Instigator / Pro
17
1476
rating
4
debates
25.0%
won
Topic

Vaccines are safe. Anti-vaxxers like DrSpy are dangerous.

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
6
12
Sources points
8
6
Spelling and grammar points
3
4
Conduct points
0
4

With 4 votes and 9 points ahead, the winner is ...

Exile
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Health
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Required rating
1
Contender / Con
26
1543
rating
8
debates
75.0%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Pro
I am gonna say vaccines are safe and ant-vxxers are dangerous.  I thought DrSpy was the only idiot out there.  Let see if you try to manipualte the facts like that dishonest asshole.

SAFETY

I will list 5 studies, and their summary to start.  DrSpy did a crybaby thing cause I listed 12 before.  You can also include them as evidence if you want.  Up to you..

STUDY 1:

There is no significant correlation between exposure to antigens through vaccines and risk of developing a non-vaccine targeted infection.

STUDY 2:

After performing the meta-analysis of both the five cohort studies and the five case-control studies, authors found no evidence of a link between vaccine receipt and risk of developing autism or ASDs. This conclusion stands when authors looked at specific MMR vaccines, cumulative mercury dosage, and thimerosal exposure, and any connection to ASDs. 

STUDY 3:

Clayton E, et al. Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Sciences. 201

They found evidence to reject a causal relationship between MMR vaccine and autism, MMR vaccine and type I diabetes, and DTaP vaccine and type I diabetes

STUDY 4:


Smeeth L, et al., Lancet 2004; 364(9438): 963-9

Data suggest that MMR vaccination is not associated with an increased risk of pervasive developmental disorders.

STUDY 5:


Budzyn D, et al., The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. 2010; 29(5): 397-400  

The study provides evidence against the association of autism with either MMR or a single measles vaccine. 

I show that study after study shows vaccines are safe.  

ANTI VAXXERS DANGEROUS

People who don't get vaccinated are then probable carriers of disease, as they dont have an immune system t fight it. they can then infect people who cant get vaccinated like children.

Here are a list of incidents where unvaccinated people cause injury, or death.  Therefore they are dangerous.


REPORT 1:

Anti-Vaccination Movement Causes a Deadly Year in the U.S. 

From Taliban fighters to California soccer moms, those who choose not to vaccinate their children against preventable diseases are causing a public health crisis.




REPORT 2:

Measles Outbreak in Unvaccinated and Partially Vaccinated Children and Adults in the United States and Canada (2018-2019): A Narrative Review of Cases  

A potential driving factor to the increased cases maybe because fewer children have been vaccinated over the last number of years in both countries. This article is a narrative review of cases discussing the measles outbreak among partially vaccinated and unvaccinated children and adults in the United States and Canada in 2018 and 2019.

REPORT 3:

The WHO says vaccine hesitancy is a top 10 world crisis, and 1.5million lives are lost every year because of unvaccinated children.   

Vaccine hesitancy – the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines – threatens to reverse progress made in tackling vaccine-preventable diseases. Vaccination is one of the most cost-effective ways of avoiding disease – it currently prevents 2-3 million deaths a year, and a further 1.5 million could be avoided if global coverage of vaccinations improved. 


It's irrefutable.  
Con
Before I go into arguments, there are things that should be considered when voting on this debate. 

  • There are technically two resolutions. One seeks to argue whether or not vaccines are safe, and the other seeks to argue whether or not anti-vaxxers are dangerous. 
  • This debate directly cites another one that took place. This is because Pro mentions DrSpy in the two-fold resolution and in his R1 argument. Thus, it allows both debaters to openly cite the debate both parties had, therefore the voter should read said debate for greater context. 
While Pro does a good job in outlining sources for the first round, his biggest weakness thus far is providing absolutely no argumentation. Info-bombs can prove to be a strategic and aggressive of getting a point across, but in this case Pro has yet to make a "point." He lists five sources that associate with vaccines being safe, and three that associate with anti-vaxxers serving as a dangerous population of people. They don't, however, back up any argumentation on Pro side whatsoever. Pro never gives us a claim or argument to latch onto (other than what is said in the resolution), and he more importantly doesn't tell us why any argumentation on his side should matter over or trump Con's at the end of the day. The only argumentation we see is a hardly flushed-out word spill on how anti-vaxxers can be possible carriers of disease, which is simply never elaborated upon.

Ergo, his sources in R1 are useless and this round has essentially been handed over to Con. 

Now onto my points. I'll start with the former of the resolution. Con's thesis statement is as follows: While vaccines may not cause autism, they are not as safe as the general public is led to think and come with dangerous risks.

Pro never specifies to us the degree as to how vaccines are safe, which is an error on his end. However, his sources err on the argumentative side claiming that vaccines are completely safe in an autism context. What they don't mention is the fact that vaccines do come with other health risks that are commonly overlooked. One such risk is Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), which is a disorder caused by nearly vaccines alone. 3,000 to 6,000 people in the US get diagnosed with GBS every year, and while it is rare it still allows itself to prevalent among vaccination. For context, it was caused by a string of vaccination alone in 1976 which led to an increased risk unlike anything seen before [1].

There is also the risk of seizures. Research has shown that there is an increased risk of seizures after being vaccinated with the Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine. Infants were shown to undergo seizures after 7-10 days of vaccination, and the risk was shown to increase to 1 out of every 2,300 who are vaccinated. Research is still being done to determine possible alternative causes, but no other causes have been shown to this day [2].

The "VaCcInEs DoN't CaUsE aUtIsM," rhetoric-outrage has completely misguided those who are not as knowledgeable about vaccines to lead them into thinking they are completely safe. Proof of this is in the previous debate Pro had with DrSpy. The toxicity in Pro's tone towards someone who has his health at this own interest (regardless of motivation), properly demonstrates this. By deliberately trying to beat a dead horse, the attention and beratement is on the dead horse rather than the "living horse" that deserves more attention than it has. 

This segues well into the latter half of the resolution. The thesis for this portion is as follows: Anti-vaxxers are not dangerous people, but are made out to be dangerous by people like Pro.

Anti-vaxxers are not "dangerous" people. Their actions may be portrayed as dangerous by people like Pro, but people like Pro completely miss the motivations behind anti-vaxxers. People abstain from vaccines not because they seek to do damage but rather because they have the autonomy to determine what is best for their body and the bodies around them. Such motivations can include religious ones, where it might be sinful to have chemicals like vaccines administered to the body. I'm not saying vaccines are a sin in any religion, but they could be a motivation and it's a fair one to have. 

Pro lightly touches on the aspect that anti-vaxxers are a public health threat. While this can be true for those who have YET to be vaccinated, Pro completely ignores the greater population of those who are in fact vaccinated. A good example of this is herd immunity. A scenario where anti-vaxxers infect a huge population of people wouldn't work in a neighborhood/community of people who are already vaccinated. Thus, those who are not vaccinated can be indirectly protected by vaccine diseases, and in the event there was an infection they wouldn't spread it to those are have been vaccinated. A study done by the CDC show exactly how many infants are receiving vaccinations and which types, which roughly average out to over 90% [3].

Babies are vaccinated just two months after being born. Do the math; there's hardly any risk. 

Finally, the biggest problem that I have with the aspect of anti-vaxxers being dangerous is because it's an attempt vilify a group of people regardless of their intentions. What makes someone anti-vax is not only the action of not getting vaccinated, but the ideology that comes with it. The ideology isn't one that enforces or calls for violence. It's one that calls for individual safety of the self and those closest to them. It's one that has good intentions to protect loved ones. Thus, people like Pro are obsessed with the so-called stupidity that anti-vaxxers seem to have and fail to see the bigger picture, regardless whether or not they agree with it. The toxicity from Pro's former debate speaks for itself. 

This was a rushed argument, but the math here is simple. Unless if Pro comes up with any argumentation of his own instead of dumping sources and somehow letting them do the talking for him, he's in big trouble. 


SOURCES:
Round 2
Pro
Vaccines are safe.  My opponent says that I did a good job showing they are safe.  I'm gonna ignore the gender assumption.

He lists five sources that associate with vaccines being safe, and three that associate with anti-vaxxers serving as a dangerous population of people. They don't, however, back up any argumentation on Pro side whatsoever.
I say the vaccines are safe, the studies show they are save.  Opponent agree they are associated with safe.
I say anti-vaxxers are dangerous, I show three examples,  Opponent agrees the sources are a match.  

Opponent has the fucking nerve to say they should win a round, because they are overcomplicating it.  Vaccines are safe - studies show.  Anti-vaxxers are dangerous - studies show.

What argument do you need?  It is very clear.  Word games wont cut it.


While vaccines may not cause autism, they are not as safe as the general public is led to think and come with dangerous risks.

Something with dangerous risks does not make it them not safe.  Cars, trains, planes, foods, drugs, sports, LIFE!!  Life is full of risks.  My opponent says they are a clairvoyant, because they know what the public thinks.  Sure there are risks, its a needle, and needles can hurt.  But to try to imply that something that has an element of danger is not safe makes no sense.  We "the general public" use the word safe in a way that includes  risks.  My opponent said the measure is general public, so that is the definition of safe. 

But the worst thin, is this anti-vaxxer lies.  Completely making shit to try to win.

I quote:

One such risk is Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), which is a disorder caused by nearly vaccines alone. 3,000 to 6,000 people in the US get diagnosed with GBS every year
Where is the source?  Now like a proper debate  I will say something with a source, and not pulled out of my ass:

Each year in the United States, an estimated 3,000 to 6,000 people develop GBS. Most people fully recover from GBS, but some have permanent nerve damage.
Anyone can develop GBS, but people older than 50 are at greatest risk. In addition, about two-thirds of people who get GBS do so several days or weeks after they have been sick with diarrhea or a lung or sinus illness. 

Notice my source is actually fucking real.  And from the CDC and directly related to my opponents bullshit claim.  Like why would you lie.  Nowhere does it say GBS is caused by vaccines alone.  No source and a flat out lie by my classless opponent. 

Febrile Seizures

Studies have connected febrile seizures to genetics.    Ultimatly it is a fever that causes


That same source states

A child can develop a low-grade fever after a vaccination. The fever, not the vaccination, causes the seizure.

My opponent has not shown vaccines are not safe.  The two cases stated I completely debunk, because they are based on lies.

Now onto danger.  My opponent says they are not dangerous because of herd immunity.  If that was a case then why do my studies show that "they are causing a health crisis".  And one of my studies shows that partially vaccinated is a problem.  So getting a needle at 2 months does not solve problem.  You gotta get all the vaccines and boosters to get and be treatable. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/index.html

Opponent talks about herd immunity,  But that immunity goes away if you don't get all your boosters.

Opponent said 

 the math here is simple.
Only smart thing they said:

Vaccine hesitance costs 1.5 million lives a year.  That was my third example.  So you are an anti-vaxxer and people die.  Talk about math.

Groups of people can be bad.  Someone who wonders about a side effect might be one thing.  But that is the same curiosity as someone reading the ingrediants on their pack of cookies.   

I proved vaccines are safe with just a handful of studies.
I proved that anti-vaxxers and vaccine avoiders are dangerous cause they cause health crisis.

My opponent lies, and provides info without source.  



Con
I say the vaccines are safe, the studies show they are save.  Opponent agree they are associated with safe.
I say anti-vaxxers are dangerous, I show three examples,  Opponent agrees the sources are a match.  

Opponent has the fucking nerve to say they should win a round, because they are overcomplicating it.  Vaccines are safe - studies show.  Anti-vaxxers are dangerous - studies show.

What argument do you need?  It is very clear.  Word games wont cut it.

If this doesn't outline Pro's self-fatal debate strategy, then I don't know what does. Pro expects to have the studies that he cites to do the arguing for him, when that's clearly what sources aren't for. Instead of using sources to back up/support an argument, Pro simply lists sources, expects people to read them whole, expects them to outline and argument, and expects them to win the debate for him. Also, I never agreed that his sources "were a match," when talking about anti-vaxxers. Simply saying 

Something with dangerous risks does not make it them not safe.  Cars, trains, planes, foods, drugs, sports, LIFE!!  Life is full of risks.  My opponent says they are a clairvoyant, because they know what the public thinks.  Sure there are risks, its a needle, and needles can hurt.  But to try to imply that something that has an element of danger is not safe makes no sense.  We "the general public" use the word safe in a way that includes  risks.  My opponent said the measure is general public, so that is the definition of safe. 
This is a blatant attempt to make Con not meet the resolution standards, when in reality the onus fell upon Pro to state/define the overall meaning of "safe" in this debate. With his given rhetoric, he conceded to the notion that vaccines are completely safe (otherwise he would have addressed this) because according to his R1 argument (if you could call it that) vaccines being safe is "irrefutable."  Sure, many things in life come with risks, but if you're injecting a plethora of chemicals into your body there better be little to NO risk involved, or you should know of all the risks and how to prevent them. Ergo, vaccines are not as safe as they can be. It should also be noted that Pro has painted Con to not cite any sources about GBS when in fact I did. I encourage Pro to better his literary comprehension skills and reread my R1 argument. 

Now onto danger.  My opponent says they are not dangerous because of herd immunity.  If that was a case then why do my studies show that "they are causing a health crisis".  And one of my studies shows that partially vaccinated is a problem.  So getting a needle at 2 months does not solve problem.  You gotta get all the vaccines and boosters to get and be treatable. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/index.html
I never said anti-vaxxers are not dangerous because of herd immunity. This is further proof that Pro has not fully comprehended my R1 argument and has allowed his toxicity to get the better of him (although I expected nothing less). I brought up herd immunity to demonstrate the fact that anti-vaxxers don't need vaccines due to this sociological phenomenon and are not posing a health threat to themselves or other people who are vaccinated. The underlying argument here is not that they're not dangerous, but outlining the philosophy of not needing a vaccine.

The only way Pro has tried to argue this sub-resolution was by citing the WHO that says roughly 2 to 3 million lives are lost due to a lack of vaccination. However, this is a GLOBAL report. There are many poor countries in the world who don't have access to vaccines and lose their lives to other fatal diseases specific to those areas, so unless if everyone in the poorest countries in the world are anti-vax, it's a misused source (so much for info bombing lmao). To lazily tie this to anti-vaxxers is not only a dishonest tactic, but a flawed one at that. 

Yet again, Pro provides no real argumentation and tries to have his studies do all of the talking for him. You don't win debates by having the best sources and being toxic, but rather through making the best argument. I'll reiterate: Pro has not made a single comprehensive argument in this debate. 

Now allow me to rebuff my prior arguments.

  • Vaccines, while they can be safe as a whole, provide debilitating health risks to those who take it. One such example is GBS, which is causes your nerves to be attacked by IMMUNE CELLS. While rare, it's a debilitating risk that you can get solely through immunized cells. Another example is febrile seizures. Pro made a point about how the fever following vaccination causes the seizure, but what he fails to understand is that any fever without vaccination doesn't cause the seizure. Why run the risk of getting seizures if you don't want to get vaccinated?
  • Anti-vaxxers are not dangerous people. The only reason why they are seen as dangerous is because of people like Pro who want to tell anti-vaxxers how to live their lives. The motivation behind the anti-vax movement is not to cause distress or harm to others, but to protect themselves from the dangers of vaccines (be it religious, scientific, etc.). Anti-vaxxers are also not obligated to get vaccinated if their community/living area is already vaccinated to begin with, hence herd immunity. There's no obligation, and no harm done. To find out more about the anti-vax movement, follow this link: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-33774181

IN SUMMARY:

Pro has approached this debate expecting a free win through citing sources alone. The art of debate is to use logic and reasoning to convey an idea in hopes of learning or teaching something new. Forensics debating has never been a contest on who has the best sources, otherwise no one would learn anything. It's about conveying information in the most strategic way possible. When reading both of his arguments, it's easy to see the amount of emphasis Pro has on his beautiful, do-no-wrong sources, but fails to provide any logic, reasoning, and simple original ideas/arguments to the table. Pro has also shown to be very toxic, and while ad hominem can sometimes add gravitas to speech, it has the reverse effect in this case and comes off as tacky and distasteful.

Pro may/may not be new to the DebateArt community, but if he wants to win future debates, then he has to improve his strategies and his attitude. 

On the other hand, Con has provided extensive argumentation on why vaccines are not as safe as you think, but also why it's not fair to classify anti-vaxxers as dangerous people. Having severe side effects that come with vaccines should be addressed as a risk no matter what anyone says, and anti-vaxxers are not inherently dangerous by protecting people they love. Plain and simple. 

Through the sloppy debate practices used by Pro, Round 2 was essentially handed to Con for free. Vote for actual argumentation. Vote Con.