Instigator / Pro
3
1724
rating
27
debates
88.89%
won
Topic
#545

The USFG should make the MMR vaccine mandatory

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
3
0

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

whiteflame
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
12,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1506
rating
4
debates
50.0%
won
Description

Full Topic: The United States Federal Government should mandate that individuals without a valid medical excuse receive the Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine.

Definitions

Vaccinations: A biological preparation that improves immunity to a particular disease. A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism, and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins or one of its surface proteins. The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as foreign, destroy it, and "remember" it, so that the immune system can more easily recognize and destroy any of these microorganisms that it later encounters.
Measles, mumps and rubella are all viral diseases that cause a wide range of symptoms and are highly transmissible. The symptoms derived from these viruses are pretty broad, so I'll just provide a link with specifics about them:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/mmr.html
Mandatory: required by law or rules; compulsory.

Some light ground rules:

1. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
2. No new arguments may be presented in the final round for either side
3. All definitions provided must be agreed to by both sides prior to accepting the debate
4. 12,000 characters maximum

For structure, debaters are allowed to initiate rebuttal in any round. New arguments are restricted only in the final round.

Thanks everyone for your votes and your feedback!

The emphasis on backlash was directed through public rejection and possible terrorism, but no mention of Net loss in the process of vaccination mandates. neither is the law discussed in details of the potential socioeconomic backlash of Government mandates, specifically in the United States (Persumably the country of discussion)

However, a note from history about the war on drugs back in the 80s and 90s or so just turned out to be a rat hole for money and showed very little in the way of Net Benefits, there is no discussion of funding of the proposed awareness programs which could potentially backlash into Net Loss, though this too could be argued in the informed nature and public understanding. perhaps a go fund me program would potentially work?

All in all i feel that pro has proposed a higher likely hood of Net benefit and reasonable assertion of mandates than con does of potential backlash and unmentioned methods of preventing another DARE in communicating vaccination.

The purpose is NET benefits
Net benefits are commonly used in cost-benefit analysis to determine whether a project should be funded. Calculate net benefits by subtracting the sum of direct and indirect costs from the sum of direct and indirect benefits. Costs and benefits are expressed in equivalent measures so that investors can see whether the benefits would outweigh the costs enough to make pursuing the project worthwhile.
Pro. gives plan to vaccinate within 5 years if 65 or older, Stresses need of mandates and proposes taxation, he goes to show how that the NET benefits are neglegable at best, showing that even failed mandates (Which con sources) of italy still shows a benefit to the country in the increase of vaccinations. Further he shows the success and failure of drug information programs (Dare which con also sources) shows only minor improvement in suidcide prevention.
Con Gives much link and information (Please put numbers by sources, say 1 goes to cdc and 2 goes to vaxpedia etc) that shows very little support for Net loss other than Italy and gives information regarding saudi arabia's awareness program in order to support his principal of mandates to be questioned. He cites potential backlash through the population who refuse/ignore the mandate such as italy.

I hold its the burden of the individual to inform him/herself of the pro's and con's of vaccination, I do believe that reaching out and informing people is good! however when looking at Net benefits of such plans, there is often little in the way of results (Documented) but when mandated by government the people realize the necessity of doing an action through the consequences of not following through on it and so most mandates show a net benefit regardless of its sucess when comparing to informing people.

-->
@Pilot

You're just saying that so I read the rest of the debate :P

I will, after I figure out how to answer my own debate. Totally stuck at the moment.

-->
@MrMaestro

I beg to differ. My argument was jamm packed with tension and comedy. Some have privately told me that round four was so gripping, it led them to shed a tear.

-->
@whiteflame
@Pilot

Hey guys, great job on this debate. I'm only half way through but both sides seem very thoughtful and have made solid arguments.

My suggestion to both of you is to improve readability. You've got to remember that voters aren't nearly as invested as you guys, and a 10000 character-long wall of unformatted text doesn't read well outside of a good novel.

Be concise - delete unnecessary extra bits to make your strongest points stand out more. Use the italic, bold and underline features to emphasize certain points and keep the reader's attention. Throw in the occasional point-form list. Spice it up. Strive for more than just being right; strive for being right AND entertaining. I would even go so far as to argue that a more readable argument will get more attention, and thus more votes.

Nice job

-->
@whiteflame
@Pilot

No problem. Good debating folks.

-->
@blamonkey

Thank you for the feedback.

-->
@blamonkey

Thank you for voting, appreciate the extensive RFD and feedback!

-->
@Pilot

Oh , so you are a 1960's hippy dope smoker. Hmmmm?? Now I get it.

-->
@Somebody

I bet you thought all the "so called facts" about mixing ammonia and bleach and then huffing it were "false facts", so you had to try it for yourself. That's why you are who you are.

-->
@whiteflame

All the so called facts about disease and vaccination are all false facts, but you are so uneducated and brainwashed by the system you still don't know you are being duped.

-->
@Pilot

I haven't encountered anybody on this website who can debate on microbiology. Mostly just juvenile computer nerds who know nothing outside of their artificial cyber reality.

-->
@Pilot

I wouldn't want to have a man-date with whiteflame. He's not my type! lol

-->
@Somebody

Rat, and Flame are right. That was a "square peg round hole" comment you made!

-->
@RationalMadman

I'm not debating Whiteflame on microbiology, I'm only arguing against a mandate.

-->
@whiteflame

God, the father of Jesus himself, will cure them all, just like he did in the black death.

-->
@Somebody

If you’re not going to engage with basic facts about immunization and infectious disease, then don’t bother commenting here.

-->
@Pilot

What's this garbage about herd immunity? It doesn't make any sense. Note - There is no such thing as a contagious disease. Thus. there isn't even one immune animal, let alone, a whole herd of 'em. lol Total nonsense!

Don't debate whiteflame on microbiology, he will murk you worse than an ebola virus.

Lovin' it. Back to you.

Put that in your spoon, kiwi scooper!

-->
@Pilot

Nah, man. I'm a scooper. Ain't got time to peel.

Whoa ho ho ho. I found the place where everyone unleashes all their super condescending remarks to bolster their own ego, and then bitches at the voters. Whiteflame, I bet you don't even peel the damm kiwi fruit before you eat it. You fuzzy kiwi peel eater!