It's only in the US that Pro is saying 'fundamental rights' are violated. You can't assume all nations and cultures need to apply identical rights to their citizens when health and economy are at stake. Not all nations and their people believe so highly in freedom.
I am going to lay out a very simple case, see if Pro can attack it and then back it up in Round 2. It will include implicit rebuttals to Pro's Round 1 but I won't be giving references this Round, it saves you time as a reader and me effort as a debater so that my proof is streamlined.
==
There is no business that shouldn't have the right to do this, however there are businesses that are far more justified in doing so.
Businesses that deal face-to-face either between employees or employee-to-client/customer have the most justification to employ a policy that restricts service to the vaccinated. You could argue, as I'm sure Pro will, that they could simply have a 'vaccinated or wear a mask' policy but due to the plausibility of new variants, masks should be necessary for at least the next 2 years. Masks, in the end, are not everything and a business that does things like massage their clients, cut their hair, lapdance or essentially anything where bodily contact is inevitable, have an obligation to both their employees and to their shareholders, not just clients, to ensure that each employee is protected and thus reliable to keep producing income for them.
This isn't cynical, it's realistic about the reason a company should protect its employees, not just clientele. In the same way that you should have the right to evict a mentally ill client/customer from premises even though they can't help the lashing out, tantrum or whatever it is they do that disturbs others, you should have the right to not provide goods and services to clientele that have significantly increased odds of harboring a virus that can be mutating in their own body to a new variant and putting everyone at risk.
I don't think Pro realised this before creating this debate but new variants happen far more probabilistically when the original covid variant(s) that will be vaccinated against are able to survive and even thrive in the host's body for longer. Vaccines help the immune system rapidly eliminate the virus, giving it significantly less time to have the chance to mutate as there's thousandfold less replications happening.
==
What China did to the world by not warning and allowing their potentially, let alone known, infected to go abroad is essentially an act of biological warfare. Their only excuse was ignorance.
It is important to understand how serious this is internationally. If one nation is going to let some conspiracy theorists result in the reinfection of another nation due to whatever new variant they enabled to mutate in their bodies, at the very least the outbreak needs to be contained to their local town/city and at worst, their nation. So, with regards to international restrictions, it is very sensible to ban non-vaccinated from a nation especially if said nation is known to have many anti-vaxxers or if it's very capitalist many who can't afford the vaccine.
This is pragmatic and necessary. There is an alternative but that is not really against the resolution's idea, which is to have specific laws that require long quarantining and blood tests for the unvaccinated tourists/immigrants when they enter the country that they're obligated to pay for in a special facility (not this hotel room method, though one could become that facility). That is still in essence a form of restriction where they're disallowed to interact physically with the nation's populace by and large.
The problem with this policy is that it has one major flaw; these people are still unvaccinated no matter how long you quarantine them. If their blood test shows they didn't even naturally contract Covid at some point and don't have the antibodies, they will eventually need to get vaccinated anyway in more strict countries on the matter.
A 'right' to national defense surely supercedes a 'right' to infect a populace with whatever turned up in your body.
In fact, even if a nation doesn't get their populace vaccinated, they may be able to reduce it to almost 0 covid remaining if they have enough who are vaccinated and the virus eventually naturally dies off as it can't replicate fast enough to remain. They could be introducing covid (not some supervariant just normal covid as we know it) back into their population which will hurt their unvaccinated locals because the tourist/immigrant happened to have it.
==
Unless Pro is a conspiracy theorist who genuinely believes that the vaccine is harmful or that Sars really is 'good for us', the latter 2 points of Pro's case are unsubstantiated nitpicking.
This resolution/title says 'never be required' not 'shouldn't right this instant be required'. We will indeed know how harmful the vaccine is to the body quite soon, so the third point Pro raises is moot unless there's a deep conspiracy to mask the harms from the entire population of every country.
As for the 'Sars can help the body', maybe there's some health benefits to drinking or at least sniffing gasoline/petroleum. This doesn't mean I would ever advise someone to do it and why is that? The harms of doing so outweigh the good for any individual or group who willingly exposes themselves to that.
The same idea dismisses Pro's closing point.
**************************************************
>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.