Proof of COVID vaccination should never be required for any purpose by either the government or any private entity.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
If you don't know what the topic refers to, don't accept the debate.
Burdens are equal.
- Lei 2021 shows that spike protein damages & attacks cells in our body. Vaccination causes the body to produce millions of spike proteins, directly harming the cells in our body.
- Cassen 2021 finds a link between COVID vaccines and prion disease, as well as a link between spike protein and autoimmune disease. These diseases take years to develop, so we won't know how widespread the damage until it's too late.
- Bossche 2021 argues that mass vaccination could weaken our global innate immunity and thus lead to "immune escape." As Boscche explains, the more we use vaccines to immunize people, the more we increase the likelihood of viral resistance to vaccines due to replication/transmission of viral variants. Thus, mass COVID vaccination could engineer an outcome similar to "antibiotic resistance," which is "one of the biggest public health challenges of our time." See CDC 2021.
- Fohse 2021 proves that COVID vaccines weaken our innate immune system, not just in relation to SARS-CoV-2 but also in relation to other viral, fungal, and bacterial infection.
- Yeadon 2021 suggests that vaccination-induced spike protein leads to a range of abnormalities in people who were previously healthy, including unusual blood clots and thromboembolic events in people younger than 50. This has already proven itself true in two of the vaccines -- the AstraZeneca and J&J vaccines -- and there's emerging evidence that it's also true of Moderna & Pfizer vaccines. See Taquet 2021.
- Liang 2021 demonstrates that virome interference has been directly & inversely associated with human disease, including development of paediatric type 1 diabetes, growth stunting in children, coeliac disease, and inflammatory bowel disease. To the extent COVID vaccines interfere with the virome, we might see these problems down-the-road, perhaps in the progeny of vaccinated individuals.
Yes, not every country upholds “fundamental rights.” But that doesn’t mean these countries shouldn’t do so. International laws & norms protect these rights, including the right to self-determination & bodily integrity. See Universal Declaration of Human Rights; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These rights are justified in many ways, including by reference to natural law, to social contract theory (i.e. individuals give up certain freedoms in order to ensure the protection of certain rights), to discourse theory, or even to utilitarianism. Con never shows otherwise.
Really terrible argument from PRO here. PRO fails to restrict a public policy debate to any entity, essentially arguing that every entity public and private should follow the same policy. PRO is making a huge claim here, tossing out incredibly successful and popular prophylaxis. The buden of proof is PRO's here in spite of claiming shared burden.
1. Non-seq: Requiring proof of vax is not the same thing as madatory vax. If vax were mandatory, no proof of vax would be req'd.
2. Proof of vax violates 1st ammendment
CON successfully argues that 1A only applies to one nation and no private entities.
3 &4. Pure speculation CON ignores.
PRO proposed a radical shift in global norms (heck, even dog-sitters require proof of shots) based on the skimpiest of free expression arguments. Obviously, the act of asking for proof implies that the vax is voluntary and so not a violation of free expression. Govts and businesses have the responsibility to adhere to normal hygiene standards including requiring vaccinations as a prerequisite for many public interactions. PRO fails to make a convincing argument.
Neither debater actually addressed the issue in question...."Proof of COVID vaccination" and the requirement thereof.
Pro's argument of fundamental right to our own body is not an absolute, even constitutionally; there are conditional exceptions, such as due process. Con argued the point that employers have the responsibility of employee safety, and measures such as a vaccine requirement for employment was successfully rebutted on this point of exception.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zedvictor4 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0 points.
>Reason for Decision: Neither debater actually addressed the issue in question...."Proof of COVID vaccination" and the requirement thereof.
>Reason for Mod Action:
As a general rule, votes that do not impact the debate are given greater leeway than votes that award points. Even a vote like this that lacks substantial analysis is not moderated so long as it's a tied vote. As this vote lacks any impact on the outcome of the debate, it stands as written.
**************************************************
My perspective on mandatory vaccination is a bit distinct from this topic, though I do support it in some instances, albeit not to the extent that I would force people to take them. I would not mandate vaccination in this case.
I did read your argument, and I am interested in the topic.
I actually have another couple debates going already. So I'm happy to wait.
Did you read my argument? Do you actually support mandatory vaccination, or just interested in the topic debate-wise?
Maybe after you finish this one? Unless you want to do them simultaneously.
I wish I knew you were interested. Still could do it.
Well, I really wish I’d been in time to take this one.
Correct
RM, I'm already debating you...
An excellent topic.