Vaccines Childhood vaccines have been a hot topic and I wish to argue for them. These arguments should suffice- 1. Disease eradication 2. Milder symptoms of a disease 3. Lives saved 4. And herd immunity I will also put down arguments like abridging freedoms, etc.

Vaccinations (mandatory/disbursement) While it is indeed true that vaccinations may cause severe side effects, nothing medical or science related is 100% guaranteed to work perfectly and safely. There are side effects that come with any medical treatments, not just vaccinations. Sever side effects are also very rare. About one in one hundred people report about severe side effects within six months of vaccination. It's riskier to not vaccinate and possibly contract a disease, than to vaccinate and risk having severe side effects that only 1 out of every 100 people get. (www.cdc.gov.) Often times, vaccination side effects are minor. There may be pain and tenderness where injected, fever, and a stuffy nose. These are much better to deal with then your child potentially dying from a certain disease. (www.vaccines.gov.) Vaccinations are vital to keeping children healthy, and can keep them healthy for over 50 years. (www.healthychildren.org.) The majority of childhood vaccines are 90 to 99 percent effective at preventing diseases. (www.healthychildren.org.)

State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified I have refuted all of the con's points with superior evidence and logic, while upholding my own points. Just to sum up the main arguments: 1. Without a mandate, herd immunity will be threatened. A mandate is the only way to make sure that enough people will get vaccinated, and will ultimately remain healthy. Furthermore, it is not right to put someone else in danger if it can be helped. By depriving their children of vaccines, parents are not only putting their own children in danger, but also putting the children of others in danger. Referring back to my Contention 2, subpoint B, when people fail to vaccinate their children, kids with weak immune systems etc. can and will be hurt. 2. Parents don't always make the best choices for their children. Diseases that cannot be be protected through herd immunity, such as tetanus, creates a greater need for everybody to get vaccinated. A child should not be forced to endure diseases such as tetanus because of a bad decision of their parents. 3. Vaccines are expensive. If vaccines were mandated, those with less money would be able to get the vaccines. 4. All of my opponent's "religious beliefs" claims have been proven to be incorrect. First and foremost, biblical word isn't taken literally. All of the religions my opponent brought up allow vaccinations. 5. The constitution does not provide absolute rights. Furthermore, because my opponent cannot proven that any religions explicitly prohibit vaccines, this point falls in my favor. 6. Vaccines are safe. If a parent is concerned about certain ingredients, they can get an alternative brand of vaccines. 7. Vaccination is preferable to natural immune systems. (Refer to my Japanese example) 8. It is preferable to give children vaccines: So they're safe throughout their life. It's more effective when given to children. Because of these reasons, I can only urge a Pro vote.

Children should receive vaccinations. See above.

Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Refutations "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. That is due to the fact that you plagarized and copied word-for-word every argument and fact from the website I previously listed, which you did not even bother to source because I bet you didn't want ANYONE to know you were even plagarizing! I listed sources. You gave none. I doubt you even looked at my sources for the Hepatitis B argument because the facts are there, in that document. "Excuse me, Strike, but how would one vaccination cover 20 million children? Just pointing that out there." I know that in some countries, parents may not be able to afford vaccines for their children. Nonetheless, if everyone had vaccines, they wouldn't contract the disease. "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." Why would that just suddenly happen in that time period? Why couldn't it happen before? Improved hygiene and such is a valid argument for reduction of germs and bacteria. But I mean, there are still going to be diseases that can be caught, even when they disappear for awhile. The best way to stay protected is to get a vaccine and everyone needs these vaccines. "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." Yes, very good job, it was in the past. A year means every year, not just one year. But to be specific, the Pertussis vaccine was developed in the 1930s, and saved those 5,000 to 10,000 lives lost. My opponent decides that 5,000 (the smaller number) is not a big amount of deaths. Pertussis came about in 1906, and hurt people until the vaccine came around. An average of 7,500 people are dying a year. This lasts for approximately 24 years. This is plain ridiculous. It comes out to 180,000 people dying! Tell me that's not big! "The number of problems are pretty big, as I told you already." Sure, as you plagarized already. Anyway, the benefit is much bigger, as I told you already... According to a 2003 report by researchers at the Pediatric Academic Society, childhood vaccinations in the US prevent about 10.5 million cases of infectious illness and 33,000 deaths per year. Look in the previous round for the source. "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..." There's absolutely no need to yell. I know you have poor conduct and you're certainly not helping it out here. Anyway, when I pointed out that vaccines are safer, I felt like adding some additional info. Anyway, that's exactly the problem. Children should not be allowed to skip vaccinations because of their religious beliefs. They're putting every single child at risk, including themselves! If this argument "is easily refuted" then why can't you properly refute it? You didn't list any statistics or sources, and you don't show the "moral sense." "Um..as far as I know, stating statistics with the exact wording is not called plagarizing. Thus, I can ignore all your refutation here:" You yourself is not a source. You don't bother to list sources. To plagiarize (I spelled it wrong before) means "to take without referencing from someone else's writing or speech." That is exactly what you did. "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." Scientifically unsupportable is a big issue. Universities studied it and found that there is absolutely no link to autism and vaccines. Things that we don't know about are things outside of this universe and in the deepest corners of the Earth. Not right in front of our noses. 5,500 cases doesn't mean it truly happened. Some could be false claims and lies, and the others could be true, however, that doesn't mean vaccines are the cause for autism. There is a theory that Ultrasound causes autism, as well. Basically, my opponent argues "human rights." People who believe they have "rights" and decide to skip out on vaccines put their entire environment at danger. They can pass the disease onto other people who will suffer as well. They can die themselves, just because of their "right" to not protect themselves and in turn, harm themselves. People should not have the right to put themselves and others at risk. "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." "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." If you read my entire argument, you would find that vaccines are beneficial, but children aren't 100% safe. They will just have better defense against it and won't be effected as much. "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." It was not plagiarized. I cited my source. Anyways, this refutation is ridiculous. What happens when people try to get a "natural immune system"? They get the disease and THEY DIE. There is no way to develop a natural immune system on your own, or even with help, with the knowledge we currently possess. Vaccinations are beneficial and they prevent diseases from seriously harming your body. "IMPORTANT NOTICE: THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT MANDATORY OR NOT, NOT WHETHER OR NOT IT IS GOOD FOR YOU." This makes absolutely no difference in the debate. Vaccines should be mandatory because they are helpful! It's as simple as that! "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." I would like to point out that you told me to start first. I complied. "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." The point was never clear. However, I have now refuted all of your points. "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." According to this site [2], a small percentage of people are at a small risk due to vaccinations. Precautions must be taken if you ever have an allergic reaction, as well. Don't be careless. Arguments: 1. Vaccinations are beneficial and should be mandatory for this reason. 2. People can spread contracted diseases to others and putting everyone at risk. 3. There is much more benefit than harm. I await the response. Sources: 1. http://www.vaccineinformation.org... 2. http://www.suite101.com...

Not getting children vaccinated Vaccination is a relatively new process. For this reason, there are risks to using any vaccine. However, these vaccines are not limited to the HPV vaccine. Because of the nature of our health system, these risks should be taken into account, and the risks that a parent wants expose their children to should be their own decision. Second of all, all public school systems and most private school systems already require the immunization of children. The fact that most parents send their children to school is clear sign that most children are already being vaccinated for the biggest diseases(such as hepatitis.) The few parents without children attending school would not have much risk of having their child exposed to such a diesease, as the vast majority of the population (attending public or private schools) are immunized. Therefore, it can be seen that an official mandate to REQUIRE all parents to immunize their children is unnessesary because the vast majority of our population, that attend public and private schools have already been vaccinized, and with a majority of the population immune, a spread of diesease is unlikely.

Children should be vaccinated Mothers need to vaccinate their children in order for them to avoid getting fatal diseases. Most diseases are prevented by getting vaccinations. Due to vaccinations diseases like smallpox have been eradicated. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control) on their website wrote an Article title Smallpox writing "Thanks to the success of vaccination, the last natural outbreak of smallpox in the United States occurred in 1949." Vaccines have allowed and continue to allow protection to children from diseases that were once deadly.

Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Refutations: "I listed sources. You gave none" a. My opponent has stated that I have not given any sources - The US Court Federal Claims Office of Special Masters - National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims - a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan. b. I would not call the above no sources c. My opponent has falsely accused me, and should therefore have conduct points graded off. d. I did not copy word-for-word from a website - I had read it, and then typed all their arguments by hand. - another false accusation: "I bet you didn't want ANYONE to know you were even plagarizing!" - My opponent is constantly assuming things and falsely accusing me, this should be graded off. "'Excuse me, Strike, but how would one vaccination cover 20 million children? Just pointing that out there.' I know that in some countries, parents may not be able to afford vaccines for their children. Nonetheless, if everyone had vaccines, they wouldn't contract the disease." I asked: "...how would one vaccination cover 20 million children?" - my opponent replied "i know that in some countries, parents may not be able to afford vaccines for their children - completely irrelevant to the question. "Why would that just suddenly happen in that time period?" - maybe it was a coincidence...? - contradiction: "why would that suddenly happen in that time period?...even when they dissapear for a while" - you denied the existence of the improvement in hygiene, etc, yet acknowledged it a couple of sentences later. "saved those 5,000 to 10,000 lives lost" You cannot save lives that are already lost. "Pertussis came about in 1906, and hurt people until the vaccine came around. An average of 7,500 people are dying a year. This lasts for approximately 24 years. This is plain ridiculous. It comes out to 180,000 people dying! Tell me that's not big!" Frankly, if that number is big, then vaccines don't work. If you consider the number that vaccines fail to save "big," you are saying that vaccines do not save this "big" amount of people. "According to a 2003 report by researchers at the Pediatric Academic Society, childhood vaccinations in the US prevent about 10.5 million cases of infectious illness and 33,000 deaths per year." This amount of deaths is because we are too reliant on vaccinations! A recent study in 2006 conducted by Dr. James Marswell, quotes: "...[vaccinations]can cause many deaths, not because it isn't used for some people, but because it is used by the majority. I recently conducted a study and gave two people the influenza vaccine. I gave another [pair]of people no vaccine. Two weeks later, I infected them with chicken pox bacteria...The latter proved to fight against bacterial germination better..." "There's absolutely no need to yell" There is no way to italicize nor bolden, so I must (sadly) sustain to capital letters. According to the Constitution, (to refute your later statements,) people have the right to: a. express or perform their religion b. parents are allowed to treat their minors as they please, not to the extent of child abuse How is one person not being vaccinated a risk to others? If they are vaccinated, they should not be in danger! you don't show the "moral sense." Thank you for your wonderful conduct. To plagiarize (I spelled it wrong before) means "to take without referencing from someone else's writing or speech." However, listing statistics is not plagiarizing. You even plagiarized yourself from the same source! Also, I listed tons of sources, just not in the same way that you did. Do I have to bother to do it? Also, your entire speech is without sources! "Things that we don't know about are things outside of this universe and in the deepest corners of the Earth. " Can you scientifically explain how we got our consciousness? How minerals, unliving elements, can create a living being? Life is right in front of our eyes! There are many things that we do not yet know. "People should not have the right to put themselves and others at risk." As I stated a myriad of times, if the others are vaccinated, they should be safe! "'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.' If you read my entire argument, you would find that vaccines are beneficial, but children aren't 100% safe. They will just have better defense against it and won't be effected as much." They will not have better defense against it and will be affected as much, if not greater, according to the study I quoted above. "It was not plagiarized. I cited my source. Anyways, this refutation is ridiculous. What happens when people try to get a "natural immune system"? They get the disease and THEY DIE. There is no way to develop a natural immune system on your own, or even with help, with the knowledge we currently possess. Vaccinations are beneficial and they prevent diseases from seriously harming your body." Hm...then how come our own history teacher last year stated "I don't believe in Western Medicines. I believe in Chinese Herbs, to build up our own natural defenses?" Putting personal experiences aside, I have a source to back this up: "to work boosting your immune system at the same time." -http://probiotics.mercola.com... "Immune boosters..." -http://www.askdrsears.com... All these sources talk about making your immune system stronger. Can you deny that there are ways do it? Plus, consider the source above that I stated, the experiment in 2006 "Vaccines should be mandatory because they are helpful" If they are helpful, they are a good way to help prevent sicknesses! That doesn't mean that it should be mandatory. If you read above, you would've seen me say that some people are allergic to chemicals that can cause bad effects on a person. Therefore, those people should be allowed to not vaccinate! THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ALLERGIC SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A CHOICE TO NOT VACCINATE, WHICH THEREFORE WINS THIS DEBATE! I did indeed tell you to start first, but you cannot take that to your advantage and say that I didn't touch some of your arguments. Taking it from there, please forfeit the last round, making us both go three times, stabilizing this debate. IF YOU DO NOT READ THIS, STRIKE, THE READERS WILL NONETHELESS NOT GRADE YOU FOR YOUR FINAL SPEECH. Your meager two sources are not linked up with any of your refutations or statements I must add, your three last points are not allowed to be brought up in the final round. REaders, I have refuted his points and he has brought up illegal points on the refutation round. [1]Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children.31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan. [2]Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to free exercise of their religion. [3]Vaccines are often unnecessary in may cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically BEFORE IMMUNIZATION BECAME AVAILABLE. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification,effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition. For these reasons, I have clearly won this debate.

Mandatory Childhood Vaccines There are laws about what vaccines are required for a VISA both to certain countries and from them. Unless the African family hid in a suitcase while going to a country without the disease, taking a vaccine would be mandatory and the proof of vaccination (usually a yellow sheet of medically verified paper) would be required to get the visa. If they ALREADY had the disease they would have failed the blood tests required to get the VISA and/or vaccination in the first place. You seem to not understand that although some vaccinations should be mandatory to make all vaccinations mandatory for children would be most ridiculous and be wasting precious biological resources which could save adults and/or be used to better understand the virus as opposed to worrying about wasting it on vaccinating children in a nation where that microorganism isn't even present.

Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. Not a full case yet.. Just some little points I put together... Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children. 31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan. Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to the free exercise of their religion. Vaccines are often unnecessary in many cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for the childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically before immunization became available. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification, effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition. Vaccines interfere with natural law and God's plan for humanity. Disease is a natural occurrence, and humans should not interfere with its trajectory. Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening. Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barrï¿½ Syndrome (GBS), and other disorders. Vaccines can cause brain inflammation (encephalopathy) which can lead to death or permanent brain damage and disorders such as autism, ADD/ADHD, and other developmental problems. In addition, the vaccine additive thimerosal (found in most pre-1999 vaccines) has been associated specifically with the development of autism and is still found in certain meningococcal, tetanus, and flu vaccines such as the H1N1 vaccine. Vaccines clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients contained within vaccines) which may lead to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma. All vaccines cause immune system suppression, and can permanently damage the natural immune system. Unvaccinated children build and strengthen their immune systems through fighting off infection and developing natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox. Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections. Children should not be required to receive the DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) vaccine. Some studies have shown that children who receive the DPT vaccine exhibit shallow breathing which has been associated with sleep apnea and may be a causal factor in sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Studies of infants whose deaths were recorded as SIDS show a temporal relationship with DPT vaccination (these infants tended to die at similar time intervals in relation to when they were vaccinated). Children should not receive the hepatitis B vaccine. Hepatitis B is a blood-born disease and is primarily spread by sexual intercourse and intravenous drug use. Children are not at great risk of contracting the disease. In addition, researchers have found that immunization with the hepatitis B vaccine is associated with an increased risk of developing multiple sclerosis. Young girls should not receive mandatory vaccination for HPV (human papilloma virus). The vaccine was approved in 2006 and the long-term effects are unknown. Since approval, adverse side effects such as severe allergic reactions, Guillain-Barrï¿½ syndrome, spinal cord inflammation and pancreatitis have been reported to the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. Although these adverse reactions may be rare, they are not worth the risk since the vaccine only protects against two of the 15 strains of HPV that may cause cancer of the cervix (20-40 years after an individual is infected). Vaccines are promoted primarily to generate profits for manufacturers and financial donations for medical organizations that endorse vaccines. In 2003, a House Committee on Government Reform report revealed that the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices had members with significant financial ties to vaccine companies. The American Academy of Pediatrics, a leading pro-vaccination organization, receives millions of dollars from vaccine companies.

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization Vaccines are good not bad.

Mandatory Childhood Vaccines Not only are vaccines possible to cause fatal (life-taking) results in certain children http://www.uptodate.com... it's also an issue of wasting vaccine biogenetic material for the mere purpose of vaccinating children.For example no typhoid is found in USA, Canada, Australia and most of Europe and Russia (including its Asian half) http://tinyurl.com..., so why waste resources causing this to be a mandatory vaccination if the family aren't taking the child on holiday to africa/asia Additionally hepititis B is very rarely found in USA http://tinyurl.com....It should be up to parents for the issues their child will face, not mandatory for all children.

A child has a human right to be protected from preventable diseases from birth Yes, but that is only if they want to, what if children don't want to be vaccinated, if compulsory immunizations are carried out, there could be major strikes by kids and teens, also, what if the child becomes autistic due to this? As of now, people are allowed to decide whether or not they get vaccinated. If your value is Justice, this is a major question. If this law is carried out, who knows what terrible things could happen? Also, the resolution is not asking about whether or not vaccination is a bad thing, but if the government should have to FORCE the child to be immunized. Parents should be the primary decision-makers of their child's life, as they know whether or not the child will actually be exposed to the virus. Vaccines usually are not free, they cost money, and may actually risk the baby's life by exposing the virus. Thus, parents must make the child's critical decisions. If they are inadequate at doing this, we do have a thing called child custody requirements.

Mandatory vaccinations (for government services) sure, All that stuff about herd immunity is true. However, That still doesn't tell me why it should be mandatory. where's the imperative justification? Sure I can say "you ought to do this or that". But what's the basis for the ought. We certainly can't just go denying kids school for no good reason. The problem here is that once we open this flood gate of mandatory vaccines, Then the government can just tell us what vaccines to get. What if a harmful vaccine comes out? Just because they're all good now doesn't mean they always will be right? So while we can say that people should get vaccines. We can't say they should be mandatory because it violates our civil rights and those are held to a high standard. All you've shown me so far is that vaccines are a good idea. You haven't shown me a good enough reason to deny millions of kids education. That's a tall order to fill.

Children should receive vaccinations. Our society needs to be healthy, we want it to be healthy.But does that mean that we start giving vaccinations to every person would help in being disease free. In olden days there were no vaccines but still the rate of getting ill was very less. there are natural ways for protecting ourselves from the diseases. Moreover the chances of getting ill have increased from the past when there were no vaccinations. Pharmaceutical Companies Can"t Be Trusted. ALL Vaccines are Loaded with Chemicals and other Poisons which make the immune system of a lad weaker and if confronted by a disease takes a longer time to heal. Fully Vaccinated Children are the Unhealthiest, Most Chronically Ill Children I Know.A Number of Vaccines Have Already Had Problems/Been Removed from the Market so you can't trust all vaccines maybe you would take the vaccine now but later you come to know that the vaccine is faulty. You Can Always Get Vaccinated, But You Can Never Undo a Vaccination. Vaccination does not guarantee even immediate immunity, and boosters are necessary for all vaccinations. I think there is no care taken of our body,immune system or our health by ourselves ... we don't want to prevent it by natural methods and take vaccinations which gradually weaken your immune system. There are new diseases which have originated recent days because of our practices. So I conclude on saying that children must not be given so many vaccinations that their body becomes weaker.

vaccinating children must be a law It is true that some people can't be vaccinated due to allergies, BUT all other children should have to be vaccinated as it prevents awful diseases such as influenza and whooping cough which if a baby gets she/he will most likely die.

State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified "Why are Christians, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses opposed to vaccination?" The bible teaches that there are unclean animals and that we are not to put the unclean into our bodies (Deuteronomy 14). – Vaccines are made from blood products and tissue of animals. "How many parents of these said religions oppose childhood vaccinations?" Despite the numbers of those who are opposed to vaccinations on religious grounds, the constitution supports the right to practice religion freely. Mandating vaccinations imposes on the individuals ability to deny these vaccinations without being seen (in the legal world) as a criminal. "How many children actually get these rare yet serious side effects?" More than 12,000 adverse reactions to vaccines are reported each year. If the rate of under-reporting is considered, this number should be closer to 120,000. Vaccine-related deaths occurring each year may be over 1000. The compensation portion of the Vaccine Injury Act awards up to $250,000 if a child dies from a vaccination or millions in dollars to cover lifelong medical bills, pain and suffering in the case of a brain-damaged child. By 1997, more than $802 million had been awarded for hundreds of injuries and deaths (5000 cases, 700 of which were deaths). Thousands of cases are still pending and the estimated future liability for the government exceeds $1.7 billion. "What scientific studies prove your second contention, subpoint B?" Joseph Mercola, "Vaccines and Immune Suppression," www.mercola.com (accessed Jan. 5, 2010). Feel free to also examine http://www.whale.to.... "Are you advocating that instead of vaccinating, children should choose to strengthen their immune systems naturally?" Not necessarily, but I do not think it is right to believe or claim that vaccination is the only way to protect public health and ensure that diseases disappear. The possibility that a child's immune system can overcome diseases still exists and is an alternative to vaccination. Practicing sanitation and cleanliness also helps to minimize the impact of diseases. "Aren't very young children (under 1 year old) especially susceptible to disease, especially without vaccinations?" Young children are susceptible to diseases, but this does not necessarily mean that vaccination is the reasonable alternative. Adults who come into contact with these young children, should be made aware of the impact of cleanliness and sanitation. "Do you believe that if a large percentage of the population favors/opposes something, the government should do as the population says?" It is in the governments and peoples best interest to keep opinion in mind. There is no legal coverage under which the federal government could reasonably mandate vaccination (as it is also, again, constitutionally violation), and this will be known if they were to attempt to ball a law similar to the one proposed. "Is one of the duties of the government to protect its citizens?" Protecting the citizens entitles protecting their constitutional rights as individuals. "Should the government intervene when parents deprive their children of food?" And the answer is yes, but the difference between food and vaccination is that the lack of food means direct physical harm to the child without any room for doubt. Not being vaccinated does not mean that the child is going to, without a doubt, catch a deadly or harmful disease. The difference lies in the effect it has on the child, and your comparison of these two items is unreasonable and shocking. These are two entirely different entities, as they also reflect two different mind-settings of the parent. If the parents denies a child food than they are, in one way or another, trying to inflict harm or deny the child of something that they couldn't live without. This is not the same for vaccination. A child CAN live without being vaccinated, and the child can pursue a happy life. Vaccine, as defined by dictionary.com, is "a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products..." This means that vaccinations themselves introduce small amounts of these diseases into the child's bodies in the hopes that their immune system can build up defenses against it. What is the possibility that these introduced organisms could be detrimental to the child's physical or mental health? What are the long-term effects of the HPV vaccination you said should be mandated, in Contention 1 Subpoint B? What evidence do you have that vaccination is always effective (using Measles, mumps, small pox, polio and Hib as examples)? Why is vaccination a reasonable alternative to the naturally developed immune system? What legal heading could the Federal Government put mandated vaccination under? What Religions are not opposed to vaccination? In terms of percentage, how effective is this vaccine after the first dose? After each subsequent dose? Quantifiably speaking, what are the child's chances of catching Disease X if vaccinated? Unvaccinated? What about catching AND spreading it? Do you have a list of ingredients for these vaccine/s suggested? Has there been any independent, longitudinal research on the safety of these ingredients? Can you please tell me about studies done proving the safety of adjuvants, particularly aluminum? Hepatitis B: Why does any newborn need Hep B, if the mother is negative, and Hep B is mainly transmitted through sexual contact or sharing needles?

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.

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization A parent's decision not to vaccinate a child may place others at risk if the child becomes infected and exposes others to the disease. These the basic elements that comprise negligence claims—harm, duty, breach of duty, and causation—are met in some cases where parents forgo vaccination. The health and wellbeing of the public is, in part, a function of the behavior of individuals. When one individual's behavior places another at a foreseeable and easily preventable risk of illness or injury, tort liability can play a valuable role in discouraging that conduct. This is true in the context of childhood immunization. Since the recipients of vaccinations are most often children, the persons being harmed--or at least risking harm--aren't legally able to accept or refuse inoculation on their own. Vaccinations have undoubtedly saved millions of lives since their inception. The risks are minimal; the benefits massive. Besides, without compulsion--without the greatest possible protection of the population--those benefits aren't seen.

A child has a human right to be protected from preventable diseases from birth As article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states, “State parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to health services.” Each year millions of children worldwide die of preventable diseases before the age of five. The argument presented here is that the state needs to protect the child and immunize him or her from preventable diseases as obviously the child does not have the capabilities at this stage to make informed decisions of their own. The United Nations Right to Liberty and Security of the Person treaty, article 6.2 supports this view - State Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child. It is up to the State to decide if a child is to be immunized, as overall it will be the State who would benefit from having the vast majority of its citizens vaccinated, and it will be the State who will have to pay for any treatment needed to treat a preventable disease. Whilst a child’s parents have to a certain degree the right to decide what is best for their child’s future, poor decision making in this area could result in serious medical issues for the nation. In this extremely important area, the State must have authority over the rights of the parent. (Vaccines don't cause autism)

Why parents should immunized or Vaccinated they're kids You want to do what is best for your children. You know about the importance of car seats, baby gates and other ways to keep them safe. But, did you know that one of the best ways to protect your children is to make sure they have all of their vaccinations? Immunizations can save your child"s life. Because of advances in medical science, your child can be protected against more diseases than ever before. Some diseases that once injured or killed thousands of children, have been eliminated completely and others are close to extinction" primarily due to safe and effective vaccines. Polio is one example of the great impact that vaccines had have in the United States. Polio was once America"s most-feared disease, causing death and paralysis across the country, but today, thanks to vaccination, there are no reports of polio in the United States. Vaccination is very safe and effective. Vaccines are only given to children after a long and careful review by scientists, doctors, and healthcare professionals. Vaccines will involve some discomfort and may cause pain, redness, or tenderness at the site of injection but this is minimal compared to the pain, discomfort, and trauma of the diseases these vaccines prevent. Serious side effects following vaccination, such as severe allergic reaction, are very rare. The disease-prevention benefits of getting vaccines are much greater than the possible side effects for almost all children. Immunization protects others you care about. Children in the U.S. still get vaccine-preventable diseases. In fact, we have seen resurgences of measles and whooping cough (pertussis) over the past few years. Since 2010, there have been between 10,000 and 50,000 cases of whooping cough each year in the United States and about 10 to 20 babies, many of which were too young to be fully vaccinated, died each year. While some babies are too young to be protected by vaccination, others may not be able to receive certain vaccinations due to severe allergies, weakened immune systems from conditions like leukemia, or other reasons. To help keep them safe, it is important that you and your children who are able to get vaccinated are fully immunized. This not only protects your family, but also helps prevent the spread of these diseases to your friends and loved ones. Immunizations can save your family time and money. A child with a vaccine-preventable disease can be denied attendance at schools or child care facilities. Some vaccine-preventable diseases can result in prolonged disabilities and can take a financial toll because of lost time at work, medical bills or long-term disability care. In contrast, getting vaccinated against these diseases is a good investment and usually covered by insurance. The Vaccines for Children program is a federally funded program that provides vaccines at no cost to children from low-income families. To find out more about the VFC program,. Immunization protects future generations. Vaccines have reduced and, in some cases, eliminated many diseases that killed or severely disabled people just a few generations ago. For example, smallpox vaccination eradicated that disease worldwide. Your children don"t have to get smallpox shots any more because the disease no longer exists. By vaccinating children against rubella (German measles), the risk that pregnant women will pass this virus on to their fetus or newborn has been dramatically decreased, and birth defects associated with that virus no longer are seen in the United States. If we continue vaccinating now, and vaccinating completely, parents in the future may be able to trust that some diseases of today will no longer be around to harm their children in the future.

You choose the topic I just realized that I wrote 'the only rule is to be a dick' rather than 'to not be a dick'. Lol. Vaccines for kids - The argument is really pretty simple: there is absolutely no reason for kids to die of preventable illnesses. Vaccines work by imitating infection and training the body to fight those infections[1]. Weak, dead, inactive and/or incomplete viruses are put into the body and the body's immune system is able to use these viruses to produce antibodies against them. It's no different than using a training simulation to teach someone how to do something in real life. [1] . http://www.cdc.gov... Vaccines are also important for protecting those who can't be vaccinated due to health reasons or age. Some vaccines require children to be a certain age before they can take them, so by making sure that other children are vaccinated on schedule we keep otherwise deadly viruses from spreading through a phenomena called 'herd immunity'[2]. When everyone who can be vaccinated is vaccinated, we create a sort of buffer which keeps the disease from spreading further. It would be like if you surrounded a fire pit with stones - sure there are things outside of the pit that could still catch on fire, but those stone create a buffer that makes the spread unlikely. [2]. http://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk... There is rarely any reason not to vaccinate a child. Sometimes a child's specific medical history may warrant avoiding or putting of vaccination entirely if they have an autoimmune disease or some other medical problem, but these specific instances are ones that a child's pediatrician will diagnose. On balance, there is a net benefit to vaccinating children.

State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. First some frameworkStart with Definitions Since the topic doesn’t specify the US specifically, we assume that State should refer to any government in the worldJustified....standardNet benefits/harmsSince vaccines can harm the world, we would like to provide this standardWith that said, we have a few main arguments. 1. Terrible side affects. Vaccines cause TERRIBLE side affects. This includes (CDC) Pneumonia Tiredness Fussiness Non-Stop Crying Vomiting Seizure Fainting And much moreAccording to TIME magazine, some 12/47 countries that used the H1N1 Flu vaccine reported spikes in narcolepsy cases. WHO’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety said that it agreed with Finnish authorities that there was a “strong association” between the vaccination, the genetic makeup of the patients, and the narcolepsy cases. As you can see, vaccines cause a huge number of cases of illness and side effects - TIMEAsk the parents of autistic children whether they believe childhood vaccines can cause autism, and the answer will probably be yes. They have heard of too many cases of babies who were perfectly normal until they got their measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) shot and then, within weeks--if not days--started throwing tantrums, losing language skills and generally tuning out.2. The vaccine industry is badThe vaccine industry over vaccinates us. This is the only way they make money sicne they charge for vaccines. We are vaccinated on things we don’t need to be vaccinated on. The Guardian reports: Professor Maria Zambon, a virologist and head of the Health Protection Agency's Influenza Laboratory said"Within the last century we have had four major flu epidemics, along with HIV and Sars. Major pandemics sweep the world every century, and it is inevitable that at least one will occur in the future.” The Telegraph reports: We now give our children 25 different vaccines, in various combinations, before the age of 15 months. We are in danger of becoming dependent on immunisation, rather than on our immune systems, for our future health. This may appeal to vaccine manufacturers, which operate in an increasingly profitable market, but should concern the rest of us. As you can see, the vaccine industry is thus making billions of dollars. If they gave everyone a cure to all the sicknesses in the world, the vaccine industry won’t continually make money. They are sucking government funds dry while making the world dependent on immunisation. 3. Economic HarmVaccines can cause harms to the economy. One example is that it ruins some doctors. The American Academy of Pediatrics came up with estimates for indirect expenses, concluding they range from about 17 percent to 28 percent of the purchase price of vaccines. So at least 17 percent should tacked onto the purchase price for doctors to have a shot at breaking even, the group concluded. By that measure, 47 percent of immunizations are money-losers, the athenahealth data show. If the 28 percent figure for indirect costs is used to calculate break even, then it's an even grimmer picture: 79 percent of vaccination payments fall short. 4. (if time) International CommunitySince state represents any government in the world, this contention will talk about the international community. In the international community, we know that places like UK are just like the US, vaccination wiseHowever, think about the poor countries, which consists of most of the world. Many of the countries there don’t have clean and steralized vaccine needles. Taking these vaccines would mean death! Why should this be state mandated!The people giving them are untrained! In some cases, like in the Middle East, the government hate the people, and try to poison and kill them with vaccines! The vaccines are like a weapon!

State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified 1. Why are Christians, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses opposed to vaccination? (by the way, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian.) Are there other types of Christians that oppose vaccines? (Christian in a broad term) How many parents of these said religions oppose childhood vaccinations? 2. How many children actually get these rare yet serious side effects? 3. Do people continue to get vaccinations made before 1999? 4. What scientific studies prove your second contention, subpoint B? 5. Are you advocating that instead of vaccinating, children should choose to strengthen their immune systems naturally? 6. Aren't very young children (under 1 year old) especially susceptible to disease, especially without vaccinations? 7. Do you believe that if a large percentage of the population favors/opposes something, the government should do as the population says? 8. Is one of the duties of the government to protect its citizens? 9. You state "Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children". So, it is completely alright if a parent has a child with a life-threatening (but curable with proper medical care) condition but refuses medical care for that child, correct? Should the government intervene when parents deprive their children of food?

Children should receive vaccinations. This debate is on children having mandatory vaccination with the exception of children who cannot receive it for reasons such as (but not excluding) allergies or religious reasons. Definitions: Child: A young human below the age of 18. Vaccinate: treat with a vaccine to produce immunity against a disease; inoculate. [1] Rules: 1. No trolling. 2. No outsourcing to other texts or images, except for sources. 3. Above are the terms and definitions that will be used throughout the entire debate. 4. Forfeiting one or two rounds is acceptable but will result in loss of conduct points. Forfeiting 3 or more rounds will result in a forfeit of the entire debate. 5. My opponent will provide his or her arguments in the end of round 1. For round 4, no new arguments or "ideas" are to be provided. The same goes for me in round 5.

Children should receive vaccinations. Voters, please don't vote solely for forfeiture. This debate is on whether or not children should receive vaccinations, and I am saying yes.

It eliminates diseases and prevents them from returning Above all else this is a question of basic human rights. I have the right to decide whether to medicate myself or my children, and the government does not have the right to force medicate a population, especially when known dangers are present. This is not about disease eradication, it is about "Big Pharma" and the billions given to them to come up with an endless and ever increasing supply of inoculations. That being said, the yes points are highly inaccurate. Immunization does not eliminate disease. The truth is that vaccines are a deadly cocktail of foreign proteins, and there has been a dramatic increase in auto-immune diseases since mass inoculations were introduced. Some 40-50 years ago children were not vaccinated until they were ready for the first grade at age six. Neurological disorders were very uncommon then. Today, children are vaccinated at birth for HiB and begin their long vaccination-journey at 2 months of age, before the blood brain barrier is fully developed. Before the 1940s, autism was extremely rare or unheard of. Then in the mid-1940s we began a massive vaccination programs and autism was "born". At first, it only occurred in the children of wealthy parents, since vaccinations were not free or government sponsored like today. Later autism became a disease of all classes (with government-sponsored vaccine programs). Currently, the rate of autism is staggering, with some estimates as high as one in fifty-six children. Compare this with Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, a well respected American pediatrician, who has 40,000 non-vaccinated patients since the 1970's, with almost no incidents of autism. Diseases such as Polio had been on a steady decline prior to the introduction of the vaccine. According to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, childhood diseases decreased 90% between 1850 and 1940, paralleling improved sanitation and hygienic practices, well before mandatory vaccination programs. Infectious disease deaths in the U.S. and England declined steadily by an average of about 80% during this century (measles mortality declined over 97%) prior to vaccinations. In Great Britain, the polio epidemics peaked in 1950, and had declined 82% by the time the vaccine was introduced there in 1956 and the rate of decline remained virtually the same after vaccines were introduced. Furthermore, European countries that refused immunization for small pox and polio saw the epidemics end along with those countries that mandated it. The final point is correct. People have not experienced the dangers of disease, but we have experienced the dangers of the poisons in the vaccines. The CDC knew about the mercury in the vaccines and the dangers but decided to cover it up. Dr. Mendelsohn states the following, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease. While it is true that some once common childhood diseases have diminished or disappeared since inoculations were introduced, no one really knows why, although improved living conditions may be the reason. If immunizations were responsible for the diminishing or disappearance of these diseases in the United States, one must ask why they disappeared simultaneously in Europe, where mass immunizations did not take place." Historically, homeopathy has been more effective than "mainstream" allopathic medicine in treating and preventing disease. In a U.S. cholera outbreak in 1849, allopathic medicine saw a 48-60% death rate, while homeopathic hospitals had a documented death rate of only 3%. According to the NVIC, there are over 250 new vaccines being developed for everything from earaches to birth control to diarrhea, with about 100 of these already in clinical trials. Researchers are working on vaccine delivery through nasal sprays, mosquitoes (yes, mosquitoes), and the fruits of "transgenic" plants in which vaccine viruses are grown. If you start mandating forced immunization you are traveling down a slippery slope. Even if you are a supporter of immunizations I would hope that you would also be a supporter of the Constitution and respect the rights of the citizens to decide for themselves what goes in their bodies. Governments have always used fear to suspend the rights of the people. Your government does not have the right to force medicate, especially when they have taken away your right to sue if your child has been vaccine injured. They don't want to tell you that you have the right to opt out of immunizing your child via a waiver. Educate before you vaccinate! There is a reason that many medical personnel refuse to vaccinate themselves and their families. Ignorance is not bliss, it is dangerous! Not necessarily in some diseases like smallpox or flu the shots dont work all the time. People as americans have a right to choose if the want the vaccination or not. You take away that choice you take away what makes America america. Your wasting money on stuff that not everybody wants. The worlds econimic stabilty is going down. Soon were all gonna be third world countries. If you waste money on something that not everybody agrees on. The people that want it get it but dont force anyone to take it. What if it doesnt work? What happens if the side effects are worse then what you were trying to get away from? If you got the Chicken Pox immuization when you were little, what happen if you dont get it through childhood but adulthood? Childhood you would be a little sick and itchy but most likely not be able to remember it. Now if you were an adult you get very ill, and if your pregant it could kill your child. Just remember with all this techonolgy advancement sometimes things are better basic. Vaccines are dangerous because they can cause negative side effects. According to the ProCon article, about 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, meaning associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death. According to the CDC, infants (children less than one year old) are at greatest risk for adverse medical events from vaccination including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome.

Vaccinations (mandatory/disbursement) No one should be allowed to risk the health of others just because of their personal, moral, philosophical, or religious views. The needs of the many is more important than the needs of the individual.

Parents Should Vaccinate Their Children Thanks to Miguel for accepting. I will now construct my case. I apologize for keeping my arguments rather short; I am running low on time.MY CASEParents have basic societal obligations to their children. By choosing to engage in actions that would lead to pregnancy, parents must accept the consequences of those actions, i.e. custodianship of a child or of children. It is a parent's job to act in the best interests of their child to ensure that he or she is healthy and capable of handling themselves in the broader world. I will contend that vaccinations are an essential part of meeting these parental obligations, inasmuch as they are in the best interests of the child. If that's true, then the resolution is affirmed."Vaccines have historically been the most effective means to fight and eradicate infectious diseases." [1] For example, "In 1958, there were 763,094 cases of measles in the United States; 552 deaths resulted. After the introduction of new vaccines, the number of cases dropped to fewer than 150 per year (median of 56). In early 2008, there were 64 suspected cases of measles. Fifty-four of those infections were associated with importation from another country, although only 13% were actually acquired outside the United States; 63 of the 64 individuals either had never been vaccinated against measles or were uncertain whether they had been vaccinated." [1]"[I]mmunization currently averts more than 2.5 million deaths every year in all age groups from [diseases like] diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), and measles." [2] By failing to immunize individuals in disease-prone areas, 2.1 million innocent people die every year from otherwise preventable ailments. Requiring immunizations will drastically reduce that staggering number. [2] Past experience confirms that vaccinations have reduced the amount of serious illnesses. Tetanus was reduced by 98.5% by using vaccines, Pertussis 92.1%, and the same with Diphtheria at 99.9%, and HIB 98.8%, as well as Polio with 100% eradication. [2] “[I]f countries could raise vaccine coverage to a global average of 90%, by 2015 an additional two million deaths a year could be prevented among children under five years old. This would have a major impact on meeting the global goal to reduce child deaths by two-thirds between 1990 and 2015. It would also greatly reduce the burden of illness and disability from vaccine-preventable diseases, and contribute to improving child health and welfare, as well as reducing hospitalization costs.” [3] “With the exception of safe water, no other modality [treatment], not even antibiotics, has had such a major effect on mortality reduction.” [3]In fact, a lack of immunization has led to outbreaks here in the U.S., which lacks the kind of unsanitary conditions of many developing countries. What this shows is that when you control for things like hygiene or even in environments are clean and otherwise healthy, vaccinations are still key components of warding off disease. "California’s worst episode of whooping cough, or pertussis, in 2010, likely spread among unvaccinated children to infect 9,210 youngsters...[N]ew research published in the journal Pediatrics reports that the high number of children who were intentionally unvaccinated also contributed to the rapid spread of the infection...The researchers of the Pediatrics study compared the number of intentionally unvaccinated children who entered kindergarten from 2005 to 2010 to the onset of the whooping cough outbreak in 2010. They were able to identify 39 regional clusters of kids with non-medical reasons for being unvaccinated, and two clusters that were significantly related to rapid spread of whooping cough. Children who are intentionally not vaccinated and become infected with diseases like measles or pertussis, can pass the illness on to those who can’t be immunized, such as babies under six months and those with compromised immune systems, such as cancer patients." [4]Another example of this kind of contagion caused through failure to vaccinate can be found in Texas. "In August, the Texas megachurch Eagle Mountain International Church made headlines after 21 members of its congregation contracted measles...The church...advocated abstaining from vaccinations over fears that they can cause autism. The outbreak was traced back to a church member who had traveled abroad on a mission trip and then spread measles among the unvaccinated congregation." [5]Therefore, it is clear the vaccinating children is in their best interest, to not only prevent a society where disease resistance is low, but to immunize the child against disease-carriers even in a largely vaccinated society such as the U.S. It is a simple, common sense precaution that parents are clearly obliged to undertake.SOURCES1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - http://www.who.int...3 - http://www.vaccine-safety-training.org...4 - http://healthland.time.com...5 - http://www.healthline.com...

Not getting children vaccinated I am in awe and opposed to people not getting their children vaccinated. Not getting children vaccinated is why we are suddenly having outbreaks of diseases we haven't seen in years. Since vaccines have been found, we are living longer than we ever lived in the past. There is a reason for them. To not get your children vaccinated is irresponsible. I think it should be mandated that everyone get their children vaccinated. The only vaccination that I believe should still be up to a parent is the new HPV vaccine because it is new, cost money and is not neccessary until your child starts to have sex.

Compulsory Immunization will create a herd immunity to protect those who cannot be vaccinated. Owing to vaccination campaigns, smallpox is no longer a disease that threatens man and polio, diphtheria and measles are rare in developed countries. However these diseases with the exception of smallpox still exist in other parts of the world. The aim of most developed countries including the USA is to create a “herd immunity” where those who are not vaccinated against these diseases are still protected, due to protection by “the herd.” This is the idea that if you immunize as many people as possible, then they will protect the not vaccinated. When the vaccination levels drop, so does the protection. In the UK, the debate over the MMR jab resulted in just 65% of London school children receiving the jab. The required level for a herd immunity to be successful in preventing a major measles outbreak was 95%. The consequence was that London experienced a massive rise in measles cases. It is therefore important that the numbers of those left unvaccinated remain low, as to lower the threat of a disease spreading through contact. This also shows that by vaccinating the required percentage of those who can have the jab allow means those who cannot for various reasons receive the jab will more or less be protected from such diseases. For instance, most jabs cannot be given to a child until they are between two and twelve months old. Prior to this age, these children are entirely reliant upon the herd for protection.

There should not be Mandatory Vaccinations Vaccinations are a scam, cause Autism, and all sorts of other negative consequences. It is mean to do this to a child who has no say in the matter and he/she could die from it. It's a eugenics program, aimed at killing people slowly.

Vaccination Should Be Compulsory Compulsory vaccination leads to a better health situation in a state. The child mortality rate is l...

On balance, children should be vaccinated. you shouldn't vaccinate children since it gives autism and it contains the virus if you get the choice of contracting non-deadly diseases that you are likely not to contract vs getting autism what would you rather have.

Vaccinations (mandatory/ disbursemenet) Vaccination should be mandatory because a vaccination does nothing to harm ones religion or other beliefs. If the human body is so precious then shouldn't we be doing anything to protect it? Advances in medical science can now protect our society, families, and friends from disease that could have wiped away our race. These vaccination have completely eliminated disease like polio and whooping cough. Vaccinations have no serious side effects, they only side effects are redness or soreness. When people say that vaccinations can cause autism or other deadly side effects are just myths.

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization Refusal to vaccinate infringes upon the rights of the rest of the population

should kids be vaccinated I believe vaccines are a useful tool at preventing illness and saving lives. The smallpox vaccine was able to eradicate smallpox from the earth, which has saved countless lives. The rabies vaccine is the only way you can survive rabies, otherwise it would be 100% lethal. And there is work on an ebola vaccine which would stop ebola outbreaks in the future. Yet despite my support of vaccines, I do not think they should be mandatory. Making vaccines mandatory is a bad idea for two reasons. Reason one, some people have dangerous or even fatal reactions to vaccines. Reason two, the government should not force substances into people's bodies. I will expand on these point in the next round.

Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines. I think that if kids are required to get vaccines that there shouldn't be religious exemptions. The parents risk getting their kids seriously sick for there personal beliefs.

Children should receive vaccinations. First off, let me make a quick clarification. The rate of getting ill was NOT less before vaccines, in the "olden days." My opponent seems to have forgotten my point about smallpox, polio, tuberculosis, diphtheria, tetanus, measles, mumps, and so on. In fact, according to the Washington Post, the measles vaccine alone saves about 1 million lives every year. Second, vaccines don't make the immune system weaker. The way most vaccines work is allowing the immune system to create an antigen to the disease in question. According to the Center for Disease Control, the adverse effects of vaccines are nearly nonexistent, and children are strongly recommended for vaccines. Perhaps some vaccines HAVE been removed from the market. My response to this is: so what? Anything could be recalled. Your drinking water MIGHT be turned off because it's contaminated and filtered. Does this mean you'll never drink water? The situation is the same with vaccines. If you want to stay healthy, you have to take the slight risk that the vaccine is not entirely perfect. His supposition that vaccines give only adverse affects (provided in his conclusion paragraph) is unsupported and entirely refuted by my point that the measles vaccine alone saves a million lives a year. In conclusion, I have not yet seen a single legitimate point against vaccines. Thus, I affirm.

Mandatory Vaccinations Vaccines should be mandatory.

State-mandated administration of childhood vaccines is justified. Introduction: I am impressed by Pro's reply. I have more time to work on my argument now, so hopefully this argument will be better than the last. Analysis of the Resolution: Pro didn't say that this was a public forum debate. I'm only pointing out that the debate shouldn't hinge on things that the resolution is vague about. Rebuttals: CA1: Solvency Vaccination improves quality of life. It doesn't follow that it should be mandatory. Yacht ownership improves quality of life, but mandating it would be a harmful misallocation of resources. Pro's case is founded on unwarranted fears. In the United States today, there are only two states in which vaccine exemption is not allowed for any reason other than medical necessity: West Virginia and Mississippi [1]. I also stated that even among parents who believe vaccines are risky, 86% still fully vaccinate their children [2]. The percentage of people who believe that vaccines are dangerous appears to be small [3], and the majority of people, who believe vaccines are safe, use them at an even higher rate (98%) [2]. There is no immediate danger of falling below Pro's 90-95% herd immunity threshold. The crux of this argument is the following: if herd immunity is achieved without mandates then Pro cannot claim it as an advantage. I will further repeat my argument that government involvement in vaccination is the cause of irrational fears of vaccines in the first place. See: crazy Alex Jones type conspiracy theorists. Providing vaccines through sources that people trust instead of through a legitimately frightening bureaucratic mechanism of total state power would alleviate much of these worries. By trying to force their beliefs on everyone else, the scientific community is creating resistance to an idea that people could otherwise be reasonably persuaded to accept. Turn Pro's graph: we don't have vaccine mandates today, but numerous diseases have been eradicated or significantly reduced. CA2: Community This whole argument is predicated on the assumption that herd immunity will be lost without mandatory vaccination. We have herd immunity and no mandatory vaccination, so that can't be true. In spite of what Pro (and seemingly every other person who I've debated this with) thinks, I fully understand the concept of herd immunity. My argument is that herd immunity is achieved through voluntary vaccination. Pro claims that the number of parents choosing to exempt their children is rising so rapidly that herd immunity will be lost in the future. She has no evidence for that prediction. At the current moment, herd immunity is secure, and the backlash from the scientific community against the anti-vaccination movement has been significant. It is just as likely that vaccine resistance will once again decline. I want to reply to a specific comment from Pro: “My opponent also claims that at different times, different vaccinations are needed. This is outrageous - a constant vaccination of children is vital to ensure the safety of the people from the disease returning.” I don't see how my claim is disputable. In areas where disease X is more common, more vaccination against it is necessary than in areas where it is less common. When swine flu broke out, it was necessary to vaccinate against it. Now it is mostly gone, and there is no more need to vaccinate against it. Pro's argument seems to lead to the conclusion that we need to be fully vaccinated against every disease, all the time. But it should be obvious to everyone why vaccinating everyone against hundreds of strains of the common cold all the time would be an uneconomic waste of resources that could help people in other ways. Once this fact is conceded, we can see how it extends to every disease: total immunization isn't necessary. Voluntary choice has so far proven more than sufficient to meet the minimum threshold. CA3: Money I have found Pro's reply here difficult to understand. On the issue of people who cannot afford vaccines: I argued that it is non-topical. They can be provided with money to purchase vaccines without being required to do so. My calculations were simple arithmetic. Pro said that vaccines will save $231 billion over the next ten years. Assume this could be increased 10% through a mandate (very generous because more than 90% of children are fully vaccinated). That's $23.1 billion, which we divide by ten to get the annual savings: $2.31 billion. Now divide by the number of people in the US (about 350 million) to get the savings per person: it comes out to $6.60, which I rounded to $5. It is reasonable to assume that it would cost more money than this to implement a vaccine mandate. It will require an increase in administrative and law enforcement costs, which are already notoriously high. In 2011, there were 75 million children in the US[4]. That means that Pro has only about $30 to spend per child, which is considerably less than the cost of a single vaccine. In order to have the possibility of saving money, Pro's program would have to vaccinate more children than there are unvaccinated children. You will not save money by mandating vaccines for the same reason you will not save money by mandating teeth brushing: the savings of the mandate are so small compared to ordinary behavior that they will be outweighed by the cost of enforcing it. CA4: Authority I am going consider this argument conceded by Pro and not address it again. Affirmative Arguments: C1: Economic Calculation I am calling this argument dropped. Pro's reply was a complete non sequitur. The economic calculation argument says that you can never know whether an intervention in the free market is beneficial or not because the interactions between market variables are too complex. Any attempt at economic policy is just groping in the dark. Pro's reply had nothing to do with this. Just putting the same heading in and writing unrelated words isn't a response. It's not up to me to waste space repeating myself. Pro's own rule says that a drop is a concession. She must admit that she has no idea whether a vaccine mandate is really a better use of those resources than what the market would otherwise do. Replying with a non sequitur is a borderline abusive argument because I have to waste limited space explaining it. C2: Biopolitics This is a consequentialist argument based on Pro's criterion of justice: it says that by eroding certain barriers to political power, we risk grave expansions in government power. The difference between a free society and a totalitarian society is the existence on legal barriers to the state's use of force against the citizen's person. When we remove this restrictions, we create an environment that is legally and philosophical partial to totalitarianism. Pro's contention on authority does not address this. All it says is that it would be legal for the state to do this. I am talking about the consequences of actually doing it. Pro's argument just begs the question anyway: if I don't think the state has the authority to make these decisions, the fact that the state says it does isn't going to persuade me. The fact that the resolution applies to children does it help. It means that the state replaces the parent as the arbiter of the child's biological life. This is just as disastrous. If the state is responsible for stopping “bad parenting” as Pro says, then children are really wards of the state who their parents are allowed to care for at the state's whim. Conclusion: Pro's argument seems to assume that we have mandatory vaccination now (and this is commonly assumed). Far from it. Non-medical excuses are allowed in 48 states. Anyone who does not want their child vaccinated can cook up a religious or philosophical reason why. Thus, people who are against vaccination do in fact vaccinate their children at lower rates. But in spite of this, public vaccination has been remarkably successful. Sources: Will post all sources for the debate next round. Out of time and space. I can post them early if needed.

vaccinating children must be a law Children must be vaccinated it is a fact! 6 million lives if children are saved each year due to vaccinations.

immunizations for babies In conclusion, 1. Vaccinations help protect babies against deadly and destructive diseases, viruses, bacterium and other infections. In essence, they save millions upon millions of lives. 2. Vaccinations for babies (in particular) are necessary, because they eventually stop receiving antibodies from their mother (which they need for protection). 3. SOME vaccinations may cause MINOR complications, such as a rash or small fever, but in reality these "side effects" are infinitely better for a child than the threats that you are vaccinated for. 4. Most (sane) people feel a sense of moral obligation to vaccinate their children and protect them and their health/safety/well-being so long as they have the ability to do so. It helps that vaccinations are almost always covered by medical insurance or Medicare and Medicaid, etc. 5. On a final note, most if not all schools (and colleges) require their students to have vaccinations in order to attend. Although I can make many more arguments for my position, I don't feel a longer list is necessary; my opponent failed to engage me in any type of real debate thus far. I thank you for this challenge, though, and hope I have helped my opponent to understand just some of the many reasons why vaccinations are essential to a child's life.

vaccinations should be mandatory Vaccines should not mandatory as: 1) They do not guarantee 100% protection from the disease. The efficiency of the vaccines can depend on various factors such age, health, sex etc, the efficiency of vaccines is usually between 60% to 80%. http://www.nvic.org... 2) Vaccines are not very safe, many vaccines contain mercury which is directly entered into our blood stream. That could lead to mercury poisoning. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3) Everyone is different, so a vaccine which might work for one individual may or may not work for the other. In some cases these vaccines can have a severe allergic reaction, which in rare cases lead to death. http://articles.mercola.com... Even after taking the vaccines the person may or may not get exposed to the disease, let us assume that at the very least the vaccines are 50% efficient, and from those people who are vaccinated 50% of them are exposed to the disease at the most, since the vaccine is only 50 % efficient half of those people will benefit. If you do the maths here, we can see that 75% of the people who take the vaccine do not benefit from it, they simply suffer the side effects. So it should be clearly the peoples choice, if they would want to risk taking the vaccine or leave it. Thus vaccines should never be made mandatory.

Vaccination with the MMR vaccine should be mandatory Alright, let"s kick this thing off with the case. The U.S. Federal Government will require that all individuals before attending school receive the vaccination. All individuals who are beyond schooling age and under the age of 65 would have to get the vaccine within 5 years. These will be subsidized on an as-needed basis, ensuring that it is broadly affordable. Failure to vaccinate oneself or one's family results in a fine that scales with income. There would be other exclusions based on allergies, pregnancies, and those individuals who are immunocompromised. Before I transition into some contentions, I"ll start with some general overview of this issue. This debate is fundamentally a comparison between individual choice and public good. I think both agree that vaccines are a public good, at least insofar as having vaccines available to the public is a net benefit to society. It is generally beneficial for people to be able to protect themselves against potentially deadly viruses and bacteria. These are infectious, so there is also a benefit to others around us. If Con wishes to argue that this is not the case, he"s welcome to do so, but for now, I"ll function under the assumption that we agree on the efficacy of vaccines. We know that there is also a fundamental level of value to individual choice, which I"m certain Con will get into in his argument. So, how do we balance freedom vs. health? As a society, we do this quite often. Think about traffic laws. We require people to follow certain rules of the road because not doing so makes them a danger to both themselves and others. And this isn"t the only instance where our government goes against basic beliefs in the general population. Despite widespread acrimony over drug tests, workplaces are still allowed to require them. We are taxed despite the protestations of individuals who don"t like certain taxes. All of this is allowed not because the government is being overbearing, but because we"ve accepted an aspect of shared responsibility for our actions. We accept that individual rights do not always trump that responsibility, particularly when doing so could cause harm to others. So, when is it justified to subvert individual choice to the public good? That requires that two conditions to be met. Whatever is being regulated or mandated must be safe and effective, and the risk of not participating in said behavior must outweigh any risk from the behavior itself. I would argue that vaccines meet these criteria. Vaccines are both safe and effective, and they have a track record of reducing illness and death from the diseases they prevent. Again, if my opponent wishes to challenge this, I will be more than happy to provide evidence to support this argument (some of the coming arguments will support this), though I believe it"s a point on which we agree. All of this puts Con in a difficult position. He"s going to try and argue that vaccines are markedly different from other issues that encounter the liberty vs. public good question, and he"ll have to show that the personal freedoms lost outweigh the widely evidenced good that vaccines provide. To do that, he"ll have to counter life and quality of life lost, which comes with numerical weight, with a vaguer conception of impact, as personal freedom isn"t clearly quantifiable. I look forward to seeing what he comes up with. With that, onto my contentions. 1. Disease Spread We must recognize that vaccination is not a choice that solely affects the individual being vaccinated. The decision to get the MMR vaccine affects everyone around you. Measles, mumps and rubella are all transmitted through droplets that are sprayed into the air, making them airborne pathogens with a high likelihood of transmission to those around the infected.[1, 2, 3] The mere fact that others are put at risk by people who refuse to take these vaccines creates a substantial societal harm in the status quo, as many are allowed to refuse to get the vaccine. We're living this harm today, seeing a resurgence in these entirely preventable diseases in the U.S. and abroad.[4] This resurgence is most marked with measles, a disease that the U.S. had eliminated by the year 2000, but which returned in 17 outbreaks among 222 people just in 2011.[5] Mumps has had 4 reported outbreaks this year alone, and has had several small and two large outbreaks in the last 5 years, encompassing thousands of people.[6] Rubella has also returned from a long absence, appearing in three cases in the U.S. in 2012 after being eliminated back in 2004.[7] This change resulted mainly from a false public perception that vaccines have been linked to autism.[8] In order to understand why vaccinating a large portion of the population is necessary, we have to understand the term "herd immunity." This has been defined differently by different authors, but I will use the term in this fashion: "a particular threshold proportion of immune individuals that should lead to a decline in the incidence of infection."[9] What that means is that if someone becomes sick with a given disease, herd immunity would ensure that that person is so much more likely to run into someone vaccinated against that disease than someone who is vulnerable that they would be extremely unlikely to infect other people. We cannot possibly vaccinate everyone and achieve absolute immunity because of the necessity of the exclusions I listed in my case, but we can seek to achieve herd immunity. What does that threshold look like for these diseases? For measles, this is 95%.[10] For mumps, it's at least 88%, though it "may need to be higher" than this previously established threshold.[11] For rubella, it sits at 90%.[12] Only through mandatory vaccination could we ever hope to reach those numbers. 2. Disease Impact My first contention established a threshold for harm in status quo, but I will now show that that threshold has a tremendous impact on society. In order to understand that, we have to know what the impact of these three diseases is. Measles: "Prior to the vaccine, 3-4 million people were infected in the U.S. each year, resulting in 48,000 hospitalizations, 400-500 deaths and approximately 1,000 who developed chronic disabilities. Even with modern medical care, the disease can lead to serious complications, including blindness, pneumonia, otitis media and severe diarrhea. Despite the availability of a vaccine it remains a leading cause of death among young children worldwide, with deaths mainly attributable to the complications of the disease... More than 90 percent of susceptible people, usually unvaccinated, develop the disease after being exposed. There is no treatment except to make the patient as comfortable as possible by keeping them hydrated and trying to control the fever. Unvaccinated young children and pregnant women are at the highest risk for measles and its complications, including death."[13] Mumps: "Mumps is not normally a fatal disease, and up to 30% of mumps infections are asymptomatic. There can be serious complications, however, including aseptic meningitis, orchitis, oophoritis, mastitis, pancreatitis, and deafness. Meningitis occurs in up to 10% of mumps cases; it is usually subclinical and self-limiting. Symptoms of mumps-related meningitis include fever, headache, vomiting, and neck stiffness, which peak for a period of 48 hours before resolution and might appear up to 1 week before parotid swelling. More serious neurologic symptoms are rare and are due to encephalitis. Hearing loss following mumps infections is rare (1 in 2000 to 30,000 cases) and usually results in mild to moderate hearing loss. Orchitis [swelling of the testicles] occurs 4 to 8 days after the onset of parotitis and is a common complication, affecting 20% of men who develop mumps after puberty. Of those cases, 40% will develop testicular atrophy and 30% will have lasting changes in sperm count, sperm motility, and sperm morphology."[14] Rubella: While the disease usually only results in a light fever and small rash, this disease is mainly problematic for pregnant women. "In 1964-65, America had a major rubella epidemic, with more than 12 million cases and 20,000 babies born with congenital rubella; of these, 13,000 were deaf, 3,500 were blinded by congenital cataracts, and 1,800 more suffered severe cognitive impairment."[7] Since pregnant mothers are among the few who cannot get the vaccine, every single person who decides not to get the vaccine is putting these mothers at risk. Taken together, this means these three viruses present as enduring, broad threats to public health that are made dramatically worse in the absence of herd immunity. As we have clearly not reached a level of herd immunity in the absence of a mandate to vaccinate with the MMR vaccine, my plan solves for this harm. With that, I await Con's argument. 1. http://www.cdc.gov... 2. http://www.cdc.gov... 3. http://www.cdc.gov... 4. http://www.npr.org... 5. http://www.cdc.gov... 6. http://www.cdc.gov... 7. http://www.thedailybeast.com... 8. http://online.wsj.com... 9. http://cid.oxfordjournals.org... 10. http://www.theguardian.com... 11. http://jid.oxfordjournals.org... 12. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 13. http://guardianlv.com... 14. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified My opponent's arguments are entirely based on the fact that "it's against the religious doctrine. She assumes that everything the bible suggests remains relevant today. However, it is not. In regards to her last response: 1. Christiansa. Unclean animals: Christians eat these so-called "unclean" animals (pigs and shellfish) anyways.b. Don't pollute your body: This passage can have various interpretations. Because it refers to your body housing the Holy Spirit, I believe a more correct interpretation would be concerning substances such as tobacco and alcohol, which can both mentally and physically hurt one's faith.c. "We must obey God rather than men"- This passage could justify breaking any law because government is a man-made system. Breaking laws=bad. 2. Mormons a. Aborted fetal tissue: Russell Nelson, a church authority states that abortions are permissible in health/rape/incest circumstances. (1) Furthermore, the "sin" has already been done. Vaccinating does not promote abortions. b. "Live by faith, not medicine". When Joseph Smith was alive, medicine wasn't as efficient. Dallin Oaks, a president of the quorum of the 12 apostles, states, "When a person requested a priesthood blessing, Brigham Young would ask, “Have you used any remedies?” To those who said no because “we wish the Elders to lay hands upon us, and we have faith that we shall be healed,” President Young replied: “That is very inconsistent according to my faith. If we are sick, and ask the Lord to heal us, and to do all for us that is necessary to be done, according to my understanding of the Gospel of salvation, I might as well ask the Lord to cause my wheat and corn to grow, without my plowing the ground and casting in the seed. It appears consistent to me to apply every remedy that comes within the range of my knowledge, and [then] to ask my Father in Heaven … to sanctify that application to the healing of my body." Brigham Young, one of the Church's most prominent members in history, explains the absurdity in expecting faith alone to heal. 3. Catholics Again, the "sin" has already occurred. The Catholic News Service states, "The Vatican urged parents to use caution when deciding not to inoculate their children against infectious diseases when so-called "ethical vaccines" are not yet available." (2)Obviously, Catholics are still allowed to get vaccinations despite the fetal tissue. This evidence is the most superior because the Vatican is the head of the Catholic Church. 4. Jewsa. Bird flu is irrelevant. "Childhood Vaccinations" refers to the vaccines recommended on CDC schedules. (3) And livestock aren't Jews. Vaccinations are made from already existing animal cells, so the fact that livestock is being injected with un-Kosher vaccinations doesn't apply to today's debate. Ultimately, the evidence my opponent provides just shows that Jews may have to be more careful about what they eat. b. There are other alternatives. (4) Contains a list of vaccines containing gelatin, a non-Kosher product. (5) Contains a list of vaccine brand names and alternatives. If one desires to vaccine Kosher, it is completely possible. For the Dtap, they can get Infanrix. Flu=Agriflu. MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella)-Varicella=ProQuad. 5. Muslims“The Gelatin formed as a result of the transformation of the bones, skin and tendons of a judicially impure animal is pure, and it is judicially permissible to eat it.” --1995 decision by the Islamic Organization for Medical Sciences in English and Arabic (8) 6. HPVIt is true that the HPV vaccine doesn't work against all strains of HPV. However, without a mandated vaccine, a large number of people would be getting HPV, although most cases would be PREVENTABLE. Although we can't completely eliminate it, we should try to minimize it to the best of our abilities. 7. Hep B and newborns"In many cases, the hepatitis B virus passes from mother to baby during birth when the mother does not know she is infected. In other cases, the virus is spread to the baby during close contact with an infected family member, caregiver, or friend. Most people who are infected with hepatitis B do not feel sick and have no idea they carry this virus." (6)-While it might not be the children themselves sharing needles, it is entirely possible that a person would use a dirty needle in their life. The key word is prevention. A kid could be running barefoot and step on a needle. A teen could be doing heroin. Even though these may not be the best choices, it is important to make sure that as few people as possible are infected with Hep B. 8. "When will these vaccinations be administered, and who will be checking to make sure that every individual will be receiving every vaccination? In the case of the HPV vaccination, how will the ages at which these vaccinations are administered differentiate?"As this is a PF debate, I am not required to provide a plan. (7) However, the HPV vaccine, as well as all the other vaccines, will be administered according to the CDC's current schedule. (3) 9. "Are all children going to get sick if they're not vaccinated?"No. But according to herd immunity, if 25% or more children don't vaccinate, disease will be able to thrive in their community. When disease thrives, it will infect many people in the community. 10. Constitutional RightsAs I have stated, no right is absolute. If this debate were to focus mainly upon rights, it should be that an individual should not be able to put the life of someone else in danger. By not vaccinating, parents would be putting the lives of their children in danger. They would also be putting the lives of those with weak immune systems in danger, which is by all means, NOT JUSTIFIED. 11. Vaccination is the most effective way to prevent disease. Our immune systems are not capable of conquering everything. As shown through my previous Japan example and throughout history, epidemics happen when people don't vaccinate. 1. http://www.lds.org...2. http://www.catholicnews.com...3. http://www.cdc.gov...4. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...5. http://vaccines.procon.org...6. http://www.immunize.org...7. http://debate.uvm.edu...8. http://www.immunize.org...__All points refuted with more recent and more superior evidence. Opponent's previous evidence is still in question. If it can't be defended, the claims in the second round should flow pro.My case still stands.It is only justified to mandate childhood vaccinations. ___Questions1. Is it preferable to vaccinate or to let the natural immune system try to fight off disease?2. Is it typical Christian behavior to take the Bible literally? 3. Should everyone who wishes to get vaccinated be able to do so?4. Is it right to put another person in danger?

should kids be vaccinated should kids at school have to be vaccinated. Yes! if the kids are not safe it could cause them to no be going to school because they are sick. do you want your child to have a good education. vaccination should be mandatory

Vaccinations (mandatory/disbursement) It is also in the constitution that we have a right to bear arms, but there are laws placed on who and at what age a person is allowed to carry one. Making vaccinations mandatory for those children in school would just be like placing a law on gun carry. Heath.harvard.edu stated that an individual that is vaccinated is less contagious to others, if they were to get sick. So by definition if the majority was to get vaccinated then there would be no worry about getting infected. This is also called community immunity. By not having a child get vaccinated they are now risking the heath of not only those near them, but also the rest of the community.

Vaccines should not be mandatory. I would like to preface my argument by pointing out that the currently mandated vaccines have opt out clauses for those with religious objections or other conscientious reasons. Beyond that it's imperative for herd immunity among other variables that the majority of people be vaccinated and thus should be mandated First, What is herd immunity? the resistance to the spread of a contagious disease within a population that results if a sufficiently high proportion of individuals are immune to the disease, especially through vaccination. Why is this important? according to vaccines. gov Germs can travel quickly through a community and make a lot of people sick. If enough people get sick, it can lead to an outbreak. But when enough people are vaccinated against a certain disease, the germs can"t travel as easily from person to person " and the entire community is less likely to get the disease. That means even people who can"t get vaccinated will have some protection from getting sick. And if a person does get sick, there"s less chance of an outbreak because it"s harder for the disease to spread. Eventually, the disease becomes rare " and sometimes, it"s wiped out altogether. Who does community immunity protect? Community immunity protects everyone. But it"s especially important because some people can"t get vaccinated for certain diseases " such as people with some serious allergies and those with weakened or failing immune systems (like people who have cancer, HIV/AIDS, type 1 diabetes, or other health conditions). Community immunity is also important for the very small group of people who don"t have a strong immune response from vaccines. Essentially, when the vast majority of people are immune to a disease, it protects those of us who can't get vaccinated. Now to address my opponent's points. He claimed that it's a waste of time and money, However, both of these are not priority issues. saving the few minutes it takes to get vaccinated cannot hold up to saving lives with herd immunity. the same can be said for saving a paltry sum of money. This is a not a priority issue at best and selfish at worst. Protect our communities, save lives.

State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified Please, let me address my opponents disbelief in religious conflicts; CHRISTIANITY The bible teaches that there are unclean animals and that we are not to put the unclean into our bodies (Deuteronomy 14). – Vaccines are made from blood products and tissue of animals. (Read, ‘The Sanctity of Human Blood: Vaccination Is not Immunization' by Tim O'Shea for more on this). Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself; (Deuteronomy 14:21) and hut flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. (Genesis 9:4) – i.e. you should not be putting anything from an animal or its blood into your body. What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own. For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. (I Corinthians 6:19,20) – i.e. your body is a temple which houses the Holy Spirit and so you have to look after it and not pollute it. '"We must obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29) – i.e. Vaccination is an artificial invention made by man to alter immune function. The immune system, on the other hand, is a natural function given by God to protect us from disease. Trusting in manmade vaccination is like saying that we think God didn't make us correctly and that we need artificially ‘boosting' in order to survive. --- MORMONISM Mormons also refer to the bible in conjunction with the book of Mormon, so the above passages should apply to them also. As well as this, their organisation has made it clear they are against termination of pregnancy, and it is known that MMR, MR, Rubella, Varicella (Chickenpox) and other vaccines contain human diploid cells cultured from aborted foetuses. The First Presidency, which is the governing body and highest ranking quorum in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has said, "Abortion must be considered one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day." (First Presidency (Spencer W. Kimball, N. Eldon Tanner, Marion G. Romney), Priesthood Bulletin, Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Feb. 1973, p. 1-2. Clearly, if a Mormon then vaccinates their child with a vaccine containing aborted foetus, this constitutes a contradiction of faith. Their own founder, Joseph Smith, also stated: " Trust in God when sick, and live by faith and not by medicine or poison." (11th edition of the encyclopedia of Brittanica). --- ROMAN CATHOLOCISM Catholics also have the same stance on termination and vaccination: They called the use of human foetal tissue in vaccination, ‘a kind of evil which is widespread in biomedical research and which people rightly think they should combat when they can. ‘The practice of medicine is being made parasitic on the evils of abortion and foetal experimentation and refusing vaccination is one way of seeking to turn medicine from a course which will increasingly subvert people's confidence in it.' (Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales, 1994). --- JEWS Jews also have strict dietary requirements as part of their religion and have to eat or take into the body, animal parts which are KOSHER. Rabbi Simon Dahan recently highlighted this controversy with the latest bird flu scare, when it emerged that the bird flu vaccinations given to livestock may not be kosher, therefore rendering poultry products unsuitable for Jewish people: "If they conduct the vaccination on the lungs or the neck, the animal might not be kosher anymore," Dahan said. "According to Talmudic laws if the oesophagus or the trachea is mutilated, the animal is not considered kosher anymore," he added, considering that if the vaccination would be considered as some kind of mutilation by Jewish law. Furthermore, vaccinating the poultry in the leg might also be a problem because the operation might alter some the animal fragile nerves, which are supposed to stay untouched by the same Talmudic laws," (European Jewish Press, February 2006). Vaccines for people may also be made with animals that aren't kosher, making them against Jewish law. --- My opponent claims that the HPV vaccine is among those that should be mandated. The CDC reports that the vaccines do not protect against all HPV types— so they will not prevent all cases of cervical cancer. About 30% of cervical cancers will not be prevented by the vaccines, so it will be important for women to continue getting screened for cervical cancer (regular Pap tests). Also, the vaccines do not prevent other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). So it will still be important for sexually active persons to lower their risk for other STIs. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says that vaccination should occur for females ages 9 through 26 years and approved by CDC as safe and effective. --- Under question 11, where did you get the information that supports your claim that the vaccination is more effective when administered to newborns? How many children share needles that can spread this disease? --- When will these vaccinations be administered, and who will be checking to make sure that every individual will be receiving every vaccination? In the case of the HPV vaccination, how will the ages at which these vaccinations are administered differentiate? --- 9. Are all children going to get sick if they're not vaccinated? --- Conclusion: My opponent displays complete disregard for the Constitutional rights of the individual, the very basis of which our three-branch government system was based upon. They also communicate the belief that vaccination is the ONLY option to stop these diseases and maintaining the health of the community, which is completely ignoring our bodies natural approach to handling these diseases. I have refuted my opponents claim that these religions permit vaccinations, as their religious texts, when read, directly address and prove this wrong. Vote negation. --- I will post more conflicting religious beliefs in the comments.

Unvaccinated children should be home-schooled We need to Weigh the Cost the Child Receiving a Possible "Illness" from remaining unvaccinated, against the Premise that they would be denied a Basic education. CONTENTION 1. Children Being Denied a Basic Education Vaccination is no prerequisite to anything. Regardless of Age, ethnicity, social and economic background, children should have the right to attend School. According to many Constitutional and Laws Globally, this would infringe on the Act of Liberty, and Free will, in accordance with the First Amendment of the US constitution.(1) CONTENTION 2. Denial of Free will As stated Above, this would infringe on the act of Free will, a Basic right that all Humans should have, regardless. REFUTATIONS "Although it is ultimately up to the parents on whether they wish to vaccinate thier kids, I think it breaks a social contract to exclude your child from vaccination and place them into an environment that may put your child and other children at risk." What Social Contract do you speak of, I've never heard of it. For whatever reasons an individual has, be it religious or Moral, they have the right to NOT have there children vaccinated. "Vaccinations have proved to be more good than harm children and if you decide to to not vaccinate you should not be able to enter your child into a school that requires vacvcinations as a standard." No Schools require children to be vaccinated, as of saying this. Vaccinations are very effective, and carry little side effects, but as stated, people have the right to not vaccinate there child. "This is not to say that not vaccinating isn't a right parent have, but that right should have consequences. Those children should not be intergrated with others in order to avoid reversing our progress against nearly eradicated diseases." What Studies do you have the Say not vaccinating your child "Reverses" our progress against nearly eradicated diseases? That sounds completely made up. You make another Statement based on opinion, rather then fact. " "Those children should not be intergrated with others" That's not for you to decide. You may or may not Vaccinate your child, if you have one, but Making decisions for others is Unjust, and Unconstitutional. (1)(http://www.google.ca...)

Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. "That night she became agitated and feisty, then she fell asleep and never woke up." This quote is from a man whose daughter suffered devastating side-effects from the mandatory Hepatitis B vaccination on his 5-week-old little girl. Hello. I am on the CON side for the debate that Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Definitions: mandatory-an action that you must perform without question vaccination-an injection into your body consisting of weak or dead bacteria which is or is similar to a disease. Because I am CON, I will allow my opponent to go first.

Not getting children vaccinated First of all, I never said that vaccines are not worth their risks. I stated that one should have the right to consider the risks, and decide what to put into their or their children's bodies. And while I'm on the topic of free choice, you brought up an important point about people being exempt to due to religious beliefs. Now, proposing a mandate that would FORCE these individuals to vaccinate against their religion is clearly in violation of their Constitutional rights. However, lets move on to the point you brought up of certain dieseases spreading. The United States vaccination policy has used a concept known as "herd immunity" in which the majority of the population is vaccinated and immune. Now that we have established this "herd immunity," many dieseases cannot spread very far. You stated that due to lack of use for the MMR, measles cases have increased. However, because most of the American population are immunized with MMR, then these cases can be quickly contained. Therefore, our system already works, and it does not seem worth the effort to mandate vaccinations. While, yes it would have benefits, the problems that come with a mandatory vaccination make it unfeasible. There are two levels in which mandatory vaccinations for children would be ineffective. One is on the federal level. In order to make sure that EVERY child in the United States gets the vaccinations (and future boosters to vaccinations), a great deal of effort and money needs to be spent. If you have seen our national deficit recently, along with Social security fund security, then it is clear that it is not feasible for the government to implement, and ENFORCE this vaccination policy to all children. The second level that we can look at is on the citizen's level. While you are right, a responsible parent should get their children vaccinated (unless of moral and religous beliefs), you are assuming that every parent in America has the capability to pay for such vaccinations. This is not the case. In America, 45 MILLION americans, including 9 million children, lack health insurance. Some of the vaccines that have been mentioned, such as the HPV vaccine, consist of multiple shots. According to the Center of Diesease control, the 3 HPV shots can cost up to 360 dollars PER SHOT. Other vaccinations cost less, however, the way that you have proposed mandating vaccinations creates a long list of vaccines that must be paid by these uninsured parents. Since the incomes of many of these uninsured families are low, it is difficult to concieve a low income family paying thousands of dollars for vaccinations. While many low-income parents will still put their Children's safety first, it should not be forced upon them to pay for EVERY ONE of the vaccines available. Also, mandatory vaccinations will raise insurance premiums for all members of society. And many insurances might not cover all these vaccinations, therefore hurting the pockets of even the insured. In conclusion, a mandated vaccination not only infringes upon a citizens right to religious beliefs and choice, but the costs outweigh the benefits because of simply an inability on the federal and citizen's level to pay for such vaccinations. You have stated before that parents that do not vaccinate their children are irresponsible, yet it is the duty of the parent to do what is best for their kids.

State-mandated administration of childhood vaccines is justified. Introduction:I'm fine with my opponent attempting to argue that the private market protects people better than a government controlled market in vaccines.Analysis of the Resolution:Generally, public forum debates do not require plans. The resolution also doesn't seem to imply any sort of call to action.Defending the Affirmative ContentionsC1: Solvency My opponent conceded that vaccines improve people's lives, and that without vaccines lives will be lost. This is critical, because the government's responsibility is to maximize and improve public health and safety. There is a great, compelling state reason to require immunization, because of the countless lives that have been saved through it. Risking lives through a lost of mandate will be the last thing that the government will want to do - because it will cost lives.My opponent has been attempting to assert that people can handle themselves - and the only interference needed is education by the government. This is failing. The Wall Street Journal reported on how doctors are practically giving up on their patients and dismissing them, because of their stubborn belief that vaccines can hurt their children [1] [3].False claims that have been disproved by numerous studies, such as the claim that their is a link between autism and vaccines, continue to trick parents even today, even as doctors try to explain to the parents [1].In fact, around 39% of parents refused/delayed vaccines for their children back in '08, up from previous years [2].In a study published last year, some 30% of doctors claim that, at least once, they asked a family to leave because of their constant refusal of vaccines [1]. Another source provided a similar but lesser number - 21% of doctors have dismissed families because of vaccination issues [3].Attempting to "focus on education" has been tried by doctors - and failure is evident. Making the government leave vaccine mandates will reduce people's irrational worries, to some extent. Obviously, parents will become scared with the return of horrible diseases. Due to the fact that vaccinations now prevent diseases, many people have begun to forget the horrible impacts of some diseases [3]. Do you see why some parents no longer remember?C2: CommunityMy opponent doesn't gain the same benefits, because without mandates - the number of vaccinations will quickly reduce. Voluntary vaccinations are not likely to stay at high rates, but mandates keeps them high enough.The fact remains that there simply isn't only going to be that one crazy parent who doesn't vaccinate their children. A rising amount of people are choosing to exempt themselves or delay vaccinations [4] [5]. With this growing trend, we can expect the loss of herd immunity - which is usually around 90-95%.My opponent also claims that at different times, different vaccinations are needed. This is outrageous - a constant vaccination of children is vital to ensure the safety of the people from the disease returning. With people believing these false hopes, vaccination rates will start to lower, with people believing that the vaccine is no longer needed, and the disease will return. My example of how whooping cough worsened in Colorado because of lowering vaccination rates perfectly captures this scenario. More and more parents choosing to exempt or delay will harm the general public.C3: MoneyFor the maximization of gained money, mandates are needed. Without them, we cannot hope to save a similar amount, when considering the high exemptions.My opponent also claims that aid has to be given to the poor, in order to pay for the vaccines. I doubt that there is actually that many people who need aid, to actually amount to anything. My opponent's own evidence seems to imply large amounts of "voluntary vaccinations", whereas the overwhelming majority of people pay for themselves.Also, vaccine mandates generally aren't that hard to enforce. Currently, the main punishment for rejecting vaccination is that you cannot go to public schools (private schools also have similar vaccine requirements to enter), unless if you state allows some sort of religious/moral/philosophical exemptions (and most states do allow some exemptions).Also, Con's calculations are rather confusing. To be honest, I don't see how he got the $2 billion dollar savings figure and how the government needs to spend $5 on every person.C4: AuthorityI was expecting my opponent to throw a constitutionality/parental freedoms argument out there, but I guess I was wrong. Also, the constitution is generally seen as the document keeping power and freedoms in balance, both by the people and the government. I don't see any other way to find whether or not the government has the authority other than the legal process.Con ArgumentsC1: Economic CalculationGenerally mutation rates in bacteria are about one mutation per one hundred million genes per generation. Bacteria can produce billions of new bacteria daily, each with possibly thousands of genes. Within some forms of diseases, you can expect quick mutations and a rapidly worsening and harming sickness. Constant awareness is needed to fight this - a worthy use of the government's time and money considering the rising number of parents failing to protect their children. Quite frankly, you can't take a risk by letting parents have their own freedoms about this.Also, my opponent has conceded that vaccines have beneficial individual effects. Creating more vaccinations and enforcing mandates will lead to the general improvement of life.C2: BiopoliticsThis might be relevant if we were talking about vaccine mandates in general - concerning adults too. However, children simply do not have the same exact rights as adults.Also, my contention about "authority" is supposed to relate to this. The Constitution is the method by which the people and the government decide whether or not a new law is infringing too much on individual freedoms.There currently exists no alternative to mandates - "educating" parents on the safety and benefits of vaccines is ineffective in increasing numbers. As the government's duty is partially to protect public health and safety, they must take action to protect the lives of individuals. Without life, you cannot enjoy freedoms.Furthermore, I don't see any logical reason why a parent would have to refuse vaccines other than religious/moral/philosophical objections, which states usually give exemptions to. My opponent has agreed that vaccines have almost no risk at all, and provide much more advantages to people.This sort of bad parenting needs to be stopped.Individual rights cannot be respected if they harm the general public. People are free to do what they will until their actions begin harming others [6].Conclusion:Voluntary vaccination cannot accomplish as much as mandatory vaccinations. Voluntary vaccination leads to higher exemptions, delays, and ultimately will result in a tremendous loss of life. Not to mention that voluntary vaccination leads to the loss of benefits such as herd immunity and won't save as much money for society and the government. Compulsory vaccination protects these benefits and people.I await your response, Con ;)Sources:[1] http://online.wsj.com...[2] http://abcnews.go.com...[3] http://www.usatoday.com...[4] http://www.kdheks.gov...[5]http://www.usatoday.com...[6] Paul Offit, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases and the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

Vaccines should be mandatory It appears my opponent has not given any arguments/refutations. Extend.

Children should receive vaccinations. Children should receive vaccinations? Well, some vaccines are untrustworthy, and may even be harmful to children.

There should not be Mandatory Vaccinations The fact that vaccines cause autism is a fallacy and should not be treated as fact. I see that you are one of those people that believe that, unfortunately. Vaccines can be helpful for the body. They prevented smallpox, measles, and other dangerous diseases. I wonder what your counter-argument will be.

Vaccination Should Be Compulsory The state has a right to impose compulsory vaccination. If an age group is protected, that results ...

Mandatory Childhood Vaccines I do concede that the family moving was a poor example but what of animals or bugs that spread parasites, there are no visas for them. I cringe when the Con said these vaccines would be a waste of resources because he obviously did not study this topic. I will use another example (this will be whooping cough) and this article will explain what happens if you don't get a vaccine because you think the disease is "gone". . http://www.dailycamera.com... This shows that diseases can come back over time and affect those unprotected. The Cons use of the words "wasteful" in the sense of the vaccinations would be received quite badly in places like Colorado. The Con also refuses to answer my arguments so I will go into detail why you should vote Pro and vote Manditory Vaccines. Herd Immunity: This is a proven theory that 94% of the world's population must be vaccinated against a disease for it to stop spreading. If we allow parents to not require their children to get a vaccination it will affect the child's health along with the rest of the world's. Milder Symptoms: As mentioned before (by the Con) it is possible to get an effect from the vaccine like an allergic reaction. And as I mentioned before the chance of getting a reaction are much more rare than getting the actual disease. And if you do (however slim) get the disease you are vaccinated against the affects are much milder (such as the difference between death and a fever). Dangers and Affects: Diseases can also cause other diseases such as Hepatitus B (which the Con says can't be contracted in the US although can due to my previous argument) which can cause cancer if contracted. Economic: The last reason to make it manditory (vaccines) is money. It is shown that on average every one dollar spent on vaccines can save six dollars in later medical costs. Those arguments are not only solid but prove the importance of vaccines and why they must be manditory for everyone. Besides my reasons, the Con side shows little to no understanding of this topic. They also use resources such as Wikipedia which is not very reliable.

Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. "Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children. 31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan." Appeal to majority and authority, I need reasons why the Gov has no right to intervene in health decisions. "Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to the free exercise of their religion." Frankly I don't care what rules the parents think they are breaking of some book written thousands of years ago, I stand for the well being of the children. If I prove that vaccines have health benifits then this point falls. "Vaccines are often unnecessary in many cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for the childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically before immunization became available. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification, effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition." Yes I agree with you. There is a lot less disease, and the black plagues gone. It's true this isn't entirely due to vaccin ation. But the fact is there are still many infectious diseases rampant in all socieites, and hepititus is a plague. You're closing your eyes to a very important problem-disease still exists and spreads very regularly. "Vaccines interfere with natural law and God's plan for humanity. Disease is a natural occurrence, and humans should not interfere with its trajectory." Yes I agree! Let's all be literal Darwinists and kill the babies who are born with deformations in the hospitals because God obviously wanted them to die! People with leprosy are being punished for sins in a past life! Oh wait this isn't the dark ages any more, if a member of our society is sick we do our best to cure them and prevent sickness. Gods plan for humanity is a future without disease. "Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening." Can I have some sources for this ourageous claim? Just because HPV isn't life threatning we don't protect our children from it? Vaccines aren't supposed to be life savers all the time-their job is to stop the spread of infectious diseases around our society. As for these reactions you talk of, first please source. Secondly, they are proabably one in a million scenerios and the child is surrounded by health proffesionals will make it a minor issue. I agree that they might happen, but we still go to surgery even though their are risks of side effects yes? Vaccines destroy an immediate risk to our health. "All vaccines cause immune system suppression, and can permanently damage the natural immune system. Unvaccinated children build and strengthen their immune systems through fighting off infection and developing natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox. Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections." You're trying to prove that un-vaccinated children are more resistant then vaccinated children? Do you even know why children get vaccines? It's to protect them from the diseases thier bodies can't cope with on their own. Vaccines don't push out a natural defense-they provide the only defense. Having your child contract hep C won't toughen him up. It will kill him or her. "Children should not receive the hepatitis B vaccine. Hepatitis B is a blood-born disease and is primarily spread by sexual intercourse and intravenous drug use. Children are not at great risk of contracting the disease. In addition, researchers have found that immunization with the hepatitis B vaccine is associated with an increased risk of developing multiple sclerosis." When the subject is children and disease, well to be honest any risk is enough to warrant vaccination. Plus, you need to source the information that shows there's more than a one in a million chance for a child to contract a disease from a vaccine. There's also a chance kids can contract bone cancer from cell phones, but that doesn't mean we outlaw cell phones-the risk simply isn't larg enough. "Vaccines are promoted primarily to generate profits for manufacturers and financial donations for medical organizations that endorse vaccines. In 2003, a House Committee on Government Reform report revealed that the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices had members with significant financial ties to vaccine companies. The American Academy of Pediatrics, a leading pro-vaccination organization, receives millions of dollars from vaccine companies." Of course the vaccine companies make tons of money...people buy their products because it makes them immune to diseases..supply and demand...I think there's a large market for people who want to stop the spread of disease.. MY ARGUMENT P1. Vaccines make children immune to certain diseases and illnesses p2. Being Immune to certain diseases and illnesses is good p3. Any Parent who does not want their child to be immune to certain dseases and illnesses is not acting in the childs best interests p4. It is the role of the state to act in the childs best interests C. The state should administer vaccinations

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization Thank you, coconutmilktea, for starting this debate. "A parent's decision not to vaccinate a child may place others at risk if the child becomes infected and exposes others to the disease." This statement would be true if and only if the "others" also chose not to receive vaccination. In which case, it is simply a decision to be made by the individual: to spend time and money to take a vaccination and be safe from a virus, or go without, saving time and money, but risking disease. Therefore, the only ones at risk are the ones who choose to be at risk. No problems besides their own. "The health and wellbeing of the public is, in part, a function of the behavior of individuals." Explain. The government protects the public from coercive action. The people protect themselves from non-coercive action. And so, we get liberty. Violation of this policy would result in a violation of liberty. "When one individual's behavior places another at a foreseeable and easily preventable risk of illness or injury, tort liability can play a valuable role in discouraging that conduct." However, the only people at risk are the ones who potentially put others at risk. Additionally, how do you know who spread a disease to someone else? "Since the recipients of vaccinations are most often children, the persons being harmed--or at least risking harm--aren't legally able to accept or refuse inoculation on their own." Therefore, the decision defaults to the parents, which is only natural. The parents should have the most authority over their own children. "Vaccinations have undoubtedly saved millions of lives since their inception." Then obviously, the people who do not wish to risk dying of the flu should get vaccinated. Other people who risk it are of no concern to them. "The risks are minimal..." So, you acknowledge that there are risks. Why, then, should one be forced to embrace these risks with the benefits if he thinks the risks and costs are more negative than the benefits are positive? "...the benefits massive." Then smart people will get them. Only the dumb would not. And that's their problem. Plus, we get natural selection, both through removal of stupidity [1] and development of immunity to viruses without necessary vaccinations. "Besides, without compulsion--without the greatest possible protection of the population--those benefits aren't seen." The benefits are seen by anybody who chooses to receive the benefits. The benefits are not received by anybody who chooses not to. Pretty simple. The benefits will be seen if a majority of the population chooses to receive vaccinations, and even then, the only ones who suffer are the ones who don't participate. Counter-arguments: A. Compulsory vaccinations violate the right to liberty. Naturally, if the government forces me to do something that I do not wish to do, I no longer have the liberty not to do it. B. Compulsory vaccinations violate the right to pursuit of happiness. Vaccinations cause unease and crying in children [2]. C. Vaccionations pose risks that many would rather not take. In fact, vaccinations for harmless diseases that probably won't be contracted anyway tend to do more harm than good. They can cause increase in autoimmune diseases [3]. D. Vaccinations cause soreness. "Vaccines may cause ... soreness..." [4] If I'm about to be playing in a tennis tournament, I don't want a sore arm. Therefore, I'd opt not to receive a vaccination. Simple. In conclusion, nobody is harmed by a man's choice not to be vaccinated besides the man himself. Compulsory vaccinations deprive the rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness. Therefore, they are not justified. Thank you, again, for starting this debate. 1. http://www.personalityresearch.org... 2. http://www.fotosearch.com..., http://www.fotosearch.com... 3. http://vran.org... 4. http://kidshealth.org...

Make Vaccination Compulsory Duty to protect the child

Vaccinations Should be Mandatory Anything I saw from here on out will be insignificant due to the lack of an argument from con. Please do not penalize! He may have had a legitimate reason to forfeit.

Duty to protect the child As article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states, “State parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to health services.”[1] Each year millions of children worldwide die of preventable diseases before the age of five. The argument presented here is that the state needs to protect the child and immunize him or her from preventable diseases as obviously the child does not have the capabilities at this stage to make informed decisions of their own. The United Nations Right to Liberty and Security of the Person treaty, article 6.2 supports this view - State Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.[2] It is up to the State to decide if a child is to be immunized, as overall it will be the State who would benefit from having the vast majority of its citizens vaccinated, and it will be the State who will have to pay for any treatment needed to treat a preventable disease. Whilst a child’s parents have to a certain degree the right to decide what is best for their child’s future, poor decision making in this area could result in serious medical issues for the nation. In this extremely important area, the State must have authority over the rights of the parent. [1] Convention on the Rights of the Child.  http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm [2] Right to Liberty and Security of Person. http://www.unfpa.org/rights/language/right8.htm

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization The strength of vaccines is an empirical question

Compulsory vaccines for everyone, except immunocompromised. Have fun. Vaccines save lives, its common knowledge. Therefore, everyone who can should get one. "Vaccines given to infants and young children over the past two decades will prevent 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations and 732,000 deaths over the course of their lifetimes, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vaccines also will have saved $295 billion in direct costs, such as medical expenses, and a total of more than $1.3 trillion in societal costs over that time" Liz Szabo, USA TODAY [4] The immunocompromised shouldn't be forced to receive vaccines because they are in too weak a state. "Immunocompromised patients are a unique group with special issues regarding immunization. Pharmacists need to work closely with these patients' physicians in deciding whether and when immunization might be appropriate. " [5] . http://www.usatoday.com... . http://www.medscape.com...

Mandatory childhood vaccination First off i am throwing a link at you. https://magic.piktochart.com... It isn't the vaccines that are eradicating diseases, it is quarantine conditions. What did they do when someone infected with E-bola? They immediately closed the person off to society. Vaccines are not necessary. Now for ethics... You know abortion? Killing fetuses? Yeah, they inject you with them. http://www.vaccines.gov... If that isn't enough for the ethics then what is? Is it by chance they put that part at the very bottom? I think not. Then there is freedom of religion. I am not vaccinated because of my faith (religion).

It is the state’s duty to protect its community If an age group is protected, that results in a better health conditions for the whole society. In an industrialized country such as the USA, those choosing exemption from statutorily compulsory vaccination were 35-times more likely to contract measles than vaccinated persons; in developing countries where these viruses are still endemic, the risk would be considerably higher[1]. Those who wish to opt-out of vaccination (often on behalf of their children, who have no say in the matter) are classic free riders, hoping to benefit from the more responsible behavior of the rest of society. As it is assumed that most of society see it as a responsibility and a duty to protect others. After a scare about possible side effects of the MMR jab, in 2008 there was a drop in voluntary vaccinations in a part of London (Lewisham). In that part of London only 64.3 % of children were vaccine and in that year the district accounted one third of all south-east London measles cases. Unless there is a 95 % vaccination, there is a great threat to public health of infection outbreaks.[2] It is therefore the role of the state to understand these issues and possible treats and provide a duty of protection and care, in this case, in the form of immunization. Another example of the need to protect is also given by the example of voluntary vaccination against the flu, because of its impacts on the whole population is given by Pediatric studies: ”In several studies, results indicated that a 100% vaccination rate among health care personnel in acute care settings triggered a 43% decline in risk of influenza among patients. This decrease appeared even higher — 60% — among nursing home patients.”[3]     So by giving up some of the individuals freedoms and the feeling of duty to protection, the community is much more protected and benefits from the vaccination of the community. [1] Vaccination Critics & Opponents. http://www.neurodiversity.com/anti_vaccination.html [2] BBC News, Experts warn of measles outbreaks, 03/18/2008  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7291248.stm, a [3] Talbot TR. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol., Two medical societies back mandatory flu vaccination for health care workers, published 2010, http://www.pediatricsupersite.com/view.aspx?rid=68173, accessed 05/27/2011 ccessed 05/25/2011

Children should receive vaccinations. I am mildly confused that you said nobody accepted because there was still almost a week on the clock before you joined. I am also mildly confused that you are citing an argument you made to your own comment which is contradicting what you are saying. Finally, I would like to apologize for accidentally sourcing one of my definitions in the first round. This was habitual and accidental. Anyways, I am pleased to start this debate and will motor right along to my refutation of my opponent's argument and then will present my own. Vaccinations cause autism:My opponent's only argument so far is that getting vaccinations cause autism, because the number of autistic children has increased in relation to the number of vaccinations. He stated no sources for this. To stop any further appearances of this blatantly incorrect argument, I will source a couple of reputable sites that disprove this myth.1. A meta-analysis spanning over 1.2 million children has confirmed that the MMR shot doesn't actually cause autism and may actually even decrease the risk. An epidemiologist parent of three children is cited in the document as saying that she approves of vaccinating your children. [1]2. A detailed study based on studying the effects of vaccination of 95,272 children with older siblings. Older siblings with and without autism were both studied. The results proved that there is no correlation between vaccination and autism. [2]3. Finally, even the US government CDC has decreed that vaccinations and autism have no association. They even verified that no ingredients in the government-approved vaccines (mainly the ingredient thimerosal) cause negative effects in clinically-approved amounts. [3]Herd Immunity:My first argument is on the concept of herd immunity. This is a general concept that means that when the few people who cannot receive vaccinations are not immune to the disease are protected by those who are. There is a specific amount of people who need to be vaccinated for each disease to work. Below is a graph that details the threshold (or percentage of people) needed for herd immunity to work. The R0 is the number of people one unvaccinanated person could infect in an unprotected population. The R0 goes up in relation to the threshold. This is important because you can see that for all these incredibly harmful diseases, a large percentage of children is needed to be vaccinated for the children who actually can't get the immunity that they need. [4]Vaccinations WorkNo matter what the radical and incorrect campaigners will tell you, vaccinations work and they save lives. To be precise, 5 million lives would've been taken every year from smallpox (which has now been eradicated) [5] A great example to prove this argument is the example of the California Disneyland Measles Outbreak. (This example also helps prove my first argument. ) One overseas foreign traveler accidentally carried measles to Disneyland, an amusement park in California. The disease spread rapidly, spanning from California to all over the rest of the US. About 668 people were documented as having the virus because of this one foreign traveler. [6] Parents are killing their children by not providing them with the necessary vaccinations, and killing the children around them whose parents are responsible enough to provide them with the correct protection and those who cannot receive the vaccination because of the allergic reactions they have to the chemicals. The margins for each of these diseases are big enough to fit in these minute percentages of children who legitimately cannot receive proper protection, but not those with neglectful parents. Well, this is what we'll start off the debate with. Sorry that the 5th link didn't register, you'll just have to copy/paste it if you want to see it. I would like to end this round with wishing the best of luck to my opponent. Sources:1: . https://www.autismspeaks.org...2: . http://jama.jamanetwork.com...3: . http://www.cdc.gov...4: . http://www.pbs.org...5: www. unicef. org/pon96/hevaccin. htm6: . http://www.cdc.gov...

Vaccines are a waste of time, money, and cause health problems. Do you think childhood vaccinations should become mandatory? >Yes, it protects everyone >No, it's a family decision I>'m undecided Thank you, we have already counted your vote. Yes, it protects everyone 79.08% (707 votes) No, it's a family decision 18.12% (162 votes) I'm undecided 2.8% (25 votes) Total Votes: 894 In this poll, 80% of people, 4x the people have proven that they have low intelligence. All thos people have no idea what's in the vaccines nor read the leaflets. They want 96% of people to be vaccinated where I live!!! They are forcing me to get a vaccination or they're gonna fire me!!! That's against freedom and I totally disagree with it... You think even more diseases can be cured?! Come on! You listed like 10 that we *must get* which is absurd!!!

Vaccination Should Be Compulsory Compulsory vaccination has eradicated or greatly reduced the impact of some of the world's most deva...

Mandatory Vaccinations "Polio was once America's most-feared disease, causing death and paralysis across the country, but today, thanks to vaccination, there are no reports of polio in the United States." In recent years people have been becoming "anti-vaxxers" These people do not vaccinate their children, but getting back on topic, vaccines can save lives, and they are completely safe. According To most anti vaccine sites I have visited most people just want vaccines to be their choice. Vaccines don't just stop you from getting sick, it helps those who don't vaccinate. There is a thing called herd immunity, if enough people get vaccinated, it can stop a disease from spreading to people who do not vaccinate. But if more people do not vaccinate, it can get though, and sicken the people who do not vaccinate. Causing unnecessary sickness and disease. Vaccines are safe and effective. The only danger is an allergic reaction. There is no mercury or toxic substances in vaccines. Vaccines are safe, and effective.

Vaccinations (mandatory/disbursement) There are always going to be some kind of side effects no matter what a person does. It all goes back to if one individual thinks that they are more important than the rest of society. Also there runs the risk of death if a child is not presented with a vaccination. It is much cheaper to get a vaccination for an illness than it is to treat one. In fact cdc.gov says that it cost about 15-16 dollars to get a vaccine, where it could cost well over 150 dollars to treat an illness that could have been prevented.

vaccinating children must be a law I think that all children who CAN be vaccinated, many children and adults are immunocompromised, or undergoeing chemotherapy, etc., etc. But other than that, hear hear sir.

vaccinations should be mandatory I accept your challenge.

should kids be vaccinated Well it is time for me to expand on my previous two points. My first point is that people do have dangerous reactions to vaccines. The probability of these dangerous reactions are different depending on the vaccine. Each vaccine has a different probability of a bad reactions and different types of bad reactions (1). By forcing everyone to take a vaccine forces some to take something harmful, and in rare situations even lethal. Currently working at a bio-lab with a safety level of 3 requires mandatory vaccines, but its reasons for being mandatory are far more justifiable since it deals with working with harmful pathogens as part of the job. But the requirement points out crucial effects of making vaccines mandatory, it prevents people with harmful reactions to vaccines from being able to be in the job. For example, Nancy Jaax couldn't get vaccinated without negative reactions so she had no chance of working in biosafety level 3. Instead she had to try to get into biosafety level 4 since the diseases there had no vaccines or cures. If vaccines were to be mandatory, it would force people with bad reactions to either do something that makes them sick or even worse kill them, or be force to go through any punishments for not following the mandate. My second point is that the government should not be able to force people to have a substance injected into their body. There are certain things that should not be in the governments power do to the possibility of abuse. While it may currently seem that the government cannot do anything wrong, that doesn't mean that it can't go down hill in the future. The last thing you need in the future is a corrupt government that can inject the citizens with what it deems fit. In addition mandating vaccines encroaches on our rights. People should have a right to decide what doesn't go into our body. Sources 1 http://www.cdc.gov...

Compulsory vaccination leads to a better health situation in a state. The child mortality rate is l... Compulsory vaccination leads to a better health situation in a state. The child mortality rate is lower and the natality rate is higher, greater outbreaks of diseases are prevented. The overall health situation improves for all the people in a designated area.\ As for the claims made against vaccines, these are based upon irrational anti-science attitudes and media scare stories. There are many more likely causes of asthma and study after study has found that the MMR vaccine is safe and effective.\

On balance, children should be vaccinated. First, thank you to Malthelate for joining me in this discussion. To my opponent, please pause to reflect on the Rules and Structure enumerated in Round 1. Thank you. Since R1 was “acceptance” I will not rebut Con’s informal arguments except to say that moving forward please provide evidence/citations for claims like “it gives autism”. I promise to do the same and I will formally rebut the “autism” claim in round 2. Constructive Cases: (1) Vaccination has greatly reduced the burden of infectious disease in other countries [1]. (a) It seems like every time we talk about vaccinations we refer back to our own country. Well, it turns out, that the whole world has seen success in this arena. Each year, immunization averts 2-3 million deaths from diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough) and measles. In 2011, 123 countries immunized over 90% of infants against measles. Between 2000 and 2011, vaccination resulted in a 71% drop in measles deaths worldwide” [2]. UNICEF, the WHO and the UN all confirm that even in destitute countries we see declines in mortality. Yet, Americans continue to refer only to data FROM the U.S. [This is especially useful because vaccine opponents often cite declines in mortality (death) rates within the US prior to the introduction of vaccines using a misleading graph that does not include morbidities (prevalence)] - for reference alone. Not an argument [3]. (b) This graph paints a nice picture in terms we can understand about the clear decline of death rates from Measles across the globe. Please note that many of these countries do not have the medical care/economic means that vaccine opponents so often claim as proof that vaccines were/are unnecessary in the U.S. CEE: Central EuropeanSource: UNICEF, 2010 (2) Vaccine-preventable diseases haven’t gone away. (a) It’s easy to forget that these diseases still exist. Most of us haven’t seen what happens to a child with Polio or a baby with Whooping Cough (WC) and so it just doesn’t resonate with us. When considering immunization, one must weigh the options. On the one hand – in this example – we have WC. On the other, vaccines. So how do we weigh just these two examples against one another? Well, let’s start with the easy stuff. (Note: this is how we should compare vaccines to diseases in other cases as well) [4]. Risk factors: Whooping Cough* Immunizations** Pneumonia - 1 in 4 children Fever - 1 in 4 children Apnea/Dyspnea (no/difficult breathing) >1 in 2 children Redness or swelling – 1 in 4 children Seizures - > 1 in 100 children Seizures – 1 in 14,000 children Brain Damage - 3 in 100 children High Fever >105F – 1 in 16,000 children Death – 1 in 100 children Serious Allergic reaction – 1 in 1 million children Source: * https://www.cdc.gov... ** https://www.cdc.gov... (b) There’s some scary stuff going on here. Though, WC is scarier. And guess what? You get the same sort of results for Polio, Diphtheria, Measles, Mumps etc [4]. In each case the disease is significantly more dangerous than the immunization against it. Vaccines may cause mild fever and redness in one out of four children but only 1 out of every million have an allergic reaction. Now look at WC around the world. 1 out of every 100 children DIE. Approximately 1 out of every 100 children have SEIZURES. ~1 out of every 300 may suffer BRAIN DAMAGE. Nearly 1 out of 4 catch PNEUMONIA and greater than half have respiratory problems. Now ask yourself. “Would you rather risk Whooping Cough or Immunization?” So we see that vaccines have decreased disease incidence worldwide AND the dangers of disease far outweigh the dangers of vaccines. So we must conclude that ON BALANCE thus far, our children should be vaccinated. SOURCES: [1] http://www.who.int... [2] https://www.unicef.org... [3] https://vicskeptics.wordpress.com... [4] https://www.cdc.gov...

Make Vaccination Compulsory It is a parental right to decide about vaccinations for a child

Why parents should immunized or Vaccinated they're kids There is no need for vaccines. Our immune systems can fight most ailments. Not only that, but vaccines result in almost 30,000 adverse events each year, including death, according to the department of Health and Human Services. [1] Sources: 1. www.vaers.hhs.gov

Public Forum Modified: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations I am for having to make those shoots a "Must" because I think, that if you do not have it as a "Must" then people wont take is seriously and actually do and make those shoots. Then everyone will get sick and nobody will do anything about it really. Then the government will have to join in and make people make those shoots. So you can save us all time and make it a "Must" in the first place.

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization Compulsory Immunizations are necessary to protect the right's of others.

mandatory vaccination Contention 1: Utilitarianism and the Ethic of CareThis contentions will be devided into two seperate sections and I shall choose to over over Utilitarianism first. UtilitarianismFor this case of Utilitarianism I will be focusing on John Stuart Mill's case of Utility here. We have to look at the Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number of Sentient Beings. This means that we have to look at the needs of the whole vs. a few individuals. Another key thing we have to look at from Mill is Net Pleasure. If the vaccinations create a greater net pleasure than pain then it must be implamented for the betterment of soceity. [1] Before my opponent comes in and argues that shots hurt, Mill goes and argues that short term pain and pleasure are irrelevant and long term pleasure and pain is what should be looked at in general. Throughout history the human race has been ravaged by illnesses. After the beginning of the Age of Reason science advancement has launched into the field of medical science and illnesses have begun to be cured. Under the status quo they have found that these children vaccinations have cured 90-99% of these diseases. [2] This is something that is already pushing towards the betterment of soceity and is something that will factor in to the over all status of the soceity as a whole. The United Nations have found that these vaccinations save 2.5 million children a year and over 285 children are saved every hour. [3] Another key thing is that the CDC estimates that 322 million cases of childhood illnesses were prevented throughout the United States as 732,000 children were saved, which once again helps our soceity by increasing future developement. [12]The next key area of analysis is that of Herd immunity. This is the method of greater amounts of immunization reduces the possibilites of a disease. With the infection rate be driven down this, once again, moves the disease to a possible erradication. [4] This has been shown time and time again that when this threshold for this level of Herd immunity is not met then the likelihood of a break out increases. The greatest example of this occured in 2011, when 49 states failed to meet the Herd immunity level and the greatest outbreak of Whooping Cough had broken out since 1955. [5] This outright shows that there is a gargantuan demand to meet this level of Herd Immunity or we will begin massive breakouts of diseases again. The same occured in 2009, when the people who had failed to have their children vacinated had to have their children quarentined due to the lack of vaccinations had caused the 48 children to contract the measles. [6] Thus right off the bat we can see that there's a dire need for the manditory vaccinations in order to protect the soceity from disease and death. We can see that this argument has a massive impact in todays debat to the point of if this plan isn't implamented by the US Federal Government then we will see a detteroation of the very fabric of soceity that we have fought so hard to defend and build up in order to create a stable soceity. With the detteroation of the soceity then there will be a massive break down to the microlevel, which I'll get into next, and it will break the very foundations of soceity. Ethic of CareThe Ethic of Care, or also known as the feminism argument, revolves around the protection of special relationships. The Utilitarian argument reguards the improtance of the protection of the soceity and this argument will get down to the individual level. The Ethic of Care values special relationships like that of family, but as well as the relationships between generations as the Eco-feminism argument pushes for the preservation of future genreations. [7] In order to win this argument I must show that the manditory protects and preserves future generations. Doctors today even recommend pregnant women to get vaccinations again in order to protect their children from pre-mature deaths. This is a key issue that is needed to protec the unborn as they are an immidate generation that is being saved from death. In the 1960's before the vaccination for ruebella, also known as Germany Measles, there was 20,000 child premature deaths which was and increase from the previous 11,000. [8] Mothers who get these vaccinations not only save their children, but have a higher chance of preventing birth defects. This again is a key argument here as we can see that the saving of future generations have helped saved people and a long chain of further generations. If this plan isn't implamented then we will see the breakdown of the family unit and a cause of harm at a microlevel which will harm soceity as a whole at the macrolevel. This will have a ripple affect with a great deal of ramifications and if this plan isn't passed. Contention 2: Economic ImpactNow that I have already shown that doing this is ethically justifiable, I will now move to why this is economically sound and is benefitical for the United States Federal Government to implament this plan. The CDC has shown that in the past 20 years the US has saved $1.38 Trillion in costs that would have occured each year. This means that the savings would have been well over $20 Trillion! [9] Though this maybe true another key factor that we would have to look at is how effective is the industry itself. They have found that for every $1 we have put into the DTaP vaccination we $27 and as for the MMR vaccination, though it may be smaller, for every dollar that we put into the vaccination we save $13 in total costs. This is already showing that we can save economic strength and increase the American powerhouse economy if this plan is implamented. In the case in California that I had described earlier it had major costs. Over $120,000 out of the economy due to the lack of working from the parents and other issues that arrose out of the issue. [6] When it comes to simple illensses like the flu the CDC states that it does it's toll on the parental units is that of it costing anywhere from $222 to $1,456 which is extremely harmful in today's economy for the average family and this even isn't accounting for the additional $300 to $4,000 in medical expsenses which just continue to destroy the family unit by digging them deeper and deeper into debt. [10] Under the current Affordable Care Act it is possible to get vaccinations even without copay as those poor families who didn't have the ability to get these vaccinations before will have a greater amount of vaccinations which would not only increase the amount of economic effiecentcy, but will also lead to an increase and betterment of the individual as they will save a massive amount of money from getting these vaccinations. [11]Sources1. (. http://tinyurl.com...)2. American Academy of Pediatrics, "Vaccine Safety: The Facts," www. aap. org, 2008 3. Shot@Life, "The Solution: Vaccines," www. shotatlife. org (accessed June 4, 2014)4. US Department of Health and Human Services, "Community Immunity ('Herd Immunity')," www. vaccines. gov (accessed June 5, 2014) 5. Mark Fishetti, "Too Many Children Go Unvaccinated," www. scientificamerican. com, May 14, 20136. (. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)7. MacGregor, Sherilyn (2006). Beyond mothering earth: ecological citizenship and the politics of care. Vancouver: UBC Press. p. 286 8. CDC, "About Rubella," www. cdc. gov, Apr. 29, 2011 9. Bahar Gholipour, "Vaccination Has Saved 732,000 Children's Lives Since 1994, Says Report," www. huffingtonpost. com, Apr. 25, 2014 10. CDC, "CDC Study: Treating Children's Flu Illness Costly," www. cdc. gov, May 21, 201211. US Department of Health and Human Services, "The Affordable Care Act and Immunization," www. hhs. gov, Jan. 20, 201212. Bahar Gholipour, "Vaccination Has Saved 732,000 Children's Lives Since 1994, Says Report," www. huffingtonpost. com, Apr. 25, 2014

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization It eliminates diseases and prevents them from returning

Vaccinations Should be Mandatory There is a wonderful thing called democracy and human rights that allows an individual to choose what happens to their possessions in most circumstances. As a human being you have reasons that you can use to object to a vaccination. 1. A religious reason such as it being unnatural, or intervening etc. 2. The vaccination could have certain side effects you would prefer to avoid 3. You may even be intolerant to the vaccine 4. You may simply not want to without logical reason.

The Federal or State government should require and enforce the administering of basic medical vaccin This debate is open to all debaters. Come at me liberals!

It is the state’s duty to protect its community A great deal of health care and prevention of diseases is information and an informed decision. The United Kingdom does not have a system of compulsory health care, but disease outbreaks are still prevented due to the voluntary uptake of immunizations. The pediatrician Miriam Fine-Goulden explains: “The risk of contracting these infections is only so low at present because the voluntary uptake of immunizations has been high enough (in most cases) to reduce the chance of contact with those organisms through the process of herd immunity.”[1] Also it can be argued that measles, mumps and rubella (one of the diseases vaccine against) are far from harmful. They are relatively minor illnesses[2]. Measles causes a rash and high fever. Mumps causes swollen glands, headache and fever. Rubella is usually mild and can go unnoticed. Just because medical advance has been made in vaccinations it does not mean that we have to be immunized against every little disease known to man. Bearing in mind the cost of such jabs on the heavily burdened NHS, surely it would be better to not make the MMR jab compulsory. This way we keep parents happy and the NHS budget can be stretched further. Researches also show that alternative approaches towards diseases such as better nutrition, homeopathy, etc. give very positive results. Healthier populations would not need vaccines to fight a disease. High profits that are now reserved only for the pharmaceutical industry would be spread to other areas of the economy, such as agriculture and the service sector, and more people would gain. [1] Miriam Fine-Goulden: Should childhood vaccinations be compulsory in the UK ?, University College London,  http://www.ucl.ac.uk/opticon1826/archive/issue8/articles/Article_Biomed_Sc_-_Fine-Goulden__Vaccination_Publish.pdf, accessed 05/29/2011 [2] BBC News, Should the MMR vaccine be compulsory, 03/02/2002,   http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2088426.stm, accessed 05/29/2011

Resolved: State Mandated Administration of Childhood Vaccinations is Justsified According to the Centers for Disease Control, "Universal vaccination is a critical part of quality health care and should be accomplished through routine and intensive vaccination programs." We strongly affirm the resolution, "Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified." This is because of justice, righteousness, and reasonability. Before I begin, I would like to make one preliminary observation: the PRO is not obligated to prove that state mandated administration of childhood vaccinations should be implemented into any past, current, or future system of government, merely that they are justified. I would also like to define a few key terms. I would like to define state as a politically organized body of people, mandate as to formally order or command, and justified as an action that is shown to be just, right, or reasonable all according to Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. Through these definitions, we still allow for society to keep its free will and allow for exemption. The government will mandate the vaccination program to ensure that those who wish to be vaccinated receive the vaccination while those opposed and provide reasonable grounds to be exempt, can be. This would include philosophical, religious, and physical exceptions. Our first contention is that mandated vaccinations are reasonable. Before I begin, I would like to introduce an important concept: utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory, which justifies actions or events based on the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Firstly, vaccinations themselves improve the safety of the individual and the public. According to a 2003 report by researchers at the Pediatric Academic Society, childhood vaccinations in the US prevent about 10.5 million cases of infectious illness and 33,000 deaths per year. About 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, meaning associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death. Next, mandated vaccinations are beneficial towards the safety of the individual and of the public. Without mandated vaccinations, it would be highly difficult or impossible to reach herd immunity, a situation in which a sufficient proportion of a population (roughly 85%) is immune to an infectious disease to make its spread from person to person unlikely. Currently, according to the most recent National Immunization Survey from the Centers for Disease Control, only 70.2% of children 19-35 months are vaccinated against 23 key illnesses. Clearly, herd immunity is not being reached voluntarily. Also, without mandated vaccinations, health and safety issues arise. Even if a disease does not severely harm an unvaccinated person, they still have the potential to pass the disease on to another, possibly killing them. The risks of not being vaccinated far outweigh the small risks associated with vaccination. Clearly, mandated vaccinations improve overall safety and health, and are therefore justified. Our second contention is that mandated vaccinations are right. Every government in the world has a moral obligation to protect the rights and safety of its citizens. However, every government must infringe upon the lives of the individual in order to maintain national security and freedom. This is known as a social contract, in which individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm. John Locke argued in Second Treatise of Government that "…individuals would agree to form a state that would provide a "neutral judge", acting to protect the lives, liberty, and property of those who lived within it." He then postulated, "the government thus acts as an impartial, objective agent of that self-defense." Since we have already proven that vaccinations are not only beneficial to society, but that not vaccinating is directly detrimental towards society, the government has an obligation to mandate vaccinations and is justified in doing so. Since not vaccinated citizens pose an immediate and dangerous threat to the remainder of the population, mandated vaccinations qualify as self-defense. According to the social contract, mandated vaccinations are justified because of a duty to the society. Our final contention is that mandated vaccinations are just. Courts have repeatedly upheld compulsory vaccination laws in the United States as a reasonable exercise of the state's police power, even in the absence of a disease outbreak. Such laws survive constitutional challenge even in cases where they conflict with the religious beliefs of individuals. In the first such case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court ruled that: "the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint." John Stuart Mill in On Liberty wrote "The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant." Therefore, the government serves justice when preventing citizens from immediate threats (unvaccinated citizens). Clearly, mandated vaccinations are justified because of justice. In conclusion, since we have proven that mandated vaccinations are reasonable, right, and just, they are justified.

THW: make vaccinations against deadly diseases mandatory unless there is a medical exemption When I was seventeen, I contracted whooping cough. I spent months unable to exercise properly, and sometimes couldn't sleep because of the coughing. Had I been a young child, or very elderly, or immuno-compromised, I could well have died. I couldn't have the whooping cough vaccine as a child because I was allergic to it. There are many more people like me out there- whose health, and often even their lives, are dependent on herd immunity. Herd immunity is the phenomenon where if a high enough proportion of a population is protected against a disease, the disease can't spread to those members of the population who are not protected because there aren't enough vectors (i.e., people who are infected with the disease and who are spreading it) to transmit it to them. However, the modern anti-vaccine movement has lead to a number of people failing to vaccinate their children against deadly diseases. This has not only put the lives of their children at risk, but also the lives of those who depend on herd immunity to protect them. This is not safe. It should not be allowed. In any other circumstance in which you endanger the life of your own child or of the public at large, you would immediately be charged with reckless endangerment and/or child neglect. The only reasonable opposition I can imagine to mandatory vaccinations against deadly diseases is the possibility of someone being unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons, and hence the motion has accounted for those circumstances. So, in short: 1) Vaccines are safe, unless one is allergic or has some other medical condition. If one has such a condition, they would not be harmed by the motion as it makes an exception for them. 2) Otherwise, vaccines are only a good thing- they save both the lives of those getting the vaccines and of those who cannot be vaccinated, and the latter is saved by herd immunity. 3) It is not acceptable to endanger the health or the life of your own child or the public at large. Hence, I urge my opponent to reconsider their position and the audience to vote in favour of the motion.

vaccinations yes allergies can happen and yes they can be bad but that's when you have to think about the single person over the whole population. weigh the risks for getting and not getting vaccinations. Not getting vaccinated leaves a big chance for infections to happen and from one person the infection spreads more and more till it can get as bad as a epidemic. Making vaccinations mandatory is also a god think what happens when someone from a foreign country comes into ours and they are carriers to some disease. If we make vaccinations mandatory then that immigrant who carries a disease can be cured and treated before it gets to be a big problem. www.healthychildren.com

Not getting children vaccinated Ah yes, state health insurance. Yes most states have SOME form of health insurance, however not all citizens are eligible for it. If they were, than we would not have this whole hype about Universal Healthcare Plans among the Democrats! Therefore the reasons that I gave before in 2nd round still stand. Also you stated that all vaccines except for HPV should be made mandatory. This is quite a long list of vaccines, and insurance would not completely cover the entire list without making premiums go through the roof. This would also raise the strain on the state health insurances that you have mentioned, leading to possible raised taxes, cut education funds. If in the event, that a diesease does pop up upon an unvaccinated population, it can be quickly controlled. It is very unlikely that a child with symptoms of measles would be allowed to contact your child at a party. Quarentine of the sick child is likely. Yes, vaccines are meant to prevent dieseases, however vaccines also work in creating "rings of immunity" around outbreaks. This is how small pox was eradicated. By immunizing in regions AROUND out breaks, the disease was contained. A similar infrastructure is already in place in the United States with our current usage of immunizations. Now, there are carriers of dieseases with no visible symptoms. However, a person can be a carrier of diesease even with a mandatory immunization. The government does have the right to protect the citizens of a country, however there are limits to how far the government can go. Our federal government does not have the right to completely disregard one's religious beliefs, like I said before. This is one of our base constitutional rights and would be violated if your plan were to be enacted. However, I also find it disagreeable that the government should have a right to dictate what goes into our bodies without personal choice. I do not completely disagree with your statement about parents needing to be responsible-- in fact quite the opposite. Parents should be given their own reins to how to best protect their children, for children are the Parents responsbility, and not the responsibility of politicians in our government. Finally, I would like to thank you for starting this debate. I found it very informative and interesting. Thanks!

Vaccinations are necessary Thank you for accepting and good luck. I will post my sources at the end. I would like to start off by talking about different types of vaccination, their ingredients, and how they are administered/ work. There are a few different types of vaccines. There are attenuated (live virus), inactive, subunit, toxoid, and conjugate vaccines. Each serves a different purpose and is extremely beneficial. The attenuated vaccine contains microbes of a certain disease or bacteria that has been weakened in a lab so the disease is strong enough so the body can fight back, but not so strong any damage is done. These vaccines are the closest to natural infection so they are able to essentially teach the body how to overcome it. Though these vaccines are extremely effective, there is the slight chance (as with anything) that the microbe will mutate and cause disease. These anomalies generally occur in people with extremely weak immune systems. In a healthy person, the body learns how to fight the disease but doesn't get sick. Inactive vaccines are created by using heat and chemicals to destroy the microbes. These vaccines are not as strong as live vaccines but they work better for those with weaker immune systems. Because they elicit a weaker immune response, these shots are administered over a period of time with several boosters. They don't require refrigeration so they can be shipped anywhere, essentially. Subunit vaccines only contain certain antigens of a microbe, the ones that will cause the strongest immune reaction. As it does not contain the whole microbe, there is a severely decreased chance of a complication. Recombinant subunit vaccines were created and tested to treat hepatitis B. Scientists testing this vaccine inserted specific antigens into bakers bread and the yeast reproduced the antigens allowing them to collect more. Doctors and scientists are currently testing similar techniques to treat hepatitis C. Toxoid vaccines are used when a toxic bacteria is concerned. When the body is introduced to the toxoid created in a lab (harmless to the body) it learns to fight it off, creating an immune response. The body produces antigens that lock onto and block the toxoid. These vaccines have been used to treat diphtheria and tetanus. Conjugate vaccines are used to fight against bacterium with a polysaccharide coating. Many harmful bacteria have this coating, and the immune system, especially those of infants and young children, do not recognize it immediately, allowing the body to become sick. These vaccines are administered in small doses so the immature immune system becomes familiar with these bacteria and learns to fight it. When being made, scientists use antigens and microbes of the bacteria that the body will recognize and be able to fight. Haemophilus influenza type B (Hib) is a conjugate vaccine. Many people have recently been refusing to get their children, or themselves, vaccinated. Their theories about vaccines are wrong. For example, many people believe that if other people are getting vaccinated, then they don't need to be. Skipping vaccinations can put children or babies at risk for possibly fatal diseases. In order for vaccines to work, there needs to be a certain number of people vaccinated. Scientists estimate that, "Unfortunately, the level of immunization required to prevent diseases such as measles from spreading from child to child is high as 95 percent." (Thomas Saari, M.d., Wisconsin Medical School) With many people refusing to vaccinate themselves and their children, there is not enough people vaccinated to provide "herd immunity." Approximately 80% of elementary school children are vaccinated. Though many people believe that because major likenesses are rarely seen in America anymore we don't need vaccines, that is a very dangerous misconception. Though for the most part major disease such as polio are not seen anymore, many America communities still have outbreaks of disease such as pertussis and other respiratory diseases. The goal of vaccinatons is to prevent the spread of infectious diseases such as measles and mumps. They protect the public health. When vaccines first became prevalent we saw the eradication of disease like polio. Vaccinations provided protect against diseases that can lead to other serious health complications, and even death. These diseases include rotavirus, hep B, pneumococcal, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, hep A, varicella, meningococcal, and influenza. As with any medication, vaccinations can cause a minor reaction like redness or soreness or a low grade fever. None of these side effects result in long term damage, only discomfort for a few days. Professionals have stated that "the proven preventive benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks of the minimal side effects associated with them." Vaccinations have been proven to be 90-100% of infections, and people who are 100% immune protect those with weaker systems. Many say that because we have eradicated many disease through vaccines, there is no need for immunizations. This misconception can cost lives, as those diseases are gone because of immunizations. Another myth people have about vaccines is that there is a connection between vaccinations and autism. People say the MMR vaccine contains thimerosal, a chemical that causes the brain disorder. In fact, the MMR virus has never contained thimerosal, and neither have the vaccines for chicken pox or inactive polio. If these vaccines were not administered we would see a rise in diseases that can be contagious and fatal. Though you say you receive vaccines and still get sick afterwards there is no way you do. It is impossible. Let's take the flu virus for example. The flu vaccine is an inactive immunization, so there are antigens from the virus in it. The sick feeling you may get after a shot is only the body fighting the vaccine after being introduced to it. That feeling is only your immune system growing stronger and protecting you but also the people you sit next to and the person you see on the bus or the person who gives you change at a convenience store. Vaccinations are necessary. They may seem like they do nothing because we do not see diseases like polio anymore but we don't see those anymore because we have vaccines. If we didn't have vaccines, we would see an uncontrollable rise in disease and death.