Instigator / Pro
4
1377
rating
62
debates
25.81%
won
Topic
#2344
Vaccine's are harmful
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Intelligence_06
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description
Do not try to twist the definition.The debate is called vaccine's are harmful.It is not hard to understand
harm•ful härm′fəl►
adj.
Causing or capable of causing harm; injurious.
Full of harm; hurtful; injurious; noxious; detrimental; mischievous.
Synonyms Pernicious, baneful, deleterious, prejudicial
https://www.wordnik.com/words/harmful
vac•cine văk-sēn′, văk′sēn″►
n.
A preparation of a weakened or killed pathogen, such as a bacterium or virus, or of a portion of the pathogen's structure that upon administration to an individual stimulates antibody production or cellular immunity against the pathogen but is incapable of causing severe infection.
n.
A preparation from the cowpox virus that protects against smallpox when administered to an individual.
https://www.wordnik.com/words/vaccine
Round 1
Pro
#1
With the incoming covid 19 vaccinations which will most likely be forced upon every citizen. I would like to take a trip down memory lane and remember all the damage vaccines have caused. A newborn baby's immune system is still developing.I would go as far to say they do not have an immune system. Their immune system is there mothers. In fact, baby do not get there first immune cells till they are 1 year old.
the first maturation of immune cells is seen to being when the baby is 1y of age.
So the question must be answered why are we giving children 70 plus shots right after birth. Threaten parents with jail time if they don't medicate their child for a disease that they do not have. When it is heavily documented that there is risk's to the vaccines. Like you could potentially get polio from the vaccine. So why would i risk a devoloping immune system with a vaccine
How The Oral Polio Vaccine Can Cause Polio
A moment of silence for the children murdered by vaccines.A deep mourn for the aborted babies murdered to create vaccines.
There are risk
Why force and threaten imprisonment for a vaccine that can be dangerous. Remember we are treating disease people do not have. Why would I risk getting severe side effects from a pharmaceutical? When I do not have the disease.
A tainted polio vaccine in 1955 paralyzed children and gave them polio. According to the Washington Post
Why would congress make the vaccine company's immune to being sued over severe side effects from the vaccine? Firstly you do not do this unless you know people are going to get hurt. Which means you are doing it purposefully. Secondly, we have a history of people dying from vaccines. This only ensures that vaccine companies are able to put whatever they want in a vaccine. The vaccine can cause as much damage as can possible and they can not be held responsible.
They got a immunity to stop parents from suing vaccine makers because the child has seizers because of vaccines.
According to the lawsuit, their daughter, Hannah, was a healthy infant until she received the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine in April 1992. The vaccine was made by Wyeth, now owned by Pfizer, Inc.
Within hours of getting the DPT shot, the third in a series of five, the baby suffered a series of debilitating seizures. Hannah continues to suffer from residual seizure disorder, the lawsuit said.
Effectiveness of vaccine's
Why should I take pharmaceuticals for a disease I do not have. which will inject me with aborted babies genes that have been engineered by mad scientists with a blueprint for cancer.when the thing won't even work in the first place. Vaccine people say that an unvaccinated person can give them a disease. But how can I give someone a disease when they are supposed to be immune to it because of vaccinations.
My body my choice
Aborted babies are in vaccines. Even Abc news admits that. Why is it ok for a mother to kill her child because she does not want it in her body. But I do not have the choice to have an aborted baby vaccine shot into me. Why can she choose not to have baby in her but I have to be injected with a dead baby.
JFK nephew runs a site called children's health defense. Italy scientist found 560 aborted baby genes engineered with cancer.
560 genes known to be associated with forms of cancer were tested and all underwent major modifications.
There are variations whose consequences are not even known, not yet appearing in the literature, but which still affect genes involved in the induction of human cancer.
These genes were modified so they would cause cancer.
Hepititus B vaccine
Hepititus b is a disease you get from doing drugs and having sex and blood.It is a mandatory vaccine that they force on newborn infants.The reasons we have vaccines is to prevent disease's. These babies can not get this disease because they are not having sex and do drugs.So why would they force a vaccine to prevent a disease you can not really get in the first place.The only reason why you would do this is if you want to poison them and dumb them down. Why should a mother vaccinate their child for a disease that is literally impossible for them to get? The risk of t his vaccine is great too. the side effects that range from 1 in 10 people to 1 to 100 people.
The hepatitis B vaccine causes common side effects in around 1 in 10 people who have it.. Uncommon side effects may occur in 1 in 100 people, with more serious side effects being rare and around 1 in 1,000 people.Common side effects of the hepatitis B vaccine include:Uncommon side effects
- discomfort around the injection site for hours or days after getting the shot
- headache
- nausea
- vomiting
- diarrhea
- high temperature
- fatigue
- irritability
- stomach pain
Uncommon side effects include:Rare side effects
- flu-like symptoms
- muscle ache
- dizziness or disorientation
Rare side effects include:
- joint pain
- pins and needles
- swelling
- hives and rashes
- low blood pressure, or hypotension
Why would i risk a newborn baby with these side effects. When it is impossible for them to get hep b because they do not have sex.I would do this if i was poisoning the baby
Hepatitis B can cause serious health problems including liver damage, liver failure, and even ... other equipment to inject drugs; or from an infected ... Can Hepatitis B be spread through sex? Yes. Hepatitis B is easily transmitted through sexual . activity. In fact, sexual contact is the most common way Hepatitis B is spread in the United States.
Vaccine's safety test's
The us government once fast-tracked a flu vaccine and people died
When the US Government Tried to Fast-Track a Flu VaccineAfter Private David Lewis collapsed and died during a basic training exercise at New Jersey’s Fort Dix on February 4, 1976, an investigation into the 19-year-old’s premature death identified a long-dormant, but notorious killer as the cause.
The fda has a procedure called fast tracking. It is where they skip 5 years of safety testing so it can get on the market faster. This is done with most vaccines.5 years of safety testing is thrown out the window to get it on market faster. For example, 4 years of gardisol vaccine safety testing was thrown out because they said the drug is promising. Then they mandate all girls age's 10 to 12 take it or go to jail
The FDA chief wants to fast track years of safety testing for coronavirus vaccine to before vaccinating the entire planet.
The head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is willing to fast-track a COVID-19 vaccine as quickly as possible
He wants to skip years of safety testing
How can we know if something is safe if we throw out years of testing?
Imprisonment for not vaccinating
scores of grumbling parents facing a threat of jail lined up at a courthouse Saturday to either prove that their school-age kids already had their required vaccinations or see that the youngsters submitted to the needle.
Is It a Crime to Avoid Vaccines? People Who Refuse Are Being Punished With Jail and Job Loss
Third world mass death
National Advisory Board (NAB) and mandated 50 polio vaccines (up from 5) to every child before age 5. Indian doctors blame the Gates campaign for a devastating vaccine-strain polio epidemic that paralyzed 496,000 children between 2000 and 2017. In 2017, the Indian Government dialed back Gates’ vaccine regimen and evicted Gates and his cronies from the NAB
Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. is an American environmental attorney, author, and opponent of vaccination. Kennedy is a son of Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of former president John F. Kennedy. He is the president of the board of Waterkeeper Alliance, a non-profit environmental group that he helped found in 1999.
Young Tribal Girls Tested With HPV VaccinesThe Economic Times India published their report August 2014. They stated that in 2009, tests had been carried out on 16,000 tribal school children in Andhra Pradesh, India, using the human papiloma virus (HPV) vaccine, Gardasil.According to the report written by KP Narayana Kumar, within a month of receiving the vaccine, many of the children fell ill and by 2010, five of them had died
Con
#2
BoP and Summary
The BoP is, of course, on Pro. Of course, an optimal response would include Con proving that Vaccines are helpful. Pro will refer to the user known as Crossed, Con will refer to the user known as Intelligence_06.
I will summarize my opponent's R1 argument in succinct statements.
- Vaccines are unneeded for the average person
- Aborted baby supports the right to no vaccines
- There is evidence saying that vaccines cause harm
- Testing is abandoned and there is potential risk
As well, I will open up mine in the same format as statements.
- Vaccines are safe
- The diseases vaccines prevent is overall more severe than its side effects
- The few examples do not dictate the whole group
If any side sufficiently proves its side at the end of the debate, he thus becomes the victor. Settled? Common sense.
Arguments
Vaccines are safe
Let's review Pro's definition for "Vaccine". Hmm. Preparation of a weakened or killed pathogen, such as a bacterium or virus, or of a portion of the pathogen's structure that upon administration to an individual stimulates antibody production or cellular immunity against the pathogen but is incapable of causing severe infection.
Just looking at this chunk of text, you would know that Vaccines are not intended to be weapons, but a method to retain health. Vaccines are meant to prevent a disease from infecting the person.
How safe are vaccines? According to VAERS, VSD, and other reliable organizations, Vaccines are safe([1] This page is a hub to all those reliable sources). In fact, if Vaccines are basically unsafe, there is basically no reason to even use them.
Less severe side effects than the real disease
We know that vaccines are supposed to prevent diseases, we know that they are tested to be reliable. We know they have side effects. However, the side effects are overall, on average, less severe than the real disease.
According to the national site for vaccines, some vaccines are free of side effects, some only trigger slight side effects, such as fever and ache[2]. However, compared to their diseases, which could even take one's life away, these vaccines have mild side effects. Serious ones are extremely rare: They are of about 1/1,000,000 chance of happening, and not vaccinating because of that 1/1,000,000 chance is like volunteering to starve to death because apparently you could choke to death. In fact, the probability of one choking to death is even more probable than one dying from vaccines[3]! If vaccines are reliable, then the death rate shouldn't be 1/1,000,000 or less, but we should be seeing numbers like 1/20 or 1/5. If vaccines are more reliable than basically eating, then what is the reason not to do it, especially since it prevents deadly diseases and have comparatively little to no side effects?
The minority is not majority
My opponent likely pulled an argument based on the Fallacy of Composition[4]. What is that? Using the part of something to prove something about the whole, such as saying all apples in this basket must be rotten because the first one you ate is rotten.
There is proof that the majority of vaccines are reliable and my opponent presented little examples to support his claim of "Vaccines, as a whole, is harmful to people". His proof is thus unsound and should not be considered as so. There is reliable evidence that vaccines are indeed safer than eating food, and Pro's argument is like because my friend sprained his ankle while jogging, I shall prevent jogging in my life. Either way, the Bottom line: The point is not reliable!
Overall, I have proved that Pro's case is not sound and Vaccines are safe and not harmful. Vote Con.
Sources
Round 2
Pro
#3
Con looks at the definition of vaccine and say's it does not sound like a weapon.IF they intended harm why would they make it sound dangerous and scare people off.Secondly con has some side effect numbers that i disagree with.
the information below about side effects of Hib and smallpox vaccination is from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Hib Vaccine Side Effects
- Redness, warmth, or swelling where the shot was given (up to 1 out of 4 children)
- Fever over 101°F (up to 1 out of 20 children)
Smallpox (Vaccinia) Vaccine Side EffectsMild to Moderate Problems
- Mild rash, lasting 2-4 days.
- Swelling and tenderness of lymph nodes, lasting 2-4 weeks after the blister has healed.
- Fever of over 100°F (about 70% of children, 17% of adults) or over 102°F (about 15%-20% of children, under 2% of adults).
- Secondary blister elsewhere on the body (about 1 per 1,900).
Serious eye infection, or loss of vision, due to spread of vaccine virus to the eye. Rash on entire body (as many as 1 per 4,000). Severe rash on people with eczema (as many as 1 per 26,000). Encephalitis (severe brain reaction), which can lead to permanent brain damage (as many as 1 per 83,000). Severe infection beginning at the vaccination site (as many as 1 per 667,000, mostly in people with weakened immune systems).
https://www.historyofvaccines.org/index.php/content/articles/vaccine-side-effects-and-adverse-events
I know cons source was a generalization of all vaccine's.But i have a hard time finding a vaccine with those numbers.This is hive and small pox vaccine.
These are a lot of people with side effects when given to billions of people.This is a lot of people with brain damage when given to billions of people.
Why should someone risk side effects for a disease they do not have.Its is nearly impossible for a unvaccinated person to give a disease to a vaccinated person.Vaccines are suposedly 90 percent plus effective.So how can a unvaccinated person cause an epidemic of disease's.If that is true.So they are really only risking there own live's.Since vaccines are around 90 plus percent effective.So the chance's of a unvaccinated person giving a pro vaxxer a disease is almost zero.Remember polio only killed around a thousand people each year.Why should someone have to endure side effects for a polio vaccine that only kills a couple thousand each year before vaccine.Why should someone have to risk side effects for a disease.You have more likely to get in a car crash then to get.These side effects are more then a couple thousand each year.When given to billions of people
Before the polio vaccine, the disease killed thousands of people every year. ... Even though it's rare in the United States, polio still exists in a few countries inVaccines are very effective at preventing disease, but they don't work all the time. Most of the recommended childhood immunizations are 90%-100% effective, according to the CDC.
Plus the aborted baby with 560 cancer causing gene's.IS a side effect almost all vaccine's have.The odds of these dangerous gene's being in the vaccine are 100 percent.Con dismisses the mass death vaccine's have caused ever the years.But you must remember these do happen.They have happened enough time's for the chance's of it happening again.People have become paralyzed and died from vaccine's.
This does happen.It just when will this happen again
National Advisory Board (NAB) and mandated 50 polio vaccines (up from 5) to every child before age 5. Indian doctors blame the Gates campaign for a devastating vaccine-strain polio epidemic that paralyzed 496,000 children between 2000 and 2017. In 2017, the Indian Government dialed back Gates’ vaccine regimen and evicted Gates and his cronies from the NAB
Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. is an American environmental attorney, author, and opponent of vaccination. Kennedy is a son of Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of former president John F. Kennedy. He is the president of the board of Waterkeeper Alliance, a non-profit environmental group that he helped found in 1999.
Btw a lot of vaccines are fast tracked.SO how can cons source possibly call them safe.
Con
#4
Pre-argument
I will sum my opponent's argument in succinct statements.
P1: Some vaccines have severe side effects and are generally not worth it
P2: Cancer-gene aborted babies are in vaccines
P3: Vaccines are fast-tracked
C1: Vaccines are harmful.
The arguments start below.
I. Pro's case
Fallacy of composition
Pass. Con used only 2 examples for dangerous vaccines but ignores that 2 vaccines are not everything, considering there are 14 more vaccines that are supposedly safe. Remember: You can always choose not to do these two vaccines, but 2 vaccines are not the majority. If you are equipped with 14 cures that are not dangerous, that itself makes the whole group of "vaccines" harmful. Just because there is a terrorist group in the US, doesn't mean the US endorses terrorism. Pro is trying to use the minority to prove the majority, which is a fallacy.
This, on top, is that those two have percentages such as 90-100% of working. having 10% * 2/16 = 1.25% harm rate is anything but majority. If you are telling me that eating bread is harmful because two kinds of bread might have an overdose of something, then it is fallacy. It prevents not me to eat other kinds of bread.
Sourcelessness and weak sources
Pro did not use sources for these points that wouldn't work without any sources considering they are not common knowledge.
- Cancer baby genes are used in the vaccines
- The chance of infection from an unvax. person to a vax. person is almost 0
Either that or Pro failed to make a connection between these sources and the points, which is also bad.
Pro used weak sources for these points.
- Bill Gates Vaccines(Related to conspiracy theory, unreliable)
Can't say that Pro is giving a good case if he doesn't give adequate sources. =)
II. Con's case
Well, none of my R1 stuff was ever sufficiently challenged, so I am just gonna make conclusions instead. yeet.
- Only a minority of vaccines have a risk. Most of them are basically not of large risk. It is baseless to say that that is considered "harmful".
- Official sites of vaccines, including passive reports that people trust, state that vaccines are not generally harmful.
- Pro used no sources or weak sources on points.
- I have disproved Pro, at least for this stage.
Vote Con.
Sources:
Round 3
Pro
#5
Source's
I sourced aborted baby gene's and other source's in first round.it in the first round.When i first made claims i still extend those argement.
How can a unvaccinated person give a vaccinated person a disease when they are suppose to be immune to a disease.That was a question because the pro vax people treat unvaccinated people like murder's.They banned unvaccinated children from attending schools and all public space's some place's.Most of my source's are in the first round when i first made those claims.I still etend those arguments
Bill Gates Vaccines(Related to conspiracy theory, unreliable)
Its not a conspiracy he has been kicked out of india because 400 thousand children became paralyzed from vaccines.
This, on top, is that those two have percentages such as 90-100% of working. having 10% * 2/16 = 1.25% harm rate is anything but majority. If you are telling me that eating bread is harmful because two kinds of bread might have an overdose of something, then it is fallacy. It prevents not me to eat other kinds of bread.
No people are mass dyeing from vaccine's.
Court Ruling Confirms Merck’s Gardasil HPV Vaccine Kills People, but Did Anyone Even Notice?
extent my fast tracking claim
IWell, none of my R1 stuff was ever sufficiently challenged, so I am just gonna make conclusions instead. yeet.Only a minority of vaccines have a risk. Most of them are basically not of large risk. It is baseless to say that that is considered "harmful".Official sites of vaccines, including passive reports that people trust, state that vaccines are not generally harmful.
.Yes it was i will repeat myself. They can not say vaccine's are safe because a lot of them are fast tracked and skipped 3 to 5 years if safety researched.They have no basis to call them safe because they skipped 4 years of safety researched. The people making money off vaccine's have work at the fda. A huge conflict of intrest
Pass. Con used only 2 examples for dangerous vaccines but ignores that 2 vaccines are not everything,
I have used 6 dangerous vaccine's in this debate. I should not have to use all 70
Con
#6
Rebuttals
Since by traditional standards, making new arguments in R3 loses conduct, I will not make any explicitly, although some new sources may be presented as support of existing points.
Aborted baby genes
A reliable source shows that even though aborted baby genes could potentially exist, it is not of direct correlation that those genes will infect anyone externally.
[1]
Fast Tracking
Another reliable source shows that fast-tracking is of no significant harm.
[2]
Bill Gates
It is basically a conspiracy theory.
[3]
Also, since there are so many non-Bill Gates vaccine organizations just in the US[4], just stating one isn't going to help at all, especially since there is probably much more outside of the US. One of Pro's sources is basically conspiracy theory and the other is as outdated as 2 periods of "fast-tracking"(2014), we can deem that his sources are basically unreliable and weak.
Not all 70
Pro openly admits that the majority of vaccines are safe, which defeats his case. Again, studies have shown that the majority of vaccines are safe, with that dangerous side effects are rarer than choking from eating food.
Conclusions
- Studies have shown that vaccines are safe. Pro used outdated and unreliable sources, including misinterpretation of the cases(such as that aborted baby genes must have harm when they clearly don't, shown by a study), and that is no different than dropping my points altogether.
- Studies have shown that to suffer severe cases of side effects from vaccines it is a very slim chance, slimmer than choking to death. Vaccines bring more safety than harm, for the most case. Again, Pro's logic is basically that food is harmful because you can choke to death. To all the anti-vaxxers: DON'T EAT AT ALL BECAUSE YOU CAN SUFFER FROM CHOKING HAZARDS.
- Pro has only shown one conspiracy theory, and remember, even if Bill Gate's vaccines fail, there are many more replacement organizations just in the US.
- Fast Tracking is safe, shown by the evidence.
- Pro only proved 4 out of (16)70 vaccines. Even Pro knows that the majority of vaccines are mostly safe. Pro fails to prove his BoP as he only proved a small group of vaccines out of a big group, which, mostly, vaccines remain safe even if those 4 aren't.
- Vote CON.
Sources
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro argues there have been problems a really long time ago, there are short term side effects, and appeal to pro-lifers.
Con thankfully puts some effort into explaining the highlights from pro each round, and makes his own case that the benefits of vaccine result in negative harms overall. Of particular note from him, was the starving the death food analogy; which perhaps more people should avoid the dangers of food.
I'm not to interested in the forum. I joined the site for the debates. Intelligent_06 will win anyway, so it's not to big of a deal. thanks though.
Arguably the fastest way to unlock voting, is by playing a game of Mafia on the forums.
I take back my comment about voting, I didn't know that must have completed two debates or 100 forum posts before voting. Silly me.
source i forgot in third roundhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/03/26/unvaccinated-children-banned-public-spaces-amid-measles-outbreak-new-york-suburb/
Definitely voting Intelligence_06. crossed's whole argument was cherry-picking data.
Debates with him do seem painful. In the end, you grab your W and your IQ eventually recovers, but was it worth it? I'm still asking myself those questions
This is his whole logic. the comment below is the whole structure of this whole debate. It will take me at least an hour to add fillers to it because apparently I am the one with insufficient proof.
*IQ lowers*
Me neither, apparently because some cars broke would correlate to that using tools for transportation is harmful:
I don't envy the voter who has to slog through this
If Pro plays this right, he might win.
I sourced this video twice in the debate but i forgot to mention that the baby's imune system thing came from it.
https://youtu.be/18bCga8yo-I
Oh yeah? Medicine is bad because the medicine factories made it wrong. Heh.
He's referring to the aids crossed will come up with
you dont
Why do I need 30000 when I only need to use 3000?
...but first he must wallow in 30,000 characters worth of turmeric ads.
Welp, ez win for Intel
much better
harm•ful härm′fəl►
adj.
Causing or capable of causing harm; injurious.
Full of harm; hurtful; injurious; noxious; detrimental; mischievous.
Synonyms Pernicious, baneful, deleterious, prejudicial
https://www.wordnik.com/words/harmful
vac•cine văk-sēn′, văk′sēn″►
n.
A preparation of a weakened or killed pathogen, such as a bacterium or virus, or of a portion of the pathogen's structure that upon administration to an individual stimulates antibody production or cellular immunity against the pathogen but is incapable of causing severe infection.
n.
A preparation from the cowpox virus that protects against smallpox when administered to an individual.
https://www.wordnik.com/words/vaccine
twist what definition? You haven't provided any.
Do you mean at least one vaccination has proven harmful or do you mean on balance, vaccines to more harm than good?