CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Ledgy

Reward Points:21
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
95%
Arguments:17
Debates:1
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

First of all, where are you getting your statistics on Mexico? Until you provide a link or reference to a credible source, I cannot take that statistic into account. Second, individual rights can be suspend for the public good. If you refer to my past arguments, it is clear that the government has the right and the duty to mandate vaccinations. This is because of the social contract which states that we all give up certain individual rights in exchange for greater social liberty and security. For example, I give up the right to stab people, but in exchange, I gain the right not to be stabbed. Finally, you argue that "children...don't have a say in government[. It's their] parents [who have a say] and [their] parents decision[,] not the [government's.]" You seem to be arguing that as long as children are involved, the government does not have the right to make decisions. Please clarify.

3 points

First of all, a child is often unable to make healthy choices for themselves. Also, many adults are not well informed or educated and as such will often make poor choices for themselves or their children. Next, the government's first obligation is to protect its citizens. Finally, vaccinations are beneficially to society for two basic reasons. First of all, they have been proven to prevent and even irradiate diseases. You may refer to my previous arguments for specific statistics if you like. Secondly, vaccinations are, while occasionally dangerous, overall good. You seem to enjoy using philosophy to back up your arguments, so I will counter with some of my own. Utilitarianism is best defined as the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority. Clearly, by examining my previous statistics and arguments, it can be concluded that vaccinations are justified by utilitarianism. I will now counter your argument that "universal and compulsory vaccination may lead to...the second bubonic plague." There are two ways to counter this argument, and therefore I will attack both the evidence itself and the link between the evidence and the resolution. First of all, vaccinations _do not_ lead to viral mutations or resistances. Vaccinations act as deterrent, not as solutions. They're only purpose is to prevent infections from occurring, not destroying the viruses themselves. Since Darwinism does not apply because no viruses are being killed by the vaccinations, there will be no mutations or resistances developed solely because of vaccinations. I will now proceed to attack your link. Even if vaccinations led to mutations in viruses, the theory that this will lead to a second bubonic plague is unrealistic. It is common knowledge that only 10 to 20 cases of the bubonic plague are recorded yearly, and that very few are fatal. The only reason the bubonic plague was so potent in the past was because of a lack of hygiene. However, the point you seem to be trying to make is that vaccinations will mutate viruses and lead to pandemics. Once herd immunity is reached, the chances of a widespread pandemic are almost zero. Clearly, since the chances of this are so minuscule, when applied to the theory of utilitarianism along with all other evidence, vaccinations would still be justified. However, this is all assuming that vaccinations cause mutations, which they do not. In conclusion, the above arguments have successfully refuted all the Con's arguments.

1 point

Reply to below argument made by The Pyg:

I was merely proving the importance of vaccinations. However, mandated vaccinations are justified because they will better achieve herd immunity and because they will save even more lives.

1 point

First of all, the debate is about if mandated vaccinations are justified, not how they should be mandated. Second, the FDA has to approve each vaccinations through a vigorous three-step process, and third, according to Tomas Aragon, MD in "Epidemiologic Concepts for the Prevention and Control of Microbial Threats", 75%-94% of the population must be vaccinated to create herd immunity. Once this state of immunity is reached, widespread outbreaks are impossible because there are simply not enough people can become infected with the disease. To once again stress the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations, childhood vaccinations in the US prevent about 10.5 million cases of infectious illness and 33,000 deaths per year and there are only about 30,000 cases of adverse reactions every year. Clearly, mandated vaccinations are justified.

1 point

First of all, the debate is about if mandated vaccinations are justified, not how they should be mandated. Second, the FDA has to approve each vaccinations through a vigorous three-step process, and third, according to Tomas Aragon, MD in "Epidemiologic Concepts for the Prevention and Control of Microbial Threats", 75%-94% of the population must be vaccinated to create herd immunity. Once this state of immunity is reached, widespread outbreaks are impossible because there are simply not enough people can become infected with the disease. To once again stress the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations, childhood vaccinations in the US prevent about 10.5 million cases of infectious illness and 33,000 deaths per year and there are only about 30,000 cases of adverse reactions every year. Clearly, mandated vaccinations are justified.

2 points

That is a very slippery slope you are proposing. What defines a person who "[doesn't] know what's best for themselves?" Does that mean that they never cause bodily or mental harm towards themselves? If so, then isn't every smoker, alcoholic, etc. in need of a "Big Brother" to help them make the right decisions? Clearly, the government cannot make choices about personal issues such as vaccinations because it is difficult if not impossible to define who knows what is best for themselves.

2 points

You seem to be ignoring the scope of the problem. That was merely an example. You said in your first point that if there was a pandemic, you would understand the need for vaccinations, yet mandated vaccinations seek to prevent the need to quickly create vaccines that may not be safe. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, every $1 spent on vaccination saves the public $6.30 in medical costs that would result from having to treat unvaccinated diseased individuals. Clearly, by mandating vaccines, we not only prevent major outbreaks, but we also save money by doing so.

1 point

According to Michael Gladwell in "What The Dog Saw", Pepsi is sweeter and therefore beats Coke in tests in which only one sip is taken from each. However, in tests in which one can or more is consumed. Coke wins every time. Since most people drink more than one sip of their carbonated beverage of choice, Coke is better than Pepsi.

1 point

Are you willing to sacrifice the right to religious freedom of the child and their parents so that you can make vaccinations mandatory? Also, once "herd immunity" is reached, it is impossible for a large-scale outbreak to occur, thereby defeating your point that "...without vaccination the disease may again become prevalent in society." If the government chooses to ignore the basic rights of its citizens, it is not fulfilling its most basic duty: to protect its citizens, whether it be from physical harm or from harm towards liberty, justice, or the pursuit of happiness.

1 point

No, it is true. However, there are current debates to whether the old laws still apply to the digital music industry. When the laws were first established, it was legal to pirate music for your own personal use because it was so hard that the government found it unnecessary to make it illegal. According to DMCA, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it is illegal to DISTRIBUTE, SALE, MANUFACTURE copyrighted material. It does not state that having copyright material in your possession is illegal. People who use sites like Limewire, download music, movies, etc... The giver has now broken the law by sharing this materials with you. The reason you end up getting caught is because LIMEWIRE has a feature that enables your system to automatically share anything that have downloaded. This is where you break the law. Now you are a DISTRIBUTOR of copyrighted materials.


Winning Position: Yes, it is justified.

About Me


"Wouldn't you like to know?"

Biographical Information
Name: Roger Wamn
Gender: Male
Age: 0
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Democrat
Country: United States
Postal Code: 0000000
Religion: Atheist

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here