National Forensics League, not football.

So I joined my schools NFL team this year, and I'm going Values-LD debating as my main event. The current topic is 'Resolve: Public Health Concerns Justify Compulsory Immunization.' Any thoughts, opinions, comments, for the negative and affirmative?

I've also written up my negative case. Could I get some comments on that too, actually?

Throughout the history of the world, small snowballs of states limiting rights have grown into giant machines of tyranny. People are oppressed to limited free choice, or in some cases have it taken away, while their rights to all else in economy, education, health, family, and life are slowly picked at. It is a simple matter of freedom from oppression in even the most basic of cases, and because I am a believer of people holding as many rights to choose paths for their own lives, I stand firmly, “Negate the resolved: Public health concerns do not justify compulsory immunization.”

To support my negation, I will overview the following contentions: First, by affirming the said resolution, people are essentially being oppressed out of their rights to choice, and forced into something that may not be affirmed with safety. Second, I will explain how the quality of the public health will not be diminished by not resolving for compulsory immunization. Third, I will illustrate how compulsory immunization actually constrains life and nature, hindering humanity from greater potential.

The resolution asks if public health concerns are a justified reason to instate compulsory immunization. To show the faults, and in order to negate, the affirmatives resolution, I will address the first Contention.

Contention I
Compulsory immunization will oppress people, forcing people to forgo their rights of freedom and to make choices for themselves and their families concerning intimate matters, all for the sake of a program that may not be affirmed of safety.
AB
A. To tell people that they must immunize themselves is a preposterous thing to do. The rights and freedoms of citizens of the world is an important aspect to life, and the quality thereof. It is the individual’s choice to make if they want to immunize themselves, their family, or not. It is should not be the choice of a governing body to dictate how and individual is to stay healthy, for only the individual knows their own beliefs, ethics, morals, and selves in general, the best, and the methods of staying healthy that the government tells the people to use may go against just that. If someone has decided not to immunize themselves, then greater power to them as they are exercising the essence of life: decision making.


B. The safety of immunizations stands on a wavering pole, sometimes not even being near the definition of safety at all. Though there are departments and administrations embedded into the government to test and monitor the safety of immunizations, history has shown that what has been called a safe product is truly unsafe. Thalidomide was released into the public for the popular use of a morning sickness inhibitor. Within four years of its release, the product was recalled and production stalled, with 10 to 20 thousand babies born with severe birth defects because of the medication. To claim the safety of a product may never be good enough, when there are powerful lobby groups pushing products for the sake of profits, who can push and ride on the quick to develop hysteria of illnesses, while ignoring negative ramifications directly affecting the consumer if immunization was made compulsory.

Contention II
Public health will not be threatened if compulsory immunization was not made to be compulsory.
AB
A. Even without compulsory immunization, it is in the social fabric that the majority of people will get immunized anyways. The majority, the immunized public, therefore is “safe”; all the while everyone is exercising their rights to choice.

B. There is a fear that those who choose not to immunize pose a universal risk to the world population with high efficiency transportation and international commerce of the modern world. But health organizations and departments are efficient enough to handle any people who do not immunize and stand as a risk case to others. In 2007, the CDC placed a lawyer into involuntary isolation when it was found that he was suffering from an extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis strain. The efficiency of the CDC to act for the public health shows that same potential to act the same with those who choose not to immunize and stand as a health risk. The event also affirms the idea that the new modes of transportations do not create higher risks of illness spreading, as the tuberculosis spread to no one, even as the lawyer flew on seven international flights.


Contention III
Compulsory actually constrains nature and life, hindering and oppressing humanity in the greater scopes of things.

A. Compulsory immunization is only one step to “protecting” people. But where does it end, when new technologies are invented, and new “threats” are discovered and created [where I may add that “new” with technology denotes safer in the mind, but never actually means that]. If this resolution is affirmed, it only opens doors for future infringements on the rights of people.

B. Compulsory immunization essentially forms a way to chain the opossum. The nature in humanity would slowly be picked away at with compulsory immunization. Life has an inevitable end, and though death is a grim idea, it is as common and normal all else in nature. To immunize is to stop the natural and beneficial process of natural selection, where the strong prosper and live, as their children bare the traits of their parents that made them strong, where over time humanity as a whole is made stronger. Immunization stops that natural and important process because then biologically in terms of body immunity, everyone is made equal, where in medical terms, they are not. Immunization advocates for preventative care, but what better preventative care is better then one that is built directly into the gene pool? With compulsory immunization, the opossum is essentially prevented from living as naturally as possible.

Though sometimes I may have come off as advocating against immunization, I am not. However, I do stand firmly against compulsory immunization, for the rights and freedoms it infringes upon, and the development of the human as a whole civilization throughout time that would be put at risk, lowers the quality of life. Compulsory immunization assumes the worst of people’s intentions, but in reality humanity is just as safe without compulsory laws, the only difference is people then have more rights and liberties to exercise.

GO DENVER BRONCOS. WOOOOOOH. They'll come back from their three losing streak, I know it!

Why should my tax money go towards people too stupid/lazy/stubborn to get immunized, and then end up needing medical treatment with no means to pay for themselves?
So sure, your stance is one I can agree on; people shouldn't be forced to take any kind of vaccine, but by passing on vaccinations, they should also waiver their "rights" to "free" (read, "paid for by me") medical care.
This would also help with your natural selection thing. Either people are smart and get vaccinated (or have created the means to pay for their medical needs), strong, and survive without vaccination, or neither, and die. Nice!

So basically, I agree with you, with the one added condition that people who refuse vaccination also waive their right to cry about it later when they're dying. =D

I don't agree with your third contention at all, simply for the fact that I can't see our man-made evolution hurting us enough to matter at all in the long run. We'll be auto-evolving ourselves long before any sort of negative effects show up because of our "unnatural" way of doing things. It's true that we'd "slowly be picked away at from immunization," as you said, but this "slowly" is the "over a million years" sort of slowly, not the "in twenty years, humans will be frailer than babies" slowly. Humanity has been civilized, protecting the weak as well as the strong and allowing both to procreate, and generally saying "fuck you!" to evolution and nature for.....ever? The advances in technology, medicine, etc made by our "weak" members far outweigh the harm their "weak" genes do to our pool, so your reasoning there is way off. It's because we allow everyone to survive that humanity has come as far as it has, and our life expectancy, height, and general health have constantly been on the rise, not on the decrease. So, yeah...can't agree with contention III. You might as well be saying "WE SHOULD ALL LIVE OUT IN THE WOODS WITH NO SHELTER, CLOTHING, MEDICINE, OR ANY OTHER SORT OF TECHNOLOGY!" Then our strongest would be the only ones to survive, for sure. If we waited a few years using your technique, we could all devolve back into apes! Super strong, and incredibly (relatively!) stupid! Yeah! =D
So...yes, I'd totally drop Contention III, if I were you. Weren't you the one who called me something like "fucking stupid" when I mentioned the same sort of argument against you? Kettle, kettle. =P

Actually, can't agree with contention II, either:

There is a fear that those who choose not to immunize pose a universal risk to the world population with high efficiency transportation and international commerce of the modern world. But health organizations and departments are efficient enough to handle any people who do not immunize and stand as a risk case to others. In 2007, the CDC placed a lawyer into involuntary isolation when it was found that he was suffering from an extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis strain. The efficiency of the CDC to act for the public health shows that same potential to act the same with those who choose not to immunize and stand as a health risk. The event also affirms the idea that the new modes of transportations do not create higher risks of illness spreading, as the tuberculosis spread to no one, even as the lawyer flew on seven international flights.
Since when does one case of anything prove anything at all? "Man, one time, this guy jumped off a cliff and didn't die. WE SHOULD ALL JUMP OFF CLIFFS, because it's proven that jumping off cliffs is perfectly safe! THAT ONE GUY DID IT!!" You really can't say that "health departments and organizations" are efficient enough to do anything, either, considering that's ridiculously vague. America's health system might be able to handle the worst pandemic imaginable (doubtful, considering what I've read, and considering how many different diseases are out there), but I COMPLETELY doubt that Ethiopia's could. And why should a village full of Ethiopian kids die because some rich American asshole decided it was his god-given right to refuse vaccination and run around killing people with his poison breath? Guess I can't agree with number two, either.

Contention I(1!) I can agree with, I guess. It is some rich American asshole's god-given right to run around killing African children with his bad breath, I suppose. It's his body, after all. It's probably because I'm American, but it feels to me that if someone doesn't want to get a flu shot (because there is like a one in a bajillion chance it'll fucking paralyze you/kill you/melt your dick off) that he shouldn't have to get a flu shot. If I came from a country whose values centered more on group rights than individual rights (I guess....a lot of Asian countries?), I'd probably feel differently. Really, I think each decision has its right and wrong parts of it, which is why I think it should be up to the individual to decide what they want to do. Personally, I just cover my mouth when I cough, and avoid other people, which is easy enough for me. Then I win, and so does everyone else. :3

Well, with LD debating in NFL, you are actually forced to write a case for both the affirmative and negative, because what side you defend is randomly chosen in the beginning of each round. I only posted my negative case because I think it's the crappier of the two. In any case, here is my affirmative if you are curious:


Small pox, diphtheria, polio, and whooping cough. At one point in history, simply the name of these illnesses struck fear in the hearts of citizens across the globe. Countless innocents fell ill and died from these public health nuisances until compulsory immunization brought them under control. Because it is a proven fact that immunization provides protection of and enhancement of life by controlling and eradicating certain public health concerns, I stand firmly “Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

In support of the resolution, I offer the following three value contentions: First, by affirming the resolution, we uphold the value of life. I will, also, demonstrate how compulsory immunization is a duty warranted by social contract and consequentialism and will save lives. Last, I will show how negating the resolution will greatly diminish the value of life.

To clarify issues in the round, it is necessary to define key terms:

Public health - ‘the science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life and promoting health through the organized efforts and informed choices of society, organizations, public and private, communities and individuals.’ CEA Winslow (bacteriologist and public health expert

Compulsory - Compelled; mandated by legal process or by statute

The resolution asks if compulsory immunization is a justified response to public health concerns. To answer that question, I will address the first value Contention.

Contention I
Compulsory immunization will uphold public health and increase individual life.

A. Life is inherent to all that we experience, all that we see, hear, feel, touch, taste, smell, think. Life is inherently more valuable then rights and liberties for the simple fact that there would be no rights and liberties if there was no life.

B. Time has shown that if a whole population takes the preventative matters against communicable illnesses, the illness can be completely irradiated, a famous case being polio in developed nations.


C. To claim individual rights to not get immunized is more important than the health of self and society is preposterous for the simple fact that without life is to not exist, to have any rights and liberties whatsoever, and the claim negates social contract and consequentialism.


Contention II
Membership in society requires adherence to the social contract and subsequently supports compulsory immunization.

A. As an individual resides within the comforts of society and under the comforts of a government, there are duties that the individual must live up to, rights given up for the larger scope of things. The idea of forfeiting liberties for other benefits in society or from the government is called the social contract.

B. One may argue that they signed no official social contract, so one cannot be forced to say that forfeiting their rights not to get immunized is part of the contract. However, the antithesis of that idea is inherently wrong ethically, as not getting immunized puts at risk the population around the one who refuses.

C. The ideas of individual rights and liberties, or the idea of freedom to express religion, are not a good enough reason to strike down compulsory immunization. There have been many cases in history where the individual rights and liberties to express belief and religion have been nullified for the sake of education, safety, health, and life.


Contention III
Negating the resolution is denying the social contract and will greatly diminish the value of life.

A. Keeping a population healthy takes each individual into consideration, and it would be impossible to keep a group of people healthy if even a selected few refused to take the preventative matters against infections when they must.

B. Because consequentialim is based on the premise of the greatest good for the greatest number of people, negation of compulsory immunization will leave the greatest number of people at risk for life threatening illness.

C. It is vital that each individual in a society understand that membership in the society constitutes agreement to uphold the greater good of the society for all members. When individuals opt out of the social contract and/or act contrary to it, they open the society to harm or, in this case, epidemic illness. Such harm prevents and impedes life. concerns the whole population, not just themselves, and it is important that they take the measures to prevent illnesses for at least the people around them.

As members of society, we have the responsibility to enhance and preserve life. Public health is essential to individual and societal existence. In the case of epidemic or life-threatening disease that may be controlled and/or eradicated, compulsory immunization is the best defense and approach available for the protection and enhancement of life.


I'm actually at a stalemate between affirming or negating the resolution, personally. Both sides have very good arguments that I can't seem to favor more to the other. It's really ending in an argument of freedom of rights versus life.

EDIT:
@ Hopeless [more specifically]


Since when does one case of anything prove anything at all? "Man, one time, this guy jumped off a cliff and didn't die. WE SHOULD ALL JUMP OFF CLIFFS, because it's proven that jumping off cliffs is perfectly safe! THAT ONE GUY DID IT!!" You really can't say that "health departments and organizations" are efficient enough to do anything, either, considering that's ridiculously vague. America's health system might be able to handle the worst pandemic imaginable (doubtful, considering what I've read, and considering how many different diseases are out there), but COMPLETELY doubt that Ethiopia's could. And why should a village full of Ethiopian kids die because some rich American asshole decided it was his god-given right to refuse vaccination and run around killing people with his poison breath? Guess I can't agree with number two, either.

Where my one case may or may not illustrate the mechanics of how it will always work, you have no evidence to support your claims. The efficiency of the CDC stems farther then high-risk illness cases also [which in itself, is very extensive actually, for even in this one case where doctors said multiple times, explicitly, that the lawyer poses no risks, they went and found every person on every flight he was boarded on]. There have simply been no cases to support any claims that individuals who do not get immunized pose a risk when the immunization is widely used in a population.

And you also tossed out contention two, wholly? But with point A, it is an affirmed fact that a majority will still choose to get immunized self willingly, cutting back a huge portion of the illness risks.


I don't agree with your third contention at all, simply for the fact that I can't see our man-made evolution hurting us enough to matter at all in the long run. We'll be auto-evolving ourselves long before any sort of negative effects show up because of our "unnatural" way of doing things. It's true that we'd "slowly be picked away at from immunization," as you said, but this "slowly" is the "over a million years" sort of slowly, not the "in twenty years, humans will be frailer than babies" slowly. Humanity has been civilized, protecting the weak as well as the strong and allowing both to procreate, and generally saying "fuck you!" to evolution and nature for.....ever? The advances in technology, medicine, etc made by our "weak" members far outweigh the harm their "weak" genes do to our pool, so your reasoning there is way off. It's because we allow everyone to survive that humanity has come as far as it has, and our life expectancy, height, and general health have constantly been on the rise, not on the decrease. So, yeah...can't agree with contention III. You might as well be saying "WE SHOULD ALL LIVE OUT IN THE WOODS WITH NO SHELTER, CLOTHING, MEDICINE, OR ANY OTHER SORT OF TECHNOLOGY!" Then our strongest would be the only ones to survive, for sure. If we waited a few years using your technique, we could all devolve back into apes! Super strong, and incredibly (relatively!) stupid! Yeah! =D
So...yes, I'd totally drop Contention III, if I were you. Weren't you the one who called me something like "fucking stupid" when I mentioned the same sort of argument against you? Kettle, kettle. =P

Remember, I don't necessarily believe any of this. This all has a basis on just having an argument to support. But anyways, the argument of immunization hindering natural selection only really applies when it's done on a compulsory/universal level; how large of an impact can three people who are initially "weak" and get immunized have on a gene pool? But imagine a population of a billion having to get immunized, and the ramifications it has in the long run. I did mention that there were adverse effects of compulsory immunization in the greater scope of things, so yes, I am aware that those same adverse affects may not be apparent until five thousand years, or five millions. Even so, they are still there. Even so, I am not advocating against technologies. I am advocating in my case against the forced use of technologies that have more adverse ramifications then positive ones, on that same compulsory level.

Oops, sorry for taking so long to respond. I've been unusually busy lately, and kinda forgot to come back. :x
Anyway, onto responding again!

Well, with LD debating in NFL, you are actually forced to write a case for both the affirmative and negative, because what side you defend is randomly chosen in the beginning of each round. I only posted my negative case because I think it's the crappier of the two. In any case, here is my affirmative if you are curious:
Ah, alright. So you were just trying to fix your weaker one in case you got picked to do that one, huh? Makes sense, makes sense. XD
I think it'd be more fun if you got to pick your own side, though. That's how we did it in my religion class (which doubled as an ethics/debate class, because of my awesome teacher), and we had some ridiculously fun/spirited/angry discussions, hahah. =D

I'm actually at a stalemate between affirming or negating the resolution, personally. Both sides have very good arguments that I can't seem to favor more to the other. It's really ending in an argument of freedom of rights versus life.
Yeah, that'd be my personal stance, too. Depending on my mood, I could swing either way.

Where my one case may or may not illustrate the mechanics of how it will always work, you have no evidence to support your claims. The efficiency of the CDC stems farther then high-risk illness cases also [which in itself, is very extensive actually, for even in this one case where doctors said multiple times, explicitly, that the lawyer poses no risks, they went and found every person on every flight he was boarded on]. There have simply been no cases to support any claims that individuals who do not get immunized pose a risk when the immunization is widely used in a population.
That very well may be true, but you failed to provide any sources. I was attacking the way you presented your claims, not the veracity of them, since I'm assuming your club will do the same. It's a club to strengthen your debating skills, right? That's what it seems like by the way you described it. I just think you'll get a lot of "WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES!?!" from annoying kids in the back row the way you have things presented now, heheh.

And you also tossed out contention two, wholly? But with point A, it is an affirmed fact that a majority will still choose to get immunized self willingly, cutting back a huge portion of the illness risks.
Again, that might be true, but you don't give any sources at all, or tell me why I should believe you. You just call it a "fact" and move on, which isn't going to convince skeptics like me. I think if you had percentages of how many people opted to get immunized of a few different populations, your argument would be a lot stronger. Make sure to get a few good ones for poor countries too, so that nobody at your club raises the Ethiopia argument.

Remember, I don't necessarily believe any of this. This all has a basis on just having an argument to support. But anyways, the argument of immunization hindering natural selection only really applies when it's done on a compulsory/universal level; how large of an impact can three people who are initially "weak" and get immunized have on a gene pool? But imagine a population of a billion having to get immunized, and the ramifications it has in the long run. I did mention that there were adverse effects of compulsory immunization in the greater scope of things, so yes, I am aware that those same adverse affects may not be apparent until five thousand years, or five millions. Even so, they are still there. Even so, I am not advocating against technologies. I am advocating in my case against the forced use of technologies that have more adverse ramifications then positive ones, on that same compulsory level.
Hai, hai. My counter-argument was simply that immunization of the whole planet against diseases would have more good effects than bad. Of course, it also has a few bad to go along with it, but in the face of all the good immunization would do, I think they're negligible. The person doing the pro-immunization side will probably argue the same thing, so it's up to you to prove that forced immunization would cause more harm than good. Which is going to take a lot of bullshitting and twisting of words, since it's obviously not true. But that's what politics and debating is all about, right? Making your lies seem true! XD

Which is ridiculously fun, as I learned in my religion class. Have fun with your next debate, no matter which side you get chosen to represent! =D

Definitely all good points, I'm stealing them for my next debate. I'm sad the next time is going to be the last on this resolution, because I feel so comfortable talking about this now.

The CDC released a paper one of my coaches gave me saying how 70% of American's get immunization on non-compulsory immunization, which is enough to uphold herd immunity, so I can't really send you the link, but everyone at the debate has read it so no one argued. But the Ethiopia argument stands, but no one brought that up at this weekend's meet, and no will apparently will because... Well, apparently I was wrong.

LD Debate is supposed to be a values and philosophical debate, or, who has better value contentions. So, a lot of what I brought, and what we are talking about, are generally not well received in this event, because what we are discussing is generally policy debate and public debate. That was pointed out to me so many times during the debate, which definitely made me lose at least one. Still, I did amazing at the meet, seeing how I was a first time debtor and won 2:2. I even beat a fourth-year debtor haha.

I reworked my negative case, and expanded upon the values. Attack!
Throughout the history of the world, small snowballs of states limiting rights have grown into giant machines of tyranny. People are oppressed to limited free choice, or in some cases have it taken away, while their rights to all else in economy, education, health, family, and life are slowly picked at. It is a simple matter of freedom from oppression in even the most basic of cases, and because I am a believer of people holding as many rights to choose paths for their own lives, I stand firmly, “Negate the resolved: Public health concerns do not justify compulsory immunization.”

In order to support my negation, I will overview the following Value Contentions. First, the ends may never justify the means: the immunization can easily be unsafe, and to force someone to take it with that possibility is unethical and amoral. Naturally, this leads me to my second Value Contention, that to negate the resolution is to uphold the meaning of life, nature, the government, and enhances the qualities of just that.

My criterion value is consequentialism, and freedom thereof.

The resolution asks if Public Health concerns are a justified reason to instate compulsory immunization programs. To show the faults and in order to negate the resolution, I will address my first Value Contention.

Contention I
To make someone to take something that is not affirmed of safety is without moral and unethical.

A. The safety of immunizations stands on a wavering pole, sometimes not even being near the definition of safety at all. Though there are safeguards embedded into the government to test and monitor the safety of immunizations, history has shown the potential for what has been called a safe product to be unsafe, an example case being Thalidomide and the severe birth defects it caused. To claim the safety of a product may never be good enough, when there are also powerful lobby groups pushing products for the sake of profits; pushing for compulsory status which can lead to giant profits; or even pushing and riding upon the social hysteria of an illness, all the while ignoring negative ramifications directly affecting the consumer.
B. Furthermore, to make someone do something without affirmation of that something’s safety greatly diminishes their quality of life, and puts them at a risk. Yes, present statistics have determined that negative health ramifications with direct causations of the immunization are low, but with the act of upholding compulsory immunization, and the definitive fact that there are lurking variables in what is said to be safe and unsafe, all else is up in the air. It’s important to look at the two definitions of compulsory also, to see just that.
1: Obligatory; required.
2: Employing or exerting compulsion; coercive.
Coercive is just that specific word that we as a society need to be wary of. Coercive, is violent, is forceful, and despite the workings of our great country, the Democratic-Republic we are served by, the capitalism we work by, there is the room for abuse of the system with violent outcomes, that have been seen many times even in the recent history of our country. To negate the resolution, is to close the doors to that said abuse, that said potential to danger, and opens other doors to greater a quality of life.

Contention II
To negate the resolution is to enhances the quality of life, nature, the government, and uphold their meanings.

A. Making someone do something diminishes their quality of life, as they are not using their natural right to freedom of will. Freedom of will is immeasurable, and has no way of measuring it. There is no numbers or words that define how much freedom of will you have right now. But it is clear to see if you have less freedom of will today then yesterday, more tomorrow then today. To raise the minimum age to drink alcohol takes away from freedom of will, respectively, lowering the age raises freedom of will. The resolution is no different then making it compulsory to drive a specific car because it is safer, or taking away all will to drive and making it compulsory to take only computerized tracked means of transportation. Though none of that takes away all freedom of will, it lowers it to a point where the quality of life is diminished, as the greater and good judgment of people are forgone and ignored. The means may be good, but the ends don’t justify them.

B. George Mason, one of the fathers of the Bills of Rights wrote that by one “…[entering] into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” Thomas Jefferson says in the Declaration of Independence that there are “…Unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The main contentions of these passages are the rights to pursuit and obtain happiness, liberty, life and safety. It is the right of each individual to do what is best of that said individual, and it is not in the place of the government to intervene and tell you how and what you must pursue in life. John Stuart Mills said an essential part of a fair and just democracy is the people’s ability to make as many choices for themselves, and limiting the governing body’s power of intervention, an idea upheld by our many Amendments and the Bill of Rights.

I used passages and ideas of these specific people because they laid the foundation for all that we live in, all that we wake up to, the country that we are growing with, and many other countries elsewhere in the world. George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, and John Stuart Mills gave the world values and rights, which are supposed to be inalienable because they uphold and enhance the quality of all our lives. The United States simply acts as a watchdog for things to come in the rest of the world, as a role model to mimic. To affirm the resolution is to tell other countries that it is okay to infringe upon natural rights, and the ends of this on a global scale is incomprehensible, and do not justify the means. Because I stand for the quality of liberty, freedom, will, and life, I also stand firmly, “Negate the resolved.”