Question: Should any vaccines be required for children?

Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: See above.

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

Title: Mandatory childhood vaccination Content: 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.

Title: should kids be vaccinated Content: 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

Title: Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Content: 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...

Title: Make Vaccination Compulsory Content: Duty to protect the child

Title: Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Content: 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.

Title: Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines. Content: I would like to address two things before I really get into the argument. 1. Yes I was using necessary to mean "required by public schools" 2. I don't think I have 100% BOP because I'm arguing against the current accepted policies. However I would agree I have more BOP then pro does. Most likely 60-40 I will now debunk all of you're contentions. -Contention 1 There isn't really much to debunk here you basically just pointed out that most places allow religious exemptions. Just because most places allow it doesn't make it correct. -Contention 2 Yes it's true that there are ingredients that can violate the parents religious convictions. However when you are talking about getting first graders vaccinated, it's irrelevant. Because first grader don't have a religion. They have whatever there parents tell them they have. A first grader hasn't but any thought into it. He's whatever his parents tell him to be. However my bigger issue with it, is that I don't think the religion of the parents of one kid should be allowed to endanger the health of all the other kids in that school. You address this later in your argument saying something along the lines of " If my kid doesn't get vaccinated it doesn't matter if your kid is. The issue with this is that vaccines are not 100% effective. They work very well and everyone should get them, but sometimes they fail. So if one kid doesn't get vaccinated because his parents don't want him to and he gets say chicken pox, well he is a danger to other kids even if they have there vaccination because if the vaccination they got didn't work, well now that kid has gotten someone else sick because his parents don't personally like that vaccination. However even that isn't my biggest issue with religious exemption. My biggest issue is that parents are legally allowed to put there kid's health in danger because they personally don't like what's in the vaccine. If the parents don't want to get there kids the measles vaccine because they're religion doesn't like it and the kid gets measles then the parents religion put the child in danger. ColeTrain would you honest say that parents should be allow to risk getting there five and six year old children getting sick and even possibly dying all because the parents don't like it. It's the same reason i don't think faith healing should be allowed. Because the parents religion can't be used as a justification to put a child in danger. -Contention 3 You say religious exemption is protected under the first amendment. Well I disagree. Here is why. The first amendment protection is only when religion doesn't conflict with other peoples freedom or harm others. As I showed above not vaccinating your kid puts that kid and others around him in danger. So your religion is harming others and so is not protected under the first amendment. - Contention 4 Yes it's true vaccines can cause side effects. For most people it doesn't but it can. I am in favor of medical exemptions. If getting a vaccine poses a significant risk to a kids health and safety then yes they can be exempted. However that is rare and for everyone else they should get vaccinated. Also you bring up the vaccine and autism link. This has been disproved many times and in fact the author of that study lost his medical license and got thrown in jail because the study was so bad. So that's invalid. -Contention 5 I have addressed everything in this argument. But I will address one thing. You say that if people accept the risks then let them take them. However this doesn't work because we are talking about kids. So the parents are not the one who are taking the risk. They are forcing there kids sometimes as young as six to accept life threatening risks. If a adult doesn't want to get vaccinated I don't care. However parent forcing little kids to take life threatening risks is unacceptable and should not be allowed. So I think I have debunked all of your points I would like you respond to my points I made.

Title: Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Content: 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.

Title: Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines. Content: Due to the character limit of 10,000 characters, simply refuting my opponent's case (as it is quite short) would take up very little space. As such, I will go ahead and defend my points. Please note that this doesn't give any advantage to me, but actually allows my opponent to refute my arguments in the next round. Thus, this allows more debate without imposing any unfair advantage to either opponent. -- I will begin with my opponent's case, and then move on to my own.Observations:1. "Required by public schools" will remain.2. I also agree you don't have full BoP. I explained this. 60-40 sounds fair, if that's how my opponent wishes to distribute it.However, it would be typical for the full weight to rest on my opponent, as he is promoting a shift from the status quo. Argument I: "I think that if kids are required to get vaccines that there shouldn't be religious exemptions."1. My gives not logical reasoning behind his argument for this point.2. Religious exemptions should be permitted, as I have and will demonstrate.Argument II: "The parents risk getting their kids seriously sick for there personal beliefs."1. It is a parent's job to do what they see best for their children.2. Their job description is as follows: "Fill bellies, maintain home, cradle, protect, teach, guide, listen, empathize, communicate, accept, trust, check up on, love, discipline, role model, doctor, clean and wash, (and then clean and wash some more) tolerate . . . and enjoy." [1]3. They are the parent and subsequently have the authority to do what they feel is best for their children. If they feel that vaccinations are uneccesary for religious reasons, it is their choice.4. The correct use of "there" would be "their" in the context of the sentence my opponent used. [2]With my opponent's case refuted, I will move to my own, and his arguments against it.Contention I: Religious exemption is already permitted."There isn't really much to debunk here you basically just pointed out that most places allow religious exemptions. Just because most places allow it doesn't make it correct."1. Given that it is of a majority accepted lends evidence towards the idea that it *should* be accepted.2. My opponent proves nothing with his argument and uses no evidence. Thus, we remain with the only side that provided an argument. (Pro)3. I have and will demonstrate in other contentions as to how exemption should be permitted, and there should not be a change to the status quo.Contention II: Some vaccinations contain components which can violate religious beliefs."Yes it's true that there are ingredients that can violate the parents religious convictions. However when you are talking about getting first graders vaccinated, it's irrelevant. Because first grader don't have a religion. They have whatever there parents tell them they have. A first grader hasn't but any thought into it. He's whatever his parents tell him to be."1. My opponent concedes that these vaccinations violate religious freedom, whether of the parent or the child.2. My opponent earlier agreed that the resolution should refer to what is "required by public school." By default, this would include every grades from kindergarten to senior year.3. Individuals are capable of choosing their religion in a majority of those grades.4. Moreover, children are often products of their environment. Logic demonstrates that, on general, if the parent is religious, the child will be religious as well.5. Parental guidance is necessary to help children grow and mature. Teens, and even children aren't fully matured until they are older. [3][4] Thus, parents can and should guide their children based on their beliefs (including religion)."However my bigger issue with it, is that I don't think the religion of the parents of one kid should be allowed to endanger the health of all the other kids in that school. You address this later in your argument saying something along the lines of " If my kid doesn't get vaccinated it doesn't matter if your kid is. The issue with this is that vaccines are not 100% effective. They work very well and everyone should get them, but sometimes they fail. So if one kid doesn't get vaccinated because his parents don't want him to and he gets say chicken pox, well he is a danger to other kids even if they have there vaccination because if the vaccination they got didn't work, well now that kid has gotten someone else sick because his parents don't personally like that vaccination."1. My oppnent has yet to mention a single instance in which religious exemption has resulted in getting other children fatally sick.2. My opponent also concedes that vaccines are not 100% effective, and that they sometimes fail.3. My opponent has only established a correlation between sickenss and non-vaccination, but has not linked the cause to religious exemption.4. Because of the lack of examples supporting his/her reasoning, you would vote for the status quo (including religious exemption)."However even that isn't my biggest issue with religious exemption. My biggest issue is that parents are legally allowed to put there kid's health in danger because they personally don't like what's in the vaccine. If the parents don't want to get there kids the measles vaccine because they're religion doesn't like it and the kid gets measles then the parents religion put the child in danger. ColeTrain would you honest say that parents should be allow to risk getting there five and six year old children getting sick and even possibly dying all because the parents don't like it. It's the same reason i don't think faith healing should be allowed. Because the parents religion can't be used as a justification to put a child in danger."1. My opponent has not established the link between correlation and causation.2. Correlation =/= Causation3. Thus, my opponent cannot continue to say that religious exemption has *any* effect on others getting sick.4. Most religious individuals who decline vaccinations either believe in divine healing or still go to the doctor to treat diseases.5. Putting children at risk does not fit into this model if the children are actually still treated at the doctor or believe in divine healing already.6. His claim that I support putting 5-6 year olds in danger is totally bogus. I support divine healing, but these people also sometimes go to doctors. Moreover, it is not only 5-6 year olds that are affected. Net benefit is utilitarian, and thus, so is my position.Contention III: Religious exemption is protected under the US Constitution."You say religious exemption is protected under the first amendment. Well I disagree. Here is why. The first amendment protection is only when religion doesn't conflict with other peoples freedom or harm others. As I showed above not vaccinating your kid puts that kid and others around him in danger. So your religion is harming others and so is not protected under the first amendment."1. My opponent cites no interpretation except his own.2. I provided my interpretation, backed by Cornell University.3. The first amendment protects the free exercise or religion. Prohibiting that in any manner is an infringement on individual rights.Contention IV: Vaccinations aren't totally safe."Yes it's true vaccines can cause side effects. For most people it doesn't but it can. I am in favor of medical exemptions. If getting a vaccine poses a significant risk to a kids health and safety then yes they can be exempted. However that is rare and for everyone else they should get vaccinated. Also you bring up the vaccine and autism link. This has been disproved many times and in fact the author of that study lost his medical license and got thrown in jail because the study was so bad. So that's invalid."1. My opponent concedes; vaccinations do cause side effects and aren't totally safe.2. Medical exemption is irrelevant. This debate is about religious exemption. Presenting a counterplan in the Pro position, in the 2nd round, is not allowed.3. I was only referencing the RETRACTED study to show that there have been studies conducted about the topic.Contention V: Flawed arguments envelop anti-exemption."I have addressed everything in this argument. But I will address one thing. You say that if people accept the risks then let them take them. However this doesn't work because we are talking about kids. So the parents are not the one who are taking the risk. They are forcing there kids sometimes as young as six to accept life threatening risks. If a adult doesn't want to get vaccinated I don't care. However parent forcing little kids to take life threatening risks is unacceptable and should not be allowed."1. As I've said before, it is the parents moral and social responsibility to care for and guide their children as they see fit.2. If religious exemption is what the parents see best fit for their child, then that is what should happen.3. As I have demonstrated multiple times, in multiple ways, religious exemption should be permitted.Conclusion:I have explicitly demonstrated both moral and pragmatic grounds to preserve religous exemption in regards to vaccinations for students attending public schools. Thus, I have fulfilled my burden of proof and upheld my side of the resolution.Sources:[1] http://www.easternflorida.edu...[2] http://wsuonline.weber.edu...[3] http://hrweb.mit.edu...[4] http://www.livescience.com...

Title: should kids be vaccinated Content: 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.

Title: Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Content: 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...

Title: Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines. Content: My opponent has forfeited again. All of my points from R3 stand unrefuted.

Title: Vaccines should be mandatory Content: Extend

Title: vaccinating children must be a law Content: 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.

Title: Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines. Content: My opponent has violated good conduct by forfeiting, extend all arguments.

Title: Why parents should immunized or Vaccinated they're kids Content: 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

Title: A child has a human right to be protected from preventable diseases from birth Content: 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.

Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: 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.

Title: Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. Content: "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

Title: Mandatory Childhood Vaccines Content: 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.

Title: State-mandated administration of childhood vaccines is justified. Content: 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.

Title: Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. Content: 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.

Title: Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines. Content: My opponent is not required to follow the debate structure, but without the structure I provided, there is no structure.Argument 1:1. I didn't realize this wasn't an argument.2. It was phrased as an argument.3. Other than that sentence, my opponent has provided no original arguments, only refutations to my arguments.4. This means that my opponent did not provide a case.Argument 2: 1. On balance, parents do what they feel best for their children.2. Because adults sometimes do crazy things, does that mean they shouldn't have children? No.3. The children, of majority in grades 9-12, can usually be established in a religion the same as their parents. This gives the the majority the right to religious exemption.4. My opponent has not cited any source backing his claim of a supposed "giant outbreak," nor has he proven the correlation - causation model I introduced in the last round.Contention 1:1. It doesn't necessarily prove it's right, but that it's accepted in society.2. It can give hints that it's right.3. My opponent's example doesn't align with the topic at hand.4. Segregation and slavery refer to bondage or discrimination of people of different races. Religious exemption is a way to defer and prevent discrimination against religions.Contention 2:1. I said that most kids could choose a religion.2. This debate has no ties to a debate I completed earlier.3. My views from that debate, however, do align.4. This debate refers to parents giving religious exemption to their children for vaccinations. By default, this is the parents making the decision. This is the same as parents making the medical decision for their children.5. I can make my own arguments regardless of the time. Using other debates against me is a form of misconduct as well as irrelevant to the debate at hand.6. Not everyone gets the same shots at school. Religious exemption exists.Contention 2 (part 2):1. You say it's simple, but you have yet to explain how.2. If the majority of kids at school are vaccinated, that, by definition, protects them from the viruses.3. By this logic, the only individuals to contract the diseases would be the ones NOT vaccinated, which is for religious exemption.4. You mentioned a great outbreak earlier, but failed to provide evidence to back your claim. It is thus irrelevant.5. Personal attacks (ad hominem) are not good arguments. Questioning my ability to dress myself because of my implied stupidity is a fantastic example of ad hominem and misconduct.6. What I am arguing with this point is that vaccinations aren't perfect anyways, so religious exemption does little to change the effect of the viruses. The virus can be contracted either way, but with religious exemption, religious freedom is protected and preserved.7. Cancer treatment is NOT 100% effective, contrary to what my opponent stated. [1] (I think it was simply a mistake)Contention 2 (part 3):1. I never said it can't lead to a child getting sick.2. Faith healing has worked, I've experienced it myself. (However, this is not relevant to the debate)Contention 3:1. My opponents example is extreme and misinterprets my argument.2. As my opponents example obviously is detrimental to my family and I, religious exemption is different. It is not an action, but refraining from an action. 3. Moreover, my opponent has yet to prove that religious exemption causes an outbreak of sickness, or even to establish a strong correlation between the two.4. Furthermore, religious exemption (contrary to my opponent's example) doesn't harm other people's individual human rights.5. I did "try again"Dropped Arguments:My opponent has dropped the following arguments:1. That vaccinations aren't safe2. That anti-vaccination arguments are enveloped by flaws.He/she has also not proved that there is any relationship between religious exemption and the widespread outbreak of sickness in the modern day. He/she has only presented a possibility. Possibilities aren't fact, and can't be proven. Until my opponent can prove that there exists logical and factual grounds to change the status quo, he/she has not fulfilled the BoP that rests on their side.Furthermore, I presented the model of correlation and causation. My opponent has yet to establish a logical correlation, which also means there has been no causation proven either. If religious exemption isn't correlated to sickness, there is no grounds to remove it. If there is no causation of religious exemption to that correlation, there is still no grounds to remove it. Until my opponent establishes BOTH of these links, we must remain with the status quo.Sources:[1] http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com...

Title: Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Content: 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.

Title: should kids be vaccinated Content: 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...

Title: Not getting children vaccinated Content: 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.

Title: Vaccines can cause autism and other problems Content: I do not believe that vaccines should be banned. I do believe that they should not be mandatory and that each parent should choose wether they have their kid vaccinated or not. Most of the time vaccines do not cause harm to people. But sometimes they do. Everyone has different body types. Every body will react differently to vaccines. Most people will not be harmed by them but because some people will be hurt or even killed by them, vaccines shouldn't be mandatory.

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

Title: Vaccinations (mandatory/ disbursemenet) Content: Vaccinations should not be mandatory, because of peoples religious beliefs. Many people hold religious beliefs against vaccination, forcing parents to vaccine their children would violate the first amendment, which is the freedom to exercise their religion. Vaccines interfere with the natural law and God's plan for humanity. Disease is natural and humans should not interfere with it. The ethical dilemmas associated with using human tissue cells to create vaccines. Also people believe that the body is sacred, it should not receive certain chemicals or blood of tissues from animals, and should be healed by God or natural means. www.vaccines.procon.orgwww.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/cultural-perspectives-vaccinations-cultural

Title: Vaccinating your Child Content: I personally believe that vaccinating children is a normal and highly beneficial procedure, however in recent years the subject of the safety of vaccines has become controversial. I challenge anybody who disagrees with my view to debate with me on the topic.

Title: It's time to put pompous parents in their place Content: One of the big issues being discussed at middle-class, 30-something house parties today is the matter of the combined MMR jab. (1) There is a suggestion that this vaccination of children should be made compulsory. It is a suggestion that I happen to agree with and I said so at a dinner party last night. On hearing this, one of the guests (who I know has a couple of young children) turned round to me and asked in a very aggressive tone "Do you have kids?" To which I replied "Well, no..." But before I could continue he very rudely interrupted me and said "Right! Well you don't know what you are talking about then." This is a phrase I hear time and again, and not just in relation to childcare issues. Recently, some friends and I were discussing the role gravity plays in sub-atomic particle physics and I suggested that, being a relatively weak force, gravity's influence on the interaction of nuclei, protons and electrons was so slight as to be considered insignificant. At this point a yummy mummy piped up and told me that her young Timmy had to be rushed to hospital after having an accident at an adventure playground. "Gravity 'a weak force'?" she scoffed, "If your son fell off a climbing frame and cracked his head open you wouldn't think so. But of course, you don't have kids so you don't know what you're talking about." Was she right or was she being pompous? I think the latter which is why, if I am curious about scientific matters, I tend not not approach mental retards such as Karen Matthews (2) for their expert opinion. But perhaps I should. After all, by the yummy mummy's reasoning, being childless* I am must be a blithering idiot. On the other hand Karen Matthews, with an IQ of 74 and the mother of seven children by six different fathers, must a be a veritable fountain of knowledge. However, I think not. In conclusion, being a parent doesn't make that person in any way intellectually superior to those individuals who decide to delay having kids until they are older. Thank you. (1) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk... (2) http://www.timesonline.co.uk... * Don't worry ladies, it's by choice and only until I meet the right girl!

Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: 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.

Title: You choose the topic Content: 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.

Title: Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Content: Refutations You just now listed 3 sources with no links for the audience and me to make sure. I listed links so that you can check my sources. "My opponent has falsely accused me, and should therefore have conduct points graded off. " This is completely ridiculous. You're the one who is screaming by writing in caps, I did most certainly not "falsely accuse" you, and you only listed these sources now. You insulted me by calling me a hypocrite. "another false accusation: "I bet you didn't want ANYONE to know you were even plagarizing! " Well, I mean, why didn't you bother citing your source? Citing your source is a good thing! But those were not your words and it was complete plagarism. "completely irrelevant to the question. " Is this honestly your response? If everyone was vaccinated, then no one would be dramatically effected by any of these dangerous diseases. You gave no refutation and this point stands. "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. " What are you talking about? There was no contradiction and no refutation here. You even said "coincidence? " You have no evidence to back up this point. "You cannot save lives that are already lost. " Vaccines didn't exist back then. If they vaccines back then, then those lives would have been saved and people could have lived much longer. "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. " That number is extremely big for a disease. Vaccines do work. That's why all those deaths have been stopping. "This amount of deaths is because we are too reliant on vaccinations! " No. .. Vaccines prevent many illnesses and prevent deaths as well. .. How does it make any sense that vaccines would cause that much damage? ". .. [vaccinations]can cause many deaths, not because it isn't used for some people, but because it is used by the majority. .. " - Dr. James Marswell Are you kidding me? Everyone, type this name in Google. The guy doesn't even exist and the argument isn't even thoroughly explained! "How is one person not being vaccinated a risk to others? If they are vaccinated, they should not be in danger! " Once again, one person contracting a disease can spread it to more and more people through germs. Vaccinated people can still catch it, but they will have smaller symptoms. "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! " You listed 3. In the final round. If you even have been looking at my argument, I have given numerous sources. Copying arguments word for word without citing them is plagiarism. "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. " This is more complicated things and is irrelevant to the matter at hand. "They will not have better defense against it and will be affected as much, if not greater, according to the study I quoted above. " Fake study. Never sourced. No website. They will be affected a little less, according to the site you plagiarized from. "If they are helpful, they are a good way to help prevent sicknesses! That doesn't mean that it should be mandatory. " People will not take vaccines if they are optional. But vaccines are good for everyone. You need to take them so that your body will be benefited and there will be good. "For these reasons, I have clearly won this debate. " Obviously, I disagree. You had poorer conduct by constantly using caps, meaning you are shouting, you plagiarized from sites, and you insulted me. Spelling and grammar was okay. I saw a few errors, but I guess that's okay. Arguments are poor and will soon be refuted. Sources is what I dominated in, seeing as I listed more and you only mentioned yours in the last round. Refutations of CON Main Arguments 1. My opponent has stated that people have religious rights and should be allowed to not be vaccinated. This is a very ignorant move. They are putting their entire society at risk of contracting a virus or disease and putting everyone's lives at stake if there is a life-threatening disease. I have never heard that it is a sin to take a vaccine and my opponent has never explained this. 2. Vaccines can be harmful. No, this is wrong, vaccines saves many lives and prevents many diseases. The vaccine causes more benefit compared to the harm done and helps many people in the world right now. It has prevented disease breakouts and we know lives are safe. These are the main arguments that I got from the Opposition. Proposition's Arguments 1. The vaccine is good for everyone. It has saved lives, stopped diseases, and helped everyone. Not taking it means you are missing out on something very good. Many people have died before vaccines were invented and when they were, all those deaths dropped a huge amount. 2. People who are un-vaccinated can obtain harmful diseases and spread it to their families and friends who will suffer because of ignorance. You are putting everyone at risk and you should not be doing so.

Title: vaccinating children must be a law Content: This is awkward

Title: Not getting children vaccinated Content: 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!

Title: Children should be vaccinated Content: 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.

Title: Should doctors be aloud to give you vaccines Content: Medical exemptions These are allowed when a child has a medical condition or allergy that may make receiving the vaccine dangerous. All 50 states allow medical exemptions. For school entry purposes, these exemptions require a physician's note supporting the medical necessity of the exemption. Religious exemptions These are allowed when immunizations are not in agreement with the parents' religious beliefs. Forty-eight of the 50 states allow these exemptions. Philosophical exemptions These are allowed when non-religious, but strongly held beliefs, prevent a parent from allowing their child to be immunized. Twenty states allow these exemptions. In certain situations an exemption can be challenged by the state. These situations include those that would put the child at a higher risk of disease than is reasonable (medical neglect) or those that would put society at risk (e.g., epidemic situations). Also, in some states, if an unvaccinated child is found to transmit a vaccine-preventable disease to someone else, the parents may be liable in a civil suit. Because vaccines are considered medically necessary (except in the medical cases mentioned above), they are considered to be "best-care" practices. Therefore, if parents choose not to immunize their children, doctors will often have them sign a statement that they have discussed the risks and benefits of the vaccines and they understand that they are taking a risk in refusing vaccines for their children. Risking disease Many people incorrectly assume that a choice not to get a vaccine is a risk-free choice. But it isn't. The choice not to get a vaccine is a choice to risk the disease that the vaccine prevents. Studies have shown that unimmunized children are more likely to get vaccine-preventable diseases if there is an outbreak than those who have been immunized. Unimmunized children will be barred from school during an outbreak to protect them from the disease. Here are some things to consider before making a decision not to immunize a child: Vaccines are considered the best way to protect your child against diseases that could cause liver damage, liver cancer, suffocation, meningitis, pneumonia, paralysis, lockjaw, seizures, brain damage, deafness, blindness, mental retardation, learning disabilities, birth defects, encephalitis or death. Vaccines are studied extensively for their safety before being recommended for children and continue to be monitored after recommendation (see How Are Vaccines Made?). Because vaccines are given to healthy children, they are held to the highest standards of safety. Vaccines are considered by some to be a civic duty because they create "herd immunity." This means that when most of the people in a community are immunized, there is less opportunity for a disease to enter the community and make people sick. Because there are members of our society that are too young, too weak, or otherwise unable to receive vaccines for medical reasons, they rely on "herd immunity" to keep them well. Harm to others There are four ways that others in the community may be harmed by a parent's decision not to immunize their child: If the unimmunized child gets a preventable disease, he or she may pass that disease to other unimmunized people in the community. Even when people are immunized, there is always a small percentage of them for whom the vaccine did not work or their immunity has waned; so these people will also be at increased risk if an unimmunized child gets a preventable disease. If a person cannot receive vaccines for medical reasons, they rely on those around them for protection from the diseases. Families that have received vaccines and contract a vaccine-preventable disease from an unimmunized person will need to pay the medical costs incurred by the disease. Treatment for the diseases cost much more than the vaccines, so the unimmunized child's family or society will bear these costs. Those who choose not to immunize their child may be considered to be "free riders" by those who have immunized their children. For example, a mother whose son recently experienced a severe bout with pertussis was angry that other children in the classroom were not immunized. In discussing vaccine safety as the reason that many parents give for not wanting to immunize, she wondered why their children should be protected by herd immunity when her child and all of the other immunized children bore the small risk of side effects. In addition, she wondered why she wasn't made aware that so many of the children in the school weren't immunized due to personal beliefs. She concluded by saying, "Had I known . . .I would never have enrolled him in that school." BACK TO TOP Requirements versus recommendations Are requirements and recommendations the same thing? No. Recommendations made by the CDC are based on health and safety considerations. Requirements, on the other hand, are laws made by each state government determining which vaccines a child must have before entering school. To use an example, consider smoking. Experts tell us that smoking is bad for our health, but it is still our choice whether we smoke or not; that is like a recommendation. In contrast, no-smoking laws prohibit people from smoking in certain places and vary from state to state; this is similar to a requirement. It is important to remember that even if a vaccine is not required, it may be the best health choice. Talk to your doctor about vaccines that are available and whether they are important for you or a loved one to receive. BACK TO TOP Vaccine recommendations and package inserts I understand that the information included with a vaccine sometimes differs from more commonly available information. Can you explain why? While a package insert provides information about the vaccine, it is important to realize that it is being provided by the company and, therefore, has legal requirements that must be followed in its preparation. During the development of a vaccine, safety studies are completed by comparing a group of people who received the vaccine to a group of people who did not, called the placebo group. If a side effect occurs more times in the vaccine group, it may be a result of the vaccine. However, the company, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), must report any side effects that occurred in the vaccine group, even if the number of occurrences was similar to those in the placebo group. All of these side effects are then listed in the package insert. Groups that make recommendations about vaccines to healthcare professionals, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), don't use the same criteria as the FDA to determine whether a side effect is caused by vaccines. When these groups make recommendations, they review the data in the context of whether a particular side effect occurs significantly more often in the vaccine group than the placebo group. If it does, these side effects are listed in educational materials to physicians. For this reason, the number of side effects listed in the package insert is much greater than that listed by the CDC and AAP. https://www.chop.edu...

Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: 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.

Title: Why parents should immunized or Vaccinated they're kids Content: 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.

Title: Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Content: 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.

Title: Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Content: "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.

Title: Mandatory Childhood Vaccines Content: A very good point you have made but if you realize these mandatory vaccines include a wide variety of vaccines include a wide variety of "disease preventers" so yes although some of the diseases are uncommon safety must always be considered. I hate using what it's but what if a family from Africa moved next door and they carried a rare disease you are not vaccinated against, then you have a high chance of contacting that disease. My opponent also mentions that vaccines pose dangerous threats against human life (and I want to mention the theory that vaccines cause autism has been disproven), the chance of getting a life threatening condition is much slimmer than getting the affects of an actual disease such as polio or smallpox which are highly life threatening and painful. A few arguments I shall pose are milder affects because I know a large portion of people feel like vaccinations don't 100% protect people from the disease they create milder affects so the difference between a fever and death.

Title: Vaccines should not be mandatory. Content: They are a waste of time and money.

Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: I know I lost already... I just felt so bad that no one accepted, so I will try my best. Despite causation and correlation, I believe that vaccines shouldn't be given. The amount of autistic kids have increased, while the amount of vaccinations have also increased. Please read my comment (first one) which follows this argument.

Title: vaccinating children must be a law Content: Well now I just agree with you.

Title: Mandatory Childhood Vaccines Content: 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.

Title: vaccinating children must be a law Content: 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.

Title: Unvaccinated children should be home-schooled Content: 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. 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. 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.

Title: Parents Should Vaccinate Their Children Content: PrefaceI've talked with several people recently about a trend among parents not to vaccinate their children. Personally, I find this trend to be alarming, and view the decision to not vaccinate a child to be morally reprehensible. I would therefore like to debate this issue, to air my feelings on the subject. There is a 48 hours response time on this debate, so please bear that in mind prior to accepting. Full TopicOn balance, parents have a moral obligation to vaccinate their children. TermsOn balance - means in general and after weighing all the available evidence. Vaccine - 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, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease. Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling or semantics6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. The BOP is shared8. Pro must go first and must waive in the final round9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Constructive CasesR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4. Pro defends Pro's Case and Crystallizes, Con defends Con's Case and CrystallizesThanks.

Title: State-mandated administration of childhood vaccines is justified. Content: 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

Title: Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines. Content: As he as not specified a structure for the debate, I'll do my best to do so in a fair and common manner. Round 1: Con's CaseRound 2: Pro's Case, Con's RebuttalsRound 3: Pro's Rebuttals, Con's Defense & RebuttalsRound 4: Pro's Defense & Rebuttals Con's Closing StatementsRound 5: Pro's Closing Statements, Con (ends debate)With that in mind, I'd like to move to some housekeeping, particularly in regards to the resolution. The resolution is quite wordy and slightly incoherent. I'll try to reword the definition in a manner that both preserves the context and intent of the instigator but that also is more coherent and effective. Hopefully my opponent will agree to the stipulations, as the implications of the two resolutions are quite frankly the same. Resolved: Religious exemption of necessary vaccinations should be permitted. As Con, my opponent, the instigator is negating this notion, arguing that there shouldn't be exemptions for vaccinations based on religious beliefs. As Pro, I will be arguing the converse; that religious exemption should be accepted and permitted. The burden of proof, or BoP, will rest primarily upon Pro to affirm the resolution and exemplify why a change to the status quo (e. g. disallowing religious exemptions) is better than allowing it. My primary duty will be to negate these arguments. However, for the sake of balancing the BoP, I will also provide a case of my own, open to scrutiny by my opponent, to give a more equal balance to the BoP in the debate. Definitions:Vaccinate: "medical : to give (a person or an animal) a vaccine to prevent infection by a disease" [1]Religious exemption: "The religious exemption is granted based on the U. S. Constitution First Amendment right to freely hold and exercise religious beliefs. " [2]Necessary: "absolutely needed"With those items out of the way, I will present my case. Observations:I would like to note that my opponent has used the word necessary to define the vaccinations of which he/she believes should be utilized regardless of religion. It is imperative to realize that my opponent has not stipulated how this word should be interpreted. As it is highly subjective, it is quite difficult to perceive exactly what my opponent intended. However, for the purpose of this debate (and that my opponent mentioned parents), we will simplify this word to mean the following: any vaccination *required* to attend a public school. This focuses the resolution towards children and more definitively interprets necessary. Contention I: Religious exemption is already permitted. In various states, and actually a majority, religious exemption for vaccinations are already permitted. [4] [5]A change from the status quo would subsequently require a policy change. As the current policies are already in place, it is evident that the majority of states accept the religious reasoning behind denying vaccinations. It has been accepted in the past, and should thus be accepted and permitted now. Moreover, there are instances which support the idea of religious exemption. For example, a women in New York won the right to not vaccinate her son, based on religious convictions. [8] This is another example of how religious exemption is already accepted and permitted. Contention II: Some vaccinations contain components which can violate religious beliefs. It is fact that the vaccinations themselves, and their components could violate religious beliefs. For example, some religions (such as Jews and Muslims) do not condone the consumption of pig. [6] It is also fact that some vaccinations that could be deemed *necessary* contain forms of pig. [7]Forcing individuals to vaccinate their children with vaccines that are derived from organisms which violate religious convictions of the parents and/or the children themselves is a direct and specific example of an infringement on religious freedom. Contention III: Religious exemption is protected under the US Constitution. The First Amendment of the Constitution shows the government cannot prohibit the exercise of a religion. [9] This means that the government cannot make a law interfering or prohibiting the exercise of a religion. [10] In regards to vaccinations, the free exercise clause allows exemption from vaccinations. Former editor-in-chief of USA Today explains, "the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment mandates state accommodation for members of religious groups who object to the vaccinations on religious grounds. The free-exercise argument follows the logic that requiring children to perform an action (in this case to receive a vaccination) that is abhorrent to their religious beliefs and/or practices places a significant and undue burden on their free-exercise rights. " [11]Because the constitution allows a free exercise of religion, and exemption is neutral and not favoring a religious establishment, permitting religious exemptions is the most pragmatic option. Contention IV: Vaccinations aren't totally safe. Religious reasons for denying vaccinations is quite widespread. One of those reasons is also safety. Beyond moral convictions, these stretch to safety, and how they could harm the body. The Institute of Medicine admits, "Vaccines are not free from side effects, or “adverse effects. " [12] Moreover, the link of MMR autism suggested in 1998 isn't the only thing parents should be worried about. Many vaccinations aren't totally safe. [13] For religious reasons, parents do not want to put their children in danger. As there is a possibility, this is another reason to permit religious exemption. Contention V: Flawed arguments envelop anti-exemption. Many people opposed to the idea of religious exemption claim that most religions don't hold the view that vaccinations are unacceptable. However, religious exemption goes further than the base "religion" itself. Pro-life activist Eric Schleidler explains, "You can have a more scrupulous moral position than the official teaching of the church. " [14] This is very true. As vaccine laws sometimes require an explanation [2], this religious moral position even moreso dictates we accept and permit religious exemption. Another argument is that it's always too easy to get religious exemptions. However, more and more states are tightening the law in this regard, making it more difficult and more explanatory to receive religious exemption. [14] Instead of abolishing it altogether, tightening the existing policies is more effective at a) protecting liberty and religious freedom, and b) protecting utilitarian health. Furthermore, there exists arguments that religious exemption is a major health hazard. While vaccinations have considerably helped curb diseases our society once suffered, the exemptions we have don't pose as large a threat as propaganda proclaims. With most individuals vaccinated, would that not prevent those individuals from contracting and being affected by the disease in the first place? If exempt people accept the risk (which they do) then why not let them? Further, there have not been near the hazards or outbreaks of which propaganda loves to exclaim. Conclusion:I have provided a host of arguments backing my position, showing the logical and moral reasons as to why religious exemption from vaccinations should be both accepted and permitted, thus fulfilling the resolution and effectively affirming it. Sources:[1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] . http://www.nvic.org...[3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4] . http://www.ncsl.org...[5] . http://www.pewresearch.org...[6] . http://www.themodernreligion.com...[7] . http://www.pewresearch.org...[8] . http://nypost.com...[9] . https://www.law.cornell.edu...[10] . https://www.law.cornell.edu...[11] . http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org...[12] . http://www.hrsa.gov...[13] . http://www.theguardian.com...[14] . http://www.chicagotribune.com...

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

Title: You Choose the Topic! Content: 1. Vaccines should be required for children 2. Felons should be allowed to vote 3. Animal testing 4. The voting age/drinking age/smoking age should be raised (choose whichever you want) 5. Make child marriage illegal in the U.S. (participants must be 18 or older) Extra: raise the age of majority

Title: Parents Should Vaccinate Their Children Content: Challenge Accepted! xD

Title: Parents Should Vaccinate Their Children Content: 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...

Title: Should doctors be aloud to give you vaccines Content: Con states, baselessly, that parents shouldn't be allowed to vaccinate their children because "they lead to autism." He provides zero evidence for this assertion. Note that he has the burden of proof. Moreover, he has dropped every single point I raised in the past round. Extend all of those points.

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

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

Title: There should not be Mandatory Vaccinations Content: 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.

Title: Vaccinations (mandatory/disbursement) Content: You say and I quote, " There runs the risk of death if a child is not presented with a vaccination," but there also runs a risk of the children dying from these vaccines that are now supposedly saving their lives. Your website cdc.gov also states that "A vaccine, like any medicine, could cause a serious reaction and the risk of a vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is small but not unheard of." So is that one life you say could be saved from spreading a disease worth the risk of them dying from the side effects of the so called life saving vaccination.

Title: Vaccines are a waste of time, money, and cause health problems. Content: 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!!!

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

Title: Mandatory Vaccinations Content: Vaccines should be mandatory.

Title: Mandatory vaccinations (for government services) Content: 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.

Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: 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.

Title: Parents Should Vaccinate Their Children Content: Thanks again to Con for the debate. I may quote him at times during my rebuttal, and so I will put his remarks in italics to distinguish them from my own.CON's CASE"I'm a 18 year old boy, perfectly fine, I've taken only 3 or 4 vaccines in my entire life, and I never had any serious problem whatsoever."This is a cherry-picking fallacy. Just because one person, or even because several people, can live perfectly good lives having taken no or few vaccines does not mean, as a general policy, that it is a good idea to not vaccinate yourself or your children. There are two reasons why this is true. Firstly, the severity of the danger (the risk of catching serious illnesses like measles, chickenpox, or polio) outweigh any supposed benefits to not vaccinating yourself. Even if the risk of catching those diseases is low, these diseases are so serious that it is not worth even taking a low risk of catching them. For instance, before vaccines, measles killed about 545,000 per year, chickenpox killed about 8,900, and polio killed about 3,000. [1, 2, 3] These disease can also severely injure those they don't kill, for example, polio can lead to irreversible paralysis. [4, 5]"In this world there's not right or wrong, there is just point of view. You say it's right to vaccinate, I say it's not, who it's really right?...So, you say that responsibility and obligations it's doing what everyone thinks it's correct, but maybe responsibility it's just freedom, doing what we believe, and not what everyone tells you to do."Pro makes a claim about moral relativism, but offers no philosophical framework or justification to ground his position, so as such, it is unsubstantiated. Moreover, Pro's position would invariably mean that we could never hold anyone accountable for anything because we do "what we believe, and not what everyone tells [us] to do." So, if I believe wantonly torturing people for fun is moral, or if I believed that throwing a baby into a pool and watching them drown is moral, then, according to Pro's logic, I would be justified in doing those things. But clearly, this type of reasoning would lead to a totally unworkable society--morality creates implicit norms of behavior designed to bring order to humanity's chaos, and, therefore, if we were to embrace what Pro is saying, we would subsequently divorce ourselves from morality. In other words, Pro's argument subverts morality, which is not something we should countenance in this debate.But, even if we allow that when things are subjective we should leave people to their own devices (perhaps a more reasonable/charitable interpretation of Con's assertions), then we should still obligate action when things are obvious. The effectiveness of vaccines is not, as Con suggests, an issue of opinion; it is an issue of scientific fact. The overwhelming volume of evidence supports the fact that they work, and because it is fact--not opinion--that they are in the best interests of the child, we can morally compel parents to immunize their children."Who could you say for sure, that vaccines always had been the decisive point of decrease in eradicating diseases."I never made the claim that vaccines were always the "decisive point," I merely claimed that they were significant contributors, and that the facts show them to be effective."From the 40 reasons why you should never vaccinate infants...there are some that I would like to reinforce, like the huge side effects that most of people are unaware of."First of all, you cannot just refer people to a source and tell them to read it themselves, as this could easily be regarded as an attempt to circumvent character limits. Secondly, that source is riddled with innaccuracies. Allow me to point out a couple:The Article Claims: "The mercury, aluminum and live viruses in vaccines is behind the huge epidemic of autism (1 in 10 worldwide as per doctors in the USA), a fact that has been admitted by the US Vaccine Court."Reality: "in the case of Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Case #98-916V), the battle over vaccine injuries moved into the courts. A panel of three special masters began hearing the first cases of the historic Omnibus Autism Proceedings in June 2007. The lead petitioners...claimed that Michelle's autism was caused by a vaccine...On February 12, 2009, the court ruled in three test cases that the combination of the MMR vaccine and thiomersal-containing vaccines were not to blame for autism." [6] In other like cases where the courts ruled in favor of the petitioners, they did not find that the vaccines were dangerous, rather, "the case was conceded without proof of causation." [6]The Article Claims: "Autistic children also suffer from severe bowel disorders. As per Dr Andrew Wakefield, this is due to the vaccine strain live measles virus in the MMR vaccine. Nearly all children become fully autistic after the MMR shot."Reality: "Andrew Jeremy Wakefield...is a British former surgeon and medical researcher, known for his fraudulent 1998 research paper in support of the now-discredited claim that there is a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the appearance of autism and bowel disease." [7]There are no citations in the article, and the article of one man, who, as the abovementioned falsities suggest, is merely grasping at straws to make his case, cannot outweigh legions of other scientist and their more credible findings. Moreover, the writer of the article isn't even a medical expert: "Chatterjee was once a journalist with a national English-language daily newspaper in India. He moved on to a public sector company, rising to be a regional director of the company." [8]As for the other sources Con cites, their credibility is equally dubious, and one even admits, "Since they were introduced in the early 20th century, vaccines have been a tremendous medical and scientific success. Today perceived as a necessity, they are so familiar to us that their potential risks are rarely mentioned." Besides, even if you buy that there is an outside risk of autism, the proven benefits of vaccines outweigh that chance.Thus, I affirm.SOURCES1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...4 - http://www.who.int...5 - http://www.ct.gov...6 - http://en.wikipedia.org...7 - http://en.wikipedia.org...8 - http://encyclopediaantivaccinemovement.blogspot.com...

Title: Children should be vaccinated Content: Children should not be vaccinated because vaccinations are not safe. The Ecowatch a website who concentrates on our economy and problems in the society stated in an article titled " CDC Knew Its Vaccine Program Was Exposing Children to Dangerous Mercury Levels Since 1999", "Uncovered documents show that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) knew that infant vaccines were exposing American children to mercury far in excess of all federal safety guidelines since 1999. The documents, created by a FDA consulting toxicologist, show how federal regulators concealed the dangerous impacts and lied to the public...In 1997, Congress passed the FDA Modernization Act. A provision of that statute required the FDA to "compile a list of drugs that contain intentionally introduced mercury compounds, and provide a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the mercury compounds on the list." In response, manufacturers reported the use of the mercury-based preservative, thimerosal, in more than 30 licensed vaccines...". Based on this article published in 2017, how do we know our children will be safe? If they have exposed our children once to dangerous chemicals, how do we know it will not happen again. This demonstrates the government does not care about our children, what are these vaccines really for? We are not experiments to simply test how many chemicals our body can intake, and neither are our children. Vaccines are not safe and neither are our children if we allow them to receive them. Kennedy, Robert. "CDC Knew Its Vaccine Program Was Exposing Children to Dangerous Mercury Levels Since 1999." EcoWatch, EcoWatch, 17 Apr. 2017, www.ecowatch.com/cdc-mercury-vaccines-kennedy-2199157054.html.

Title: Vaccination is a natural way to stimulate our immune system to fight a disease. Through vaccination... Content: Some vaccines include toxic materials such as chemicals including mercury, formaldehyde, aluminium, and a variety of other known toxic materials. Vaccines might be capable of causing recurrent infections in children because they weaken the immune system. Parents should have the right to choose on behalf of their children whether they should be vaccinated at all, or to choose vaccination against some diseases but not others.

Title: Vaccinations (mandatory/disbursement) Content: You say that we should not be allowed to risk the health of others according to religious views. But, 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

Title: should kids in public school be allowed to not get vaccines for religious reasons Content: I can't faceplam Hard enough. Yes vaccines used to have trace amounts of mercy. two things though 1. They don't anymore. All modern vaccines no longer have mercy. 2. Even when they did it was such a small amount you are literally getting more mercy from a can of tuna fish then all your childhood vaccines combined. So no they don't have mercy and they never had enough for any sort of harm. I'm going to link a short video that I want you to watch and respond to.

Title: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified Content: 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.

Title: vaccinating children must be a law Content: I don't really know what to say now...

Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: This debate is on whether or not children should receive vaccinations, and I am saying no.Voters think over it and vote . I strongly believe that students should not receive vacations

Title: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. Content: 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!

Title: Compulsory vaccines for everyone, except immunocompromised and contraindications. Content: Pro will keep this argument brief. Claim: Vaccines save lives. Warrant: "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." [1]. Warrant: "The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 2 million child deaths were prevented by vaccinations in 2003"[2]. Impact: Vaccination saves lives therefore as many people as possible should receive vaccines. It is clear that the resolution would save many lives and the benefit would greatly outweigh the cost. Links 1. http://www.usatoday.com... 2. http://www.cdc.gov...

Title: Mandatory Childhood Vaccines Content: 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.

Title: Parents Should Vaccinate Their Children Content: Well, in this round I'm gonna focus in the already given arguments and not try to go much further. So, let's recap. You say that whether and individual can have a perfect and healthy life until he dies, he should always take vaccines, because even if the danger is so low, "outweighs any supposed benefits to not vaccinating yourself". Well, you see, it's proved that vaccines have side effects, and I don't say this just because I saw one time in a questionable website, I say this because it's all over the web. http://www.activistpost.com... http://healthimpactnews.com... http://www.scientificamerican.com... http://articles.mercola.com... http://vactruth.com... Well, it may not cause autism, or any disease in particular, but the amount of information about it's side-effects must be put on the balance. I don't believe that every vaccine has side-effects, and that aren't good things attached, but I don't believe either that there is only good in this. Pharmaceutical industry is one of the most profitable business in the world. Millions of pills are made every year, and people are more and more sick. My father is a natural doctor, and I see that every day. How is this possible? Profit! So it's logical that vaccines can be a mean to make their hospitals running. Going back a little, you mentioned that it's better to vaccine even if in a lifetime we never would need them. You say that the the risks overweights any benefits. So imagine that you could say for sure that one of the vaccines have a bad side-effect. You are lowering the chance of having the possibility to contract some kind of disease to 0, because you have already contracted from vaccines. So you say that this is better? Doom yourself from the very start, just because "the risk" of catching something? "I don"t say cultivate morality; I say become more conscious, and you will be moral. But that morality will have a totally different flavor to it. It will be spontaneous; it will not be ready-made." OSHO http://www.osho.com... I guess you have misconceived my words. You talk of moral like some kind of code you have to follow, like the 10 commandments, but that isn't morality. That isn't freedom, and you are mistaking liberty with libertinism. Moral is good, the kind of moral that makes us human beings, not the kind that make us cattle. In order to be free and be moral, we have to question ourselves. I don't believe you ever thought about vaccines having side-effects for example, and because you didn't know, and didn't questioned yourself before making a decision, that makes you moral correct? Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour. Just following what they tell us doesn't make us moral people, because if we lived in a different society were killing wasn't bad, If I kill someone, does that would made me moral? Well, you make a distinction between the article I cited and reality, and you say that my sources may be dubious, and while this, you only cited things from one source mostly, while I putted here various sources from different entities, what in my opinion makes a more reliable source, that just stating things from one website. And you still affirm " is merely grasping at straws to make his case, cannot outweigh legions of other scientist and their more credible findings.". I admit that the website may not be the more trusted, but with the new sources I linked here. You also say that I cannot refer sources and tell people to read it. I just told you that so you understand better why I say and affirm my point, because I still have more than all the words to use.. Thank you

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

Title: Should we be vaccinated Content: Con 1 Vaccines can cause serious and sometimes fatal side effects. According to the CDC, all vaccines carry a risk of a life-threatening allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) in about one per million children. [49] The rotavirus vaccination can cause intussusception, a type of bowel blockage that may require hospitalization, in about one per 20,000 babies in the United States. [49] Long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness, and permanent brain damage may be associated with the DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis) and MMR vaccines, though the CDC notes the rarity of the reaction makes it difficult to determine causation. [49] The CDC reports that pneumonia can be caused by the chickenpox vaccine, and a "small possibility" exists that the flu vaccine could be associated with Guillain-Barr" Syndrome, a disorder in which the person"s immune system attacks parts of the peripheral nervous system, in about one or two per million people vaccinated. [49]. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) says that vaccines may be linked to learning disabilities, asthma, autism, diabetes, chronic inflammation, and other disabilities. [82] [83]http://vaccines.procon.org...

Title: should kids in public school be allowed to not get vaccines for religious reasons Content: Some people don't want their kids to get autism or become paralyzed. Read about 10 year old Marysue grivna from Florida who got Adem, a brain infection after a flu shot and is now completely paralyzed.

Title: Unvaccinated children should be home-schooled Content: 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...)

Title: Not getting children vaccinated Content: 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.

Title: Mandatory vaccinations (for government services) Content: Just so you know, That has already passed in California. If you have no medical reasons, You must be vaccinated to go to school. It works perfectly. It is a very good reason to not allow kids to go to school. If parents will put a risk on their kids and other kids, Why do we have to give them the same treatment as other kids? They are anti-vaxxers. They spread lies and don't want to listen to evidence. It isn't millions of kids. Lots of states are making a push to have mandatory vaccination.

Title: should kids in public school be allowed to not get vaccines for religious reasons Content: I don't think they should. Just because you have a religion doesn't mean you should let your kids get sick

Title: THW: make vaccinations against deadly diseases mandatory unless there is a medical exemption Content: I'm glad to hear that my opponent agrees that vaccines are safe and effective. My opponent's points seem to be as follows: 1) Making vaccines mandatory will not convince antivaxers of the safety of vaccines. 2) It is cruel to force someone to take something they get, even if it is good for them. 3) It could not be enforced. In response: 1) The point of this motion was never to convince antivaxers of the safety of vaccines (although of course such a goal is desirable). The point is to protect the health of those who cannot be vaccinated and of children whose parents are negligent by failing to vaccinate them. 2) Though it is preferable not to have to force someone through a moment of discomfort for their own health, their children's health, or the health of those around them, it is a so-called "necessary evil"; the alternative is to risk the health of that individual or of others. People have died- and will continue to die- as a result of antivaxers' reckless negligence and it should be made illegal to fail to vaccinate oneself and one's children as a result. Sometimes it is necessary to violate the consent of someone for the health of that person or those around them- we recognise, for instance, that it is necessary to force-feed someone with severe anorexia in order to protect them from starving themselves to death, or to place someone with an infection disease in quarantine in order to prevent them from infecting others. It is in a similar way that we must force people to vaccinate themselves and their children, even if they (falsely) believe that vaccines are harmful- there just simply isn't time to convince them- people are dying- and we will never be able to convince them all. 3) Though I recognise it would be impossible to identify- and therefore charge- the individual responsible for an outbreak, it would be considerably more practical to check everyone's medical records and to ensure everyone has had their vaccine, and to apply some kind of statutory penalty like a fine until they have had them. My opponent mentioned that this would be "unconstitutional", but: 1. This is a debate on an international forum, so the US constitution needn't apply; I'm speaking from the UK. 2. So, of we must obey the US constitution, then part of this motion would be to amend the US constitution such that a vaccine mandate is allowed. 3. People are still dying. We should therefore apply the "Quod Est Necassarium Est Licitum" principle (that which is necessary is legal*). So, to summarise my case: Making vaccines mandatory is necessary in order to save lives; vaccines are safe and effective, and do save lives both of those who are vaccinated and if those who cannot be vaccinated through herd immunity. Saving lives with a mandate in vaccines makes such a mandate necessary, and overrides the (false and irrational) fears of antivaxers, and any constitutional concerns. *https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Title: Vaccinations Against Preventable Childhood Disease Content: Vaccinations against highly infectious childhood diseases such as the measles, mumps, rubella, and pertussis (aka whooping cough) have saved millions of lives and improved the quality of life in countries where vaccines are accessible to the public. Unfortunately, more than half of the parents in the United States and some parts of the United Kingdom are choosing not to vaccinate for fear that vaccinations are harmful to their children. Autism, mercury, and aluminum are commonly cited as reasons against vaccinations: all reasons which have been poorly researched by antivaxxers. The Andrew Wakefield article loosely correlating the MMR vaccine and autism has been thoroughly debunked and retracted. The mercury used in Thimerosol (ethylmercury) is much easier for the body to break down than the mercury found in seafood (methylmercury), and an infant will have greater aluminum exposure from 6 months of breastfeeding than from their full vaccination schedule in the same time frame.

Title: Mandatory Childhood Vaccines Content: 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.

Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should enforce mandatory vaccinations. Content: To answer my opponent's question, his argument was not a kritik and he has not violated the rules in this debate. This round, as per rules, I shall be focusing on the attack of my opponent's case.My opponent brings up minor areas of this where some people are uncapable of recieving these types of vaccinations. Many of these issues are quite serious and can harm many. If this does occur, death will certainly come to the few that this occurs to. We would see that the government would likely accomidiate these people with their issues, though, I didn't clarify this and will refute this argument. We have to weigh the impact calc in this debate via the Utilitarianism argument which shows that we must do whatever helps benefit more people. If these vaccines occur, we could see, at worse case scenerio, 500,000 deaths in the US, which are the amount of people with the immune system disorders that my opponent has brought up [1]. I have shown that the US saved 732,000 children. The UN showned that this saves 2.5 million children a year, 285 a year world wide. It may seem heartless, but it benefits the majority of the people on the face of the Earth that this resolution is ennacted. This is just taking my opponent's DA vs. children saved. This doesn't even accomidiate the amount of adults and others saved as a response. Just looking at Rubella alone, we have nearly erradicated it saving 12.5 million that were infected in the outbreak in the 60's [2]. We have erradicated this disease and can do more will a multitude of others. Sources1. ( ttp://tinyurl.com...)

Title: Mandatory childhood vaccination Content: Extend.

Title: Why parents should immunized or Vaccinated they're kids Content: Vaccines risk the balance of nature: In the words of Dr. Richard Moskowitz, MD., "I have always believed that the attempt to eradicate entire microbial species from the biosphere must inevitably upset the balance of Nature in fundamental ways that we can as yet scarcely imagine." [2] Sources: 2. http://healthimpactnews.com...

Title: It is a parental right to decide about vaccinations for a child Content: Through birth, the child and the parent have a binding agreement that is supported within the society. This agreement involves a set of rights and duties aimed at, and justified by, the welfare of the child. Through that (according to texts from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy): parents owe their children an “open future,” understood as one where they become adults capable of choosing their own conception of the good. As custodian, the parent is under a limited obligation to work and organize his or her life around the welfare and development of the child, for the child's sake. Concomitantly, the parent is endowed with a special kind of authority over the child.[1] It therefore is the courtesy of a parent to decide what the best possible outcome is for a child. If the parent believes the child will be safer and better off in society without being given vaccine it is the parent’s right to decide not to give vaccination to the child. Also the American Academy of Pediatrics reports, that refusing the immunization might not put children at risk, as long as they live in a well immunized community and can benefit from the “herd immunity”. They state: “Even in a community with high immunization rates, the risk assumed by an unimmunized child is likely to be greater than the risks associated with immunization. However, the risk remains low, and in most cases the parent who refuses immunizations on behalf of his or her child living in a well-immunized community does not place the child at substantial risk of serious harm.”[2] [1] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parenthood/, accessed 05/28/2011 [2] Diekema Douglas, Responding to Parental Refusals of Immunization of Children, http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/115/5/1428.full, accessed 05/28/2011

Title: Vaccinations (mandatory/disbursement) Content: 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.

Title: Should we be vaccinated Content: I. The Lives Saved The lives of 2.5 million children are saved by vaccinations every year, yet each year, 1.5 million children die from diseases that vaccines can prevent. [1] Not only that, but vaccines save you for your entire life. "Vaccines teach your body's immune system to recognize infections so it can fight them off in the future." [2] But which diseases do vaccines prevent?"Vaccines protect you by preparing your immune system to recognize and fight serious, and sometimes deadly, diseases including:"Diphtheria"Haemophilus Influenzae Type B (Hib)"Hepatitis A"Hepatitis B"Human Papillomavirus(HPV)"Influenza(Flu)"Measles"Meningococcal"Mumps"Pertussis (Whooping Cough)"Pneumococcal Disease"Polio"Rotavirus"Rubella"Shingles (Herpes Zoster)"Tetanus"Varicella(Chickenpox)" [2]Every one of these diseases can be fatal. In fact, in the case of Diphtheria, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, HPV, Measles, Mumps, Polio, and Rubella, there is no cure. [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] Every one of these has an effective vaccine. If we look at the Rotavirus vaccine, we see that it has prevented between 85% to 98% instances of the disease. [11] But what else happened when the Rotavirus finally got a vaccine?"Millions of U.S. infants have received the rotavirus vaccine since it became available in 2006. Rotavirus disease among infants and young children has since decreased significantly in the United States. Each year, the vaccine prevents an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 hospitalizations among U.S. infants and young children. Rotavirus illness has also decreased among older children and adults that are not vaccinated; they are likely gaining indirect protection from rotavirus disease as vaccinated children are less likely to get the disease and spread it to others." [12]Not only is your life in danger of you don't receive one, but many people around you are at risk too. All of the diseases previously listed are highly contagious, hence the reason for a vaccine.II. The Rarity of Adverse Effects"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in most cases vaccines effects are minor and go away within a few days. Side effects vary according to vaccine type, but generally mild side effects may include:"Pain, redness, tenderness or swelling at injection site"Fatigue"Headache"Itching at injection site"Nausea"Dizziness or fainting (most common in adolescents)"Fever"Mild rash" [13]Now, let me compare this to the symptoms of, arguably, the least severe of the diseases listed previously, this being influenza. "Fever or feeling feverish/chills."Cough"Sore throat"Runny or stuffy nose"Muscle or body aches"Headache"Tiredness"Some people may have vomiting or diarrhea; this is more common in children." [14] Not to mention that in extreme cases, the flu can lead to pneumonia, ear infections, dehydration, and possibly death. [14] The difference is that the flu is quite common, [15] While adverse effects from vaccines are quite rare. [16]“'There are no surprises here; vaccines are being shown over and over again to be quite safe,' said Cornelia Dekker, MD, medical director of the vaccine program at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford, who chatted with me about the study earlier today. 'The safety record for our U.S.-licensed vaccines is excellent. There are a few vaccines for which they document that there are indeed adverse events, but the frequency is quite rare, and in almost all cases they are very easy to manage and self-limited.'" [16] III. Recommendations From Major Health Organizations The CDC, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Institute of Medicine (IOM), American Medical Association (AMA), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), UNICEF, US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), World Health Organization (WHO), Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Paediatric Society, National Foundation for Infectious Diseases (NFID), and American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) all recommend vaccines. [17] In fact, it's said to be one of the safest medical practices ever, despite its risks. [18]To add to this, the FDA and CDC are very strict when it comes to vaccinations. "The United States has the safest, most effective vaccine supply in its history. Years of testing are required by law to ensure that vaccines are safe before they are made available in the United States. This process can take 10 years or longer. Once a vaccine is in use, the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) monitor any possible side effects reported through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and other vaccine safety systems. Any hint of a problem with a vaccine prompts the CDC and FDA to carry out further investigations. If researchers find that a vaccine might be causing a problem, CDC and/or FDA can:"Change vaccine labels or packaging"Issue safety alerts"Inspect manufacturers' facilities and records"Withdraw recommendations for the use of the vaccine"Revoke the vaccine's license" [19]In conclusion, vaccines do move harm than good, as they save many lives, have few side effects, and are recommended by many major health organizations. Thank you. I look forward to your rebuttals.Citations[1]http://www.action.org......[2]http://www.health.ny.gov......[3]http://www.health.ny.gov......[4]http://www.health.ny.gov......[5]http://www.health.ny.gov......[6]http://www.health.ny.gov......[7]http://www.health.ny.gov......[8]http://www.health.ny.gov......[9]http://www.health.ny.gov......[10]http://www.health.ny.gov......[11]http://www.cdc.gov......[12]http://www.cdc.gov......[13]http://www.immunizeforgood.com......[14]http://www.health.ny.gov......[15]http://m.kidshealth.org......=[16]http://scopeblog.stanford.edu......[17]http://vaccines.procon.org......[18]http://www.vaccines.gov......[19]http://www.cdc.gov...

Title: Vaccine are Safe and Effective Content: People assume that vaccines are safe just because doctors recommend them, but it's not true. Vaccines have been portrayed as humanity's savior from diseases like Polio when they really weren't. Polio was already on the decline before the vaccine. Every year we are recommended to get the flu vaccine, but the flu shot is unnecessary and unsafe to get. Vaccines are suppose to stimulate the reaction of a real virus, but the way this is artificially done is dangerous. Babies should avoid as much immune stimulation as they can. One study done showed that Immune molecules in the brain during neural development is damaging and can cause autism. So why are babies getting so many vaccinations? [1] Also the amount of toxic substances in vaccines is way more than the amount that anyone should get at one time. Premature neonates should not receive more than 4 to 5 micrograms of aluminum per kilogram of body weight. An 8 pound healthy baby = max of 18.16mcg of aluminum. The Hep B vaccine has 250 micrograms. [2] We are told that vaccines don't cause any other problems, but In a study of 11,000 children the chances of getting asthma were cut in half if vaccinations were delayed. [3] After inoculation for that zostavax a person has a large chance of testing positive for the varicella zoster virus. Because of this, vaccinated individuals have the potential to spread the disease. [4] Vaccines are filled with toxic ingredients, and deserve another critical look by parents. Do what's best for your child and don't give them all their vaccines. [5] [1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2]http://www.accessdata.fda.gov... http://www.askdrsears.com... [3]http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [4]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://newstarget.com... [5]https://www.cdc.gov...

Title: Vaccinations (mandatory/disbursement) Content: Vaccinations such as hepatitis B are unnecessary because as stated by professionals on VacTruth.com, "As of March 2012, disturbingly there were over 1500 hepatitis B vaccine-related deaths reported to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), some of those classified also as sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). In addition to a high number of deaths, there were a total of 66,654 adverse events reported to VAERS, including but not limited to brain inflammation, convulsions, multiple sclerosis, headaches, irritability, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and Guiilain-Barre Syndrome." (vactruth.com) Dr. Meryl Nass stated: "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." The First Amendment clearly grants all citizens of the United States of America freedom to practice whichever religion they choose. Many citizens" beliefs are against allowing people to receive vaccinations. By forcing American citizens to vaccinate their children and themselves, it is a direct violation of the First Amendment. (vaccines.procon.org/#arguments) All fifty states require vaccinations to enter public schools, but 48 of them allow exemptions for religious reasons for this very reason! When students enroll, all they have to do is have their parent or guardian fill out a form stating that they do not allow the student to receive vaccinations because of religious reasons. (vaccines.procon.org/#arguments) The college of Physicians of Philadelphia stated "Certain religions and belief systems promote alternate perspectives toward vaccination. Religious objections to vaccinations are based generally on" beliefs that the body is sacred, should not receive chemicals or blood or tissues from animals, and should be healed by God or natural means." (Historyofvaccines.org)

Title: Vaccines should be mandatory Content: I believe vaccines should be mandatory (unless you have an allergy or some other medical problem), because it is for the greater good of the public. My preferred opponent would be an anti-vaxxer, although if you are a pro-vaxxer and against mandatory vaccinations, that is fine too.

Title: Compulsory vaccines for everyone, except immunocompromised. Content: 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...

Title: Parents who don't vaccinate their children should still receive benefits from the government Content: Firstly, you have said that "parents may not be in the budget for the vaccination for their child', which is indeed possible, but that doesn't mean that they should be allowed to not give provide the vaccination, the government should provide the funds in that case. Which is the case in several countries already. For example, there is the Universal Immunisation Programme in India which pays for the vaccination for the children in poor families. In the USA, there is CDC (Centres for Disease Control and Prevention) which does so as well. Secondly, you have said that there are negative side effects of vaccinations on children. However if you would have researched the topic, you would have realised that the only possible issues that could arise are mild fever, shivering, fatigue, joint/muscle pain and headaches. These- by the way, are not in anyway going to hurt the child since active immunisation (that is what vaccination is) is the injection of dead or inert pathogen into the recipient's body for the white blood cells to create memory regarding the antigen's structure to fight a similar alive one in the future. Which would explain the negative effects. Next, just because it isn't legal to not vaccinate your child doesn't mean it is okay to not do so. As a matter of fact it should be illegal since a child's life is risked. And moreover, the statement is inaccurate as well since in the USA alone, it is legally required in all the 50 states to do so if he/she is entering an educational system (school, day care, etc). In addition to that, the motion suggests that the issue being debated refers to al the countries all around the world and not only Australia, so we should broaden our horizons and not only focus on one country. Additionally, you have said that parents should have the option of taking the risk of not vaccinating their child simply shows that you have said that it is wrong for children to be deprived of the medical necessity. Which is basically saying that you agree with me. Finally, I would like to say that if the government does indeed give these benefits to these families, it just suggests that it is okay to be ill and be a possible reason that a epidemic is spread. It will have a negative impact on all the future generations. It is the government's job to improve the standard of living of a nation, not deteriorate it. That is why the citizens have chosen them.