Instigator / Pro
1
1517
rating
7
debates
42.86%
won
Topic

Proof of COVID vaccination should never be required for any purpose by either the government or any private entity.

Status
Finished

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

Voting points
1
1

With 2 votes and same amount of points on both sides ...

It's a tie!
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Health
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
1
1695
rating
76
debates
74.34%
won
Description
~ 88 / 5,000

If you don't know what the topic refers to, don't accept the debate.

Burdens are equal.

Round 1
Pro
This debate is about COVID vaccines.

COVID vaccines are experimental gene-based vaccines with unknown effects & risks. They didn't undergo ordinary testing required of traditional vaccines, and their "emergency use authorization" is characterized by a lack of evidence, incomplete scientific knowledge, and severe safety concerns.

Nobody should be forced to get one of these vaccines without informed consent. And given the potential health risks, not only to individuals but to our collective balance with the virome, only the most vulnerable people should ever consider getting vaccinated in the first place.

1. Compulsory vaccination violates fundamental rights.

No right is more sacred than the right to decide what happens with our own body. This right to self-determination & bodily integrity gives rise to the principle of informed consent, and the logical corollary of that principle is the right not to consent (i.e. a right to refuse vaccination).

Compulsory vaccination violates these sacred rights. As an experimental technology, it also violates the basic ethical principles established after the Nuremberg trials against human medical experimentation. See Nuremberg Code

2. Requiring proof of vaccination also violates fundamental rights. 

Requiring proof of vaccination needlessly interferes with people's privacy about their immune status and/or vaccine hesitance. It also interferes with freedoms of expression & religion.

Many people voluntarily get vaccinated. If vaccination makes these people immune to COVID, that solves their concern. Nobody needs to know who is vaccinated, as this knowledge doesn't make anyone more immune. Vaccination alone protects from COVID.

3. COVID vaccines could have catastrophic consequences for human life. 

COVID vaccines genetically modify our cells to make spike protein, which in turn causes our adaptive immunity to create antibodies. Just as Monsanto modifies corn to handle glyphosate, the vaccines modify humans to handle spike protein. And like Monsanto's GMOs, gene-based vaccines bypass ordinary evolutionary pathways (and our innate immune system), while manipulating large sets of interdependent factors at the same time, with unforeseeable consequences.

We don't fully understand how this impacts human health. In fact, we don't even know where mRNA goes in vaccine recipient's bodies, how long mRNA is translated, or how long spike protein remains in cells. Nor do we know whether these genetic changes might spread beyond control via horizontal transfer. But the emerging evidence paints a terrifying picture:

  • 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. 
These findings explain, at least in part, why mass vaccination has led to an increase in overall mortality among the vaccinated, especially in people younger than 70. See e.g. IPC 2021 (analyzing data in Israel after mass vaccination campaign). And that's just what the evidence shows so far. We still have no clue how these vaccines will impact human health in the long-term.

Rather than pretend we fully understand the "science," we should recognize the limitations of current understandings. Nature is too complex, and many of the relevant variables are still unknown. The risk of unintended consequences, including catastrophic consequences like the extinction of human life, strongly recommends limiting vaccination to only the most vulnerable.

In fact, if you're under 70, your chance of dying from COVID is lower than your chance of dying from the flu. See Yeadon 2021; Ioannidis 2020; Mueller 2020; Levin 2020. So nobody under 70 should even consider getting vaccinated, as the health risks of vaccination clearly outweigh the health risks of COVID for younger people. Even older people should think twice about vaccination. 

4. SARS-CoV-2 could benefit human health.

What doesn't kill us makes us stronger. SARS-CoV-2 functions like a genetic update, integrating into the genomes of COVID survivors. See Zhang 2021. The virus reveals vulnerabilities in our health, causing illness in unhealthy people or people living in an unhealthy environment. But as we integrate & adapt to this new genomic information, our bodies become more biodiverse, resilient, and resistant, effectively decreasing the likelihood of harmful biologic degradations in the future.

If our body adapts to SARS-CoV-2 at the innate immune system level, there's no need to make antibodies at all. But if you bypass our innate immunity through vaccination, you create antibodies without ever triggering innate immunity. This prevents integration & adaptation to the virus, interferes with the natural processes of the virome, and thus increases the risk of disease. See Liang 2021Bush 2020

Virome studies "emphasize the balance between beneficial and harmful roles of viral populations in humans.” In other words, SARS-CoV-2 is beneficial or harmful based on its role & relationship to the virome. In healthy people, or in people who survive COVID, this genomic integration improves human health.

We shouldn't take this option away from anyone by requiring COVID vaccination.
Con
1. BoP

I, as the Con of this debate, will prove that FourTrouble did not prove that COVID vaccine should not be required by organizations by any means, even though that BoP is specified to be shared, considering the topic statement involves "Proof" at the start, which means that the burden of proof revolves around a proof or disproof regarding an issue.

In other words, All I need to do in this debate is to prove that my opponent did not sufficiently prove that COVID vaccine should not be required by organizations by any means. An advice to my opponent who appears to be relatively new on this site, Never put "proof of" in the start of a topic statement then declare that the Burden of Proof is shared as it would mean the same thing as the BoP on Pro on the topic that is actually to be discussed, which is whether if COVID vaccines should be able to be required by organizations.

2. Definitions

Here is an academic definition for Vaccine[1]. It helps to rule out any examples that aren't to be considered vaccines, as it appears to be that FourTrouble did not define anything and just started right away.
a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious disease
In other words, it doesn't matter how "bad" our current vaccines are. My opponent cannot predict the future so what is meant is that regardless of how efficient a vaccine is at preventing COVID 19, made at any given moment, it shouldn't be required.

More than that, a more academic definition of Vaccine[2]:
a suspension of attenuated or killed microorganisms (viruses, bacteria, or rickettsiae), administered for prevention, amelioration, or treatment of infectious diseases.
In other words, if it doesn't work, or causes more problems than it fixes regarding COVID-19, it is not a vaccine. Any vaccine listed by Pro that doesn't even work shouldn't be considered a vaccine.

In the end, we are imagining a vaccine that works, that helps preventing the virus without causing a lot of human problems as vaccines in the past did that(such as SARS[3]). 

3. Constructive

Counterexample(s)
Here are an example of an occupational organization which needs an absolute COVID-free condition. Hospitals for treating COVID-19. Obviously being a doctor you don't want to infect the patient again. This is common sense. Next.

COVID vaccines actually works
Pro's argument is regarding what the vaccines contain and what the things they contain do for the human body, most negatively. However, there is not yet any proof given to show that COVID vaccines, any of them, doesn't work in the real world. Just theoretically. It only shows that they have potential harms, but none of them have been actually proven to be actually take place in the real world.

On the contrary, I, as Con, have evidence that the present COVID vaccines actually works!
[4]An authentic evidence shows that despite the concerns, the vaccines are effective still.
[5]More evidence.
[6]Even more evidence.
[7]Statistics shows that at least one specimen of COVID vaccines work for the majority of people.
[8]Pfizer vaccines are 95% effective
[9]Pfizer vaccines have side effects of usually no more severe than vomiting and fever, which are not as bad as barely being able to breathe(COVID-19).

My opponent's argument here is essentially like saying that because there is gasoline in the tank of the car, and gasoline is explosive, thus the car will explode and none of us should own cars. What is in it vs How it works. In the end, it is the latter that matters.

Conclusion
  1. Common sense, Hospitals should require COVID-19 vaccines as doctors absolutely would not want to re-infect the patients.
  2. COVID-19 vaccines actually work for the most of the times, proven by several evidence
  3. All my opponent's sources are theoretical, and they do not weigh a feather against real-world arguments because that is what ACTUALLY matters.
  4. My opponent's proof is currently being dismantled, and I currently have the upper hand.
Sources


Round 2
Pro
1. Con misunderstands his burden.
 
This debate is about whether to require "proof of COVID vaccination." This is a normative topic, so Con's burden is equal to mine. If that weren't enough, Con accepted equal burdens when he accepted the debate. The word "proof" in the resolution doesn't change this fact.
 
It’s not enough for Con to show that I haven’t met my burden. To win, Con must affirmatively persuade you that proof of COVID vaccination should be required for some purpose by either the government or a private entity.
 
2. Yes, COVID vaccines "work."
 
They do what they're designed to do: genetically modify humans to handle spike protein via antibody stimulation. Yes, this protects vaccinated individuals from severe disease. But that doesn't mean vaccinated individuals can’t transmit the virus to others.
 
3. Hospitals shouldn't require proof of COVID vaccination.
 
Con says they should do so to prevent "re-infection." But Con offers no evidence that (a) re-infection is possible, (b) re-infection is a problem in hospitals, (c) vaccination prevents re-infection, or (d) that the benefit of mandatory vaccination outweighs the cost to doctors’ medical autonomy, bodily integrity, religious freedom, and/or privacy rights. Con doesn't even show that COVID poses sufficient risk to warrant vaccination in the first place, let alone to mandate.
 
In fact, the empirical literature contradicts Con's thesis: Dan 2021 shows that immunological memory to COVID grants protection for at least 6 months (and likely more). COVID re-infection isn’t a problem in hospitals.
 
Doctors know this. They’re experts, after all. And they know what’s best for their patients. Individual doctors, not hospitals, are in the best position to determine whether COVID vaccination is necessary (or a net benefit) in their unique circumstances.
 
Con refers to “common sense.” But “common sense” isn’t a reliable source of evidence. It often conflicts with scientific truth. See Ellerton 2016; Rutherford 2015; Shtulman 2012. Common sense tells us that the Earth is flat, and that the sun rotates around the Earth. Science proves both conclusions wrong. And so too here.
 
4. Con leaves most of my argument untouched.
 
Con says he “dismantled” my case. But Con doesn’t respond to my substantive points at all. He doesn't dispute the potential health risks of COVID vaccination, or the health benefits of SARS-CoV-2 integration. He also ignores everything I said about fundamental rights. I can’t identify a single point he “dismantled.”

Con
Forewords

You thought I was gonna forfeit but it was me, DIO!

Jokes aside, the only reason I replied so late was again, I had zero access to devices any better than an Iphone 6.

New Argument

In short: a Syllogism.
  1. COVID Vaccine producers must require testers to ensure that it works and to find out how to reduce the symptoms to a minimum, and the surveys regarding it must require proof of COVID vaccine to show if said vaccine in question fulfills the occupation it was designed to do(Treat the Virus)
  2. COVID Vaccine producers are private entities(or in the case of China, Publicly-owned) and they can(or should) conduct surveys and tests in which only people that has taken the COVID vaccine(In other words, has the Proof of vaccine that can be drawn out when required) should be able to participate in for validity, and some organizations has done so already[1][2](and much more, essentially to the point of almost all the evidence in this debate), out of completely rational purpose given in this syllogism
  3. Thus, the claim "Proof of COVID vaccination should never be required for any purpose by either the government or a private entity" is false
All the basis that my opponent even has the bravery to say that *all* COVID vaccines were bad and unnecessary were based on conducted researches in which only people that has proof that he/she/they has taken the COVID vaccine to even reach towards any conclusions to support my opponent. If my opponent's resolution is true, then anybody could enter the research, even if the ones meant to prove that the COVID vaccines were harmful. That wouldn't make any sense as the research is meant for people that has proof of taking the COVID vaccine.

This is on top of that we would want the virus to perish. New vaccines with better capacities and less symptoms and better rates of curation are being made, and in order to prove that they work, proof of said vaccine should be required by its makers to conduct a research on it if works or not and if it brings out harsh symptoms. Say, if Pro's resolution is enforced right now, if everything Pro said is true(a.k.a COVID vaccines don't work), then good luck surviving the rest of your life with the virus around or die because of the virus, because then the researches meant to be conducted would include everyone, including the ones without a proof of vaccine, nullifying the validity of the research.

You are welcome, Seldiora.

Rebuttals

To furtherly dismantle Pro's case, I will attempt to break every single point Pro has, if possible.

2. Yes, COVID vaccines "work."
They do what they're designed to do: genetically modify humans to handle spike protein via antibody stimulation. Yes, this protects vaccinated individuals from severe disease. But that doesn't mean vaccinated individuals can’t transmit the virus to others.
If this is the reason, then it just furtherly proves that COVID vaccines should be required, assuming it WORKS which is in of itself an untouched argument. Ideally, if everyone is vaccinated, then nobody will transmit the virus to anyone else.

But Con offers no evidence that (a) re-infection is possible, (b) re-infection is a problem in hospitals, (c) vaccination prevents re-infection, or (d) that the benefit of mandatory vaccination outweighs the cost to doctors’ medical autonomy, bodily integrity, religious freedom, and/or privacy rights.
Let me provide logical and scientific proof to all of these.

Medical Autonomy, Religious Freedom, etc

Honestly, I don't know any doctor that prefers his "freedom" and "religion" over his life itself. I don't think headaches(which is about the worst symptom for the vaccines) are worse than being hardly able to breath(COVID-19 symptoms). Honestly, if you can't even handle a needle and a headache, then just go somewhere else. COVID is too dangerous for you.

Re-infection is possible in hospitals

It is.[3][4]

Re-infection is a problem

Even though it isn't likely that this would happen, the fact that it would happen would mean that it is a problem since a re-infected individual would still have tendency to pass it to other people in the hospital, including those ones that have been cured. If it exists, it is a problem.

Vaccine prevents re-infection

While a single dose doesn't grant you eternal immortality, re-vaccination helps[5]. In the end, vaccination is still the solution.

Con says he “dismantled” my case. But Con doesn’t respond to my substantive points at all. He doesn't dispute the potential health risks of COVID vaccination, or the health benefits of SARS-CoV-2 integration. He also ignores everything I said about fundamental rights. I can’t identify a single point he “dismantled.”
Health risks

The chances so far of people dying to Covid-19 is 0.0017%[6]. The death rate of the virus, on the other hand, is 1.8%. You would have less chance of dying if vaccinated than not.

"Health Benefits"

Evidence on this column has proven that yes, Vaccines work and they successfully prevent the virus from harming the body most of the time. Vaccines does the same things to the human body(if not better), except this time, Vaccines reduce a hard time without proper breathing and thousands of dollars of hospital bills for curing COVID-19.

Fundamental rights

If you value your "rights" over your life, then have fun having a hard time breathing. It is your decision after all. COVID vaccines are overall beneficial and they should be required to reduce infection(Headaches don't transmit) in some purposes(For example, large events of gathering, such as concerts and football games).

While proof of vaccination shouldn't be required for ALL cases, it should be required for some cases.

Conclusions
  • Organizations conducting researches regarding the effectiveness of the vaccines should be done only by people who has taken the COVID vaccine, and thus, the proof of COVID vaccines should be required.
  • If all of the people are vaccinated, then there would be little to no re-infection.
  • Re-infection exists, and vaccines could solve it. In this case, Hospitals meant to treat COVID-19 should require vaccines.
  • Vaccination is less deadly than the virus itself to this moment, and they do about the same things except Vaccines doesn't let you go through thousands of dollars of bills and a hard time breathing.
  • Overall, Some cases, such as studies regarding the vaccines and hospitals, should be able to require proof of COVID vaccines.

Sources


Round 3
Pro
Rebuttal
 
1. Con's R2 argument contradicts Con’s argument in R1. 
 
The basis of Con’s argument in R1 is that vaccines work. As Con explained, “if it doesn't work... it is not a vaccine.” The basis of Con’s argument in R2 is that we don’t know whether vaccines work, so we need to conduct more studies. These arguments conflict with each other. Con shouldn’t be arguing both of these.
 
2. Con’s R2 argument fails on its own terms. 
 
Vaccine manufacturers don’t require “proof of vaccination” to study vaccines. Clinical trials are enough. Clinical trials involve randomized-controlled studies that include a control group (i.e. people who receive a placebo rather than the vaccine). Nobody in clinical trials needs to provide “proof of vaccination.” These clinical trials establish efficacy without requiring “proof of vaccination.”
 
Conclusion
 
As I explained in R1, COVID presents minimal risks to people under the age of 70. Meanwhile, COVID vaccines involve a high-level of scientific uncertainty, an experimental technology with no long-term data, and unknown risks. On top of that, SC2 offers potential benefits to human health, none of which Con rebutted. Taken together, these facts emphasize the reasonableness of voluntarily choosing to assume the risks of COVID infection over & above the risks of COVID vaccination. 
 
Even if you disagree, you must admit at least this much: COVID vaccines work. COVID vaccines protect individuals against severe disease regardless of whether others are vaccinated. Thus, COVID doesn't justify compromising individual rights to self-determination, bodily integrity, medical privacy, and religious freedom. Voluntary vaccination protects those who want protection, while allowing others to live vaccine-free without causing harm to anyone else. Con never showed otherwise. Therefore, please vote Pro.
Con
Backing up my R2, not R1

I apologize for making a poorly-worded and unclear statement in R1 which Pro considers as an actual argument: At least that isn't representative of the academic definition of Vaccine, shown in this debate.

a suspension of attenuated or killed microorganisms (viruses, bacteria, or rickettsiae), administered for prevention, amelioration, or treatment of infectious diseases.
The definition includes administered, which means that what makes any specimen of substance a vaccine isn't of its ability to treat or kill viruses, but rather that it is administered[1], or meant, or designed, or given out, to treat or kill the virus, etc. As a result, water itself could, in theory, be a "vaccine" if WHO declares and issues it as one, even though it doesn't work against most, if all diseases, the entire reason why intelligent organizations haven't administer water as a vaccine.

In the end, for everything being said in the paragraph above, what makes a vaccine a vaccine is that it is distributed as one.

Now, onto the argument itself. The fact medical substances made by organizations such as Sinopharm are administered as vaccines, but none of them are yet good enough to be used for every applicable scenario --- and not fail at doing so. As a result, tests would be rational to be required to test the administered vaccines to be good enough to do the job that it is meant for, for only people that has taken the vaccine, versus not.

In the end, incoherency isn't really a problem --- especially since that one of them was worded insufficiently and proves the other to be correct. I shouldn't be arguing both of these. I should be arguing for the latter. A more-precise revision of my R1 argument would be: If something isn't meant to cure COVID or is meant to deal more damage than it heals, it isn't a vaccine. 

"Proof"

The definition of proof is here[2].
 
In the end, there is no definition or outline given by Pro on what counts as "Proof of COVID Vaccine", so again, the academic definition will be used. In the end, since by a clinical trial, there is visual proof or record of one taking the vaccine, there must be at least one way the research-conducting organization identifies people who took the vaccine. How? Whatever how, there must be proof of that person taking the vaccine for the study to even be accurate in the first place.

The people who were given the test substance isn't locked up in a sunless cabinet: They are open to the public and they return in a period of time[3]. In the end, those who reported valid data would, obviously, have proof for being vaccinated. And the companies that produce them, obviously, would require proof of vaccination to exist on said group of people to enter the valid data that actually matters. The proof doesn't limit itself to a card, but may also include medical databases and just about anything that could prove that this person is valid to upload his/her/their data onto the database of whether-if-the-vaccine-works-or-not in this case.

In this case, even if you use clinical trials, there is still "proof" to be required to upload valid data onto the database, even if it doesn't take shape in the form of a signed card.

In the end, the vaccine-makers should still have the right to require proof of vaccine for certain purposes, such as studying if those administered vaccines in question actually accomplish the job they were meant to do. No matter what, in order to successfully conduct the researches, only people who have proof in taking the vaccine(s) would have the right to participate in the study about COVID Vaccines.

It is simple. Companies would administer vaccines to several people, and they call them back. The companies require people to have proof of vaccination on them in order to successfully research the vaccines. This would simply be one case in which an organization should be allowed to require proof of vaccines. Remove the requirement and impostors could easily invade in, which would alter the data, and that is not good.




Rebuttals

As I explained in R1, COVID presents minimal risks to people under the age of 70. Meanwhile, COVID vaccines involve a high-level of scientific uncertainty, an experimental technology with no long-term data, and unknown risks. On top of that, SC2 offers potential benefits to human health, none of which Con rebutted. Taken together, these facts emphasize the reasonableness of voluntarily choosing to assume the risks of COVID infection over & above the risks of COVID vaccination.

Even if you disagree, you must admit at least this much: COVID vaccines work. COVID vaccines protect individuals against severe disease regardless of whether others are vaccinated. Thus, COVID doesn't justify compromising individual rights to self-determination, bodily integrity, medical privacy, and religious freedom. Voluntary vaccination protects those who want protection, while allowing others to live vaccine-free without causing harm to anyone else. Con never showed otherwise. Therefore, please vote Pro.
I have also proven about the harms about the virus, and vaccines do the same things as the virus, except with much less time and pain(It releases antibodies simulating the virus, but in small amounts so it doesn't induce pain, in the end it does the same thing as the virus, with less pain.). Pro has refuted none of those. For the average person, the vaccine is easily the better choice. I have also proven that COVID vaccines, taken again, could treat re-infections which exists, thus proving that some hospitals would be rational to require vaccination in its staff.

Pro has also committed an incoherent fallacy: First, he said that COVID vaccines are uncertain to work and have unknown risks; second, he said that COVID vaccines work. This time, I have zero idea which one Pro is trying to argue, unlike the example above where I have pointed out the relationship about two distinctive ideas.

Suppose COVID vaccines don't work all the time, then we should obviously research it, the way of requiring vaccination is presented.

Suppose COVID vaccines actually work in general, then because vaccines can successfully prevent the virus from harming, it should be required for public places as it, in general, reduces the harm of the people in the world. Either way, Pro's argument doesn't stand upright.

Then again, You are much less likely to die from the vaccine than to die from the virus. For your health benefits, take the vaccine. For your information, vote Con.

Questions for Anti-Vaxxers
  • What makes it violating to simply inject a chemical that is nearly harmless(at this stage), but helps you?
  • Why do you think it is more just to follow your holy book written centuries ago than to follow the newest science and medical studies?
  • If applicable, WHY do you think it is better to be infected and lay in bed for months than to choose a safer alternative that would at most give you fever?

Sources