CreateDebate


Debate Info

20
27
Yes. No.
Debate Score:47
Arguments:51
Total Votes:50
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes. (16)
 
 No. (22)

Debate Creator

YIsRisenLord(387) pic



Should vaccines, be forced?

Yes.

Side Score: 20
VS.

No.

Side Score: 27
Atrag(5550) Banned
2 points

At the age of 40, whatever, you, finally, have started to use commas even, though you have, no, idea, how.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Should vaccines be forced

Hello Y,

Certainly. The overriding purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to “promote the general welfare”.

You can’t do that if you let a pandemic run wild in your country.

excon

Side: Yes.
2 points

You don't have the right, to my body, only I do. My body, my choice, I have the right, to choose. The unwanted use of my body, is assault.

Side: No.
Mint_tea(4347) Disputed Banned
1 point

What about when you spread preventable diseases to others? You absolutely have the right to your body your choice, provided it ONLY affects you.

Side: Yes.
Jace(5050) Disputed
1 point

There is no singular purpose laid out by the Constitution of the United States. Numerous purposes are enumerated alongside promoting the general welfare, and both legislation and jurisprudence have held these purposes to be non-absolute. The exceptional individualism of American culture, historically and at present, relative to other countries also cuts against your claim that the overriding purpose of the nation is to promote the general welfare.

Moreover, what constitutes the general welfare is open to myriad interpretations. An individualist or libertarian oriented individual would argue that the general welfare is constituted by liberty and compromised by vaccination (i.e. that vaccination is only superficially for the general welfare).

Finally, vaccination is not (nor has it ever been) mandatory in the United States except in limited contexts and for targeted demographics. This has not resulted in pandemics 'running wild' in the country. Nor is it self-evident that this would necessarily be a bad thing or against the general welfare.

Side: No.
excon(14590) Disputed
0 points

also cuts against your claim that the overriding purpose of the nation is to promote the general welfare.

Hello J:

It's not MY claim.. It's the claim made in the Preamble. I dunno what you think it means, but its meaning is clear to me.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, DO ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America."

excon

Side: Yes.
1 point

To what vaccine are you referring?

When, where and by whom was this vaccine developed?

You're becoming mutinous about an imaginary scenario which hasn't happened yet and isn't likely to for the foreseeable future.

I would be confident that if such a vaccine was ever developed and became available to the general public you'd first in line with your sleeve rolled, yelping, to hell with this women and children first nonsense, it's me first.

Side: Yes.
excon(14590) Disputed
1 point

To what vaccine are you referring?"

Hello again, M:

Well, there's been many.. Let's just take measles.. They found a vaccine for it in the early 80's and your child can't attend school without it. That sounds like forcing to me.

You knew that, right? If not, check this out:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000201.htm

excon

Side: No.
Jace(5050) Disputed
2 points

Children are required to receive education, but they are not required to do so at a school (public or private). No one is forcing anyone to send their child to school; homeschooling is an option. If someone wants to send their child to a school, then there are costs to doing so (limited to but not including vaccination, with the notable opt out caveat that's already been mentioned).

Side: Yes.
1 point

That sounds like forcing to me.

Seeing that parents can opt out of one or more vaccines for medical, religious, or personal reasons, it'd be the opposite of forcing.

https://www.webmd.com/children/vaccines/what-are-the-rules-on-vaccine-exemptions

Side: Yes.
Miocene(609) Clarified
1 point

Yes, you're correct. I foolishly jumped to the conclusion that the thread related to Covid-19.

For a short time there I thought maybe a vaccine for this Chinese disease had been discovered and we were all saved.

Ah well, we can all live in hope.

Side: Yes.
1 point

No especially if it's possible pedophile Billy boys vaccine! He also wants to speed up testing and announced it's completely new vaccine never been tried before, no thanks!

Side: No.
2 points

especially if it's possible pedophile Billy boys vaccine!

The utter bullshit which comes out of your mouth is just incredible.

Nobody has ever filed a federal lawsuit against Bill Gates for child rape at a party thrown by disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. The man you voted for has had that happen to him twice, but instead of talking about that you are making up conspiracy theories about Bill Gates.

You are a complete tit, sir.

Side: Yes.
MrGnome(45) Disputed
1 point

Don't worry old Billy boys not out the woods yet! :D That also goes for 100 of other sickos that was on his Lolita express plane. One being Prince Andrew who got kicked out the royal family and disowned. Princey Andrew was also on the list! And Weinstein is rumored to be ratting them out. He was supposed get about 50 years but was cut to 23 years. I wonder why? Just have to wait to see what happens shall we BurritoLunch?

And also Billy is being heckled almost everywhere he goes. He's not a very popular guy right now! Billy also mentioned wants to track us with his little digital tattoo or chip! Also Billy never programmed DOS he bought it from some poor bastard for about 50,000 dollars. Than he works for apple for few months and steals the gui system! Oh yeah Billys such a trustful person right?

Side: No.
JustIgnoreMe(4334) Clarified
1 point

um, vaccines against new viruses will generally be new...

Side: Yes.
MrGnome(45) Disputed
1 point

Yeah generally but this is a completely new way of making them! Please feel free to be the first guinea pig! "This vaccine, unlike traditional vaccines, has been developed using ribonucleic acid (RNA) technology. If successful, the cutting-edge method could revolutionise vaccine development for future disease outbreaks."

https://wellcome.ac.uk/news/new-way-developing-vaccines-covid-19-could-help-world-prepare-future-outbreaks

Side: No.
1 point

Leading with the caveat that this scenario seems unlikely, I do not think that vaccines should be forced upon anyone. I'm not persuaded that vaccination is, generally speaking, a desirable approach to communicable disease in the first place. Setting that aside, though, I am wary of giving any government any medical authority over and against the autonomy of individuals. I am also not persuaded that such authority is necessary for vaccination campaigns to be successful.

That said, I am not necessarily opposed to vaccinations being mandated for students to attend public schools (or any private school or homeschool which receives public funding), provided that attendance itself is not compulsory. That arrangement is a transparent cost (such as it is, which is to say generally minimal) to accepting the benefits of attending the publicly financed institution; that informed decision being consensual, I see no violation of autonomy.

Side: No.
1 point

I'm not persuaded that vaccination is, generally speaking, a desirable approach to communicable disease in the first place.

Well, luckily, persuading you is not how the medical effectiveness of vaccines is tested.

Setting that aside, though, I am wary of giving any government any medical authority over and against the autonomy of individuals.

The government has always had medical authority over the autonomy of individuals. Try researching what went on at psychiatric institutions during the first half of the 20th century.

Your reasoning is stupid. On one side we have paranoia about why the government wants to help you live longer and on the other we have diseases like smallpox, polio and bubonic plague, which wiped out or crippled massive portions of the human population.

Whether you are "persuaded" or not doesn't matter in the slightest. Since people have been being vaccinated against these diseases, they have stopped killing huge numbers of people.

Anti-Vaxxers are just plain dumb.

Side: Yes.
Jace(5050) Disputed
1 point

Well, luckily, persuading you is not how the medical effectiveness of vaccines is tested.

I am not disputing the effectiveness of vaccines. I am not persuaded that that effect is desirable; I don't place absolute or unreserved value on human life, and I think the roll of disease in mediating the population of any species has some value itself. That doesn't make me opposed to vaccination regimes, but it does put me on the fence (hence, 'not persuaded').

The government has always had medical authority over the autonomy of individuals. Try researching what went on at psychiatric institutions during the first half of the 20th century.

That the government has had and continues to exercise medical authority over and against the autonomy of individuals is not an argument that it should do so. My familiarity of medical history, both public and private, is a significant basis for my distrust of government in general.

Your reasoning is stupid. On one side we have paranoia about why the government wants to help you live longer and on the other we have diseases like smallpox, polio and bubonic plague, which wiped out or crippled massive portions of the human population. Whether you are "persuaded" or not doesn't matter in the slightest. Since people have been being vaccinated against these diseases, they have stopped killing huge numbers of people. Anti-Vaxxers are just plain dumb.

I'm not an anti-vaxxer (lol). I don't believe vaccination is part of a government conspiracy, that vaccinations cause autism, or any of that rubbish. I agree that vaccination has reduced the number of human fatalities due to disease, and never contested that. I'm just not convinced that that is necessarily a good thing, and I'm actively dissuaded that that is sufficient grounds from which to mandate vaccination.

I also accept vaccination as a pre-condition for participating in public or private institutions, so long as participation in those institutions is voluntary (and with the caveat that it is localized policy). Where such policies exist, I am opposed to 'opt out' loopholes because I believe in equality under the law (and not religious exceptionalism). That departs wildly from the anti-vaxxer 'position'.

Side: No.
MrGnome(45) Disputed
1 point

I call bs on people living longer and more healthy! Would you like to explain to me why the younger gen has more old people illnesses in this time and age? How about kids having diabetes, mental illness, autism, immune disorders, seizures, , kidney failure, arthritis. Oh yeah we are sooo much healthier!sarcastic

Now they might live longer with cocktail of pharm drugs like a half brain dead zombie but the quality of life I question is better! Sure they can keep you alive like brain dead coma patient on a machine. But if you can even call that life is whats debatable! Would you like to explain how all those young girls that took the Mitt Romneys funded Gardasil vaccine landed up half paralyzed in wheel chairs? Blind naive dick suckers like yourself always land up in the slaughterhouse first! Your actually not smart your just good at being regurgitator of useless repeated propaganda! People like you don't wanna think for yourself, it's too scary! I find you common sense dumb, to trust a pedophile making a vaccine! https://www.premierhealth.com/your-health/articles/healthnow/worrisome-trend-diseases-of-aging-strike-young

Side: No.
Chinaman(2982) Clarified
1 point

So stupid where is the vaccine for AIDS ? Come on stupid i look forward to the ignorant response you have and i will sit back and laugh at you.

Side: Yes.
Jace(5050) Clarified
1 point

There will never be a vaccine for AIDS because that is a syndrome. The virus is HIV, and there currently is no vaccine for it. None of which has any obvious bearing on my preceding remarks.

Side: Yes.