Instigator / Pro
1
1502
rating
8
debates
37.5%
won
Topic
#3048

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

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
1
1

After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
1
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description

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

Burdens are equal.

-->
@Vader
@oromagi
@Speedrace
@MisterChris
@Theweakeredge

2.5 hours bump

-->
@RationalMadman
@Vader
@oromagi
@MisterChris

Vote? 1 day left

Bump

-->
@Barney
@oromagi
@MisterChris

Bump

-->
@Intelligence_06
@FourTrouble

Medical Privacy is enshrined in HIPAA.

Being forced to disclose your medical information is protected. Do we force people to reveal any other health information before receiving service. Even healthcare providers are not allowed to demand a patient reveal if they have HIV or Hep C. That's what universal precautions are for.

Bump vote

Bulp

-->
@FourTrouble

Eh, it's fine. My impression was that Intelligence realized his strategy in the opening round wasn't going to work, so he downshifted to a largely semantic argument. I think he would have been much better off if he just dug into examples of where proof should be required like his hospitals point, though even then, it's pretty clear he left pretty much all of your argument unaddressed, which meant he had to do a lot more on the weighing analysis front. Without that, all he had was the desperation play.

-->
@whiteflame

If I really strain, maybe.

Thanks for the vote. Though I doubt reading the debate was insightful for you, so I'm sorry about that. I thought Con's approach to the debate wasn't very honorable. It obviously wasn't the type of debate I wanted to have here.

-->
@FourTrouble

I’d say it’s weakly implied, but only in retrospect. Without seeing his R3, it wouldn’t have been clear at all that he was suggesting a shift in who furnished that proof.

I will point out that it also muddles the resolution a bit. Proof of vaccination is required by whom? It sounds like you’re talking about the need for some external agency (likely the FDA) to verify distinct populations in the research (i.e. those who got the vaccine and those who didn’t) rather than a requirement of the company conducting the research, since we’re talking about who would approve the study when we discuss “proof.” So I guess you could have argued that study validation requires proof, rather than saying that companies running the study need to be able to track vaccinated individuals, which seems off from the definition of proof. All of that being said, the implication here is that companies would get sloppy or even falsify evidence in the absence of a mandate like this, and it’s incumbent on you to show that that’s likely to happen. Otherwise, the point has no impact because, yes, it’s plausible that they can still track people and claim accurate results without a requirement.

-->
@whiteflame
@Intelligence_06

Con's definition of "proof" wasn't even "hinted" in R2. It's entirely new to R3.

-->
@Intelligence_06

I wouldn’t call that “proof of vaccination” so much as tracking of who received what shot during a clinical trial. Considering as well that Pro had an implied definition of persons furnishing proof themselves up to that point, I found it problematic that you tried to establish a new definition so late in the debate (you hinted at it in R2, but only clarified in R3). If you want to make the debate semantic like this, present the point in R1, don’t bury the lead.

“It's a valid point that that information must be somewhere, but it is not presented by the individuals being vaccinated.”

But there is still a needed proof for who took the vaccines and who did not. There is never a proposition of that the patients must give the ID, just that the proof must be somewhere.

Bump

-->
@whiteflame

Sorry for not seeing this notification soon enough, but feel free.

-->
@whiteflame

Feel free.

-->
@Intelligence_06
@FourTrouble

I guess I shouldn't be concerned with this, but given that I'm debating FT on this same topic, I do want to make sure you're both good with having me post a vote on this one. I'll post an RFD regardless (haven't written anything yet), but if you want me to void out the points due to concerns over bias, I'd be fine doing that.

In less than a day, preferably in 4-6 hrs.

Argument coming in less than 24 hrs.

I think I can get a response of this in a day.