Firstly, thank you to the participants for this highly interesting debate. After reading Pro's first round, I wasn't sure how Con would be able to compete, but he fought back gamely. Well done to both of you.
Pro organizes the debate into three main points, so I will judge based on those points.
Burden of Proof
Before I can start evaluating the arguments, I need to find out how the burden of proof is allocated. In R1, Con proposed that Pro had the burden to prove all three of his points and that Con only has to undermine one of those points to win. While Pro never agrees to this, he never contests it either, and I am compelled to agree with Con that "if a point is dropped, that means it is uncontested and therefore ceded."
The other relevant point here is that Con takes advantage of Pro's use of the phrase "its citizens." This cleverly avoids the need to argue for a stateless society.
Point 1: Protection from foreign armies.
Pro allows the eloquent John Jay to argue that a unified country is better able to resist foreign invasions than individuals or divided organizations or states. Because Con was able to avoid arguing for a stateless society, he is free to point to several examples of states that don't provide protection from foreign armies to their citizens. Pro argues forcefully against this, and, incredibly, Con cedes every single one of these examples by the end of the debate. This is such a massive blow to Con's argument that it almost loses this point by itself. However, while Con is down here, he's not out. He argues that, while Pro may have defeated his practical examples, the theoretical possibility of a state that doesn't protect its citizens from foreign invasion still stands. Con lays out three points arguing for the theoretical possibility of such a state...and ends up dropping all three of them. I'm guessing he forgot that when he ceded his examples to Pro.
Con also objects to Pro's argument here because Pro is allegedly using violent, xenophobic rhetoric. According to Con, Pro's characterization of foreign nations as potential threats is "otherizing" them. Pro objects to this by arguing that that doesn't match the definition of xenophobia, which is prejudice towards people of other countries. He brings up two examples to prove his point. Con argues fervently against one (USA vs USSR) but drops the other (Alexander vs Persia). The surviving example and the definition of xenophobia are easily enough to dismiss Con's accusation.
Pro wins this point rather decisively.
Point 2: Protection against domestic threats.
Pro argues here that governments are needed for protection from terrorism and for a unified law code. Con never addresses the point about a unified law code (although it's discussed somewhat in the next point). He also cedes the point about protection from terrorism, but launches a powerful counterpoint. He argues that the government itself is a more significant threat of domestic terrorism, and points to cases like the Uyghur genocide in China to prove his point. Pro concedes that a government taking such actions is a domestic threat. However, he points out that this does not refute the need for protection against domestic threats. At this point, Con argues against a strawman, claiming that Pro is justifying genocide because its better than being invaded. This is very clearly not what Pro was saying. While Pro did say that government-sourced terrorism doesn't negate the need for protection from foreign armies, he did say that "I don't agree with political genocide of course, and in some cases, the threat of government overreach is greater than the threat of foreign armies." This clearly shows that he believes genocide does outweigh the threat of foreign armies. Casting aside the strawman, this argument boils down to whose point is stronger: Pro's point that protection from domestic terrorism is necessary, or Con's point that the government itself is a domestic terror threat. In this case, Con's point is stronger. He brings up concrete cases such as the Uyghurs and the Holocaust. Pro restricts himself to arguing that they are separate issues. While they are separate to a degree, I think it is fair to say that the government posing a domestic threat is a valid counterpoint to the government protecting against domestic threats. Thus, Con wins this point.
Point 3: Providing a method for settling disputes.
Pro argues that governments are needed, with their unified code of laws and judicial systems, to settle disputes. Con argues that governments simply fail to settle disputes, pointing to 1.3 million backlogged immigration cases. He also argues that private adjudication removes the need for public adjudication. However, he drops this point, which I think was a mistake. Regardless, Pro counters that governments can settle disputes, pointing out that the government settled 1.3 million immigration cases in one year. Con rebuts this by saying that settling some of the disputes is not the same as settling all of them. The government has still failed. Pro argues that the government has still managed to settle a large number of disputes. I think Con does manage to show that the government's system here is inefficient, but Pro does demonstrate that it still settles a large number of disputes. This is where dropping private adjudication comes back to bite Con. Without an alternative to the government, none of these cases would have been settled. Some is better than none. This point goes to Pro.
In the final analysis, Con has won one of the main points. Due to Pro's incredible failure to challenge Con on the burden of proof, this is sufficient to win the argument points. Arguments to Con.
Sources and S&G were fine.
As for conduct, I was troubled by Con's allegations that Pro was using violent, xenophobic rhetoric. However, he wasn't rude about it, and he did attempt to justify his allegations, although I think they were ultimately basis. I won't detract points for conduct here.
Overall, Pro probably would have won this debate but for an astounding failure to challenge Con's interpretation of the burden of proof. Con, on the other hand, escaped by the skin of his teeth on the BoP. He dropped point after point in the debate. Whether this was due to a failure to do sufficient research before making arguments, a failure to anticipate his opponent's arguments, or both, is unclear to me. However, I advise Con to rectify whatever issues caused this in the future in order to avoid this problem in the future.
Once again, I want to thank both debaters for their efforts. It was well-contested on both sides. You were both able to turn points against the other in ways that I didn't have time to go into here. You both showed a talent for debating. It was a pleasure to analyze it and vote on it.
Hail to the knight, he's the one we all give hail to,
We give him hail cause he keeps his armor clean!
He's got the power cause he gives his sword a scour,
Hail to the knight!
You're welcome. I don't often have the time to read debates, but I enjoyed reading this one. Your conduct is always excellent, and you bring out the best in others.
I think you've improved some. You were making some decent arguments. As I said in my vote, brevity and clarity would help. You need to think about what you need to prove and how your points relate to that. While you wrote a lot of words, many of them didn't have much to do with the resolution.
I've been doing some research. Well, sort of. I've read most of this in books before and just needed to find sources I could link to. Anyway, here are my results.
Various smallpox inoculations have used in China for over 2000 years. George Washington used a crude smallpox vaccine on his soldiers in Valley Forge in the winter of 1777-1778. I can guarantee you that he had no interest in making his soldiers dumber. From the result of the war, it's easy to tell that no dumbing-down occured.
https://www.history.com/news/smallpox-george-washington-revolutionary-war
The smallpox vaccine didn't become widespread immediately after that. It was pioneered by Edward Jenner almost 20 years later. He found that inoculating people with cowpox, a milder form of pox, made them immune to smallpox. By 1980, smallpox had been entirely eradicated. Its destruction was so complete that the CDC said the vaccine is no longer needed, although they keep plenty of emergency smallpox vaccines just in case the unthinkable happens.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/when-was-the-first-vaccine-created.html
The first polio vaccine was developed in the early 50s and was widely distributed in 1954. In the following years, the incidence of polio fell from 18 cases per 100,000 people to 2 cases per 100,000 people.
https://www.britannica.com/science/polio-vaccine
Since 1979, there have been no cases of polio in the United States.
https://www.cdc.gov/polio/what-is-polio/polio-us.html
Here's a list of 7 diseases - smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, diptheria, and pertussis - which mostly or entirely eradicated by vaccines in the US.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2020/05/14/how-vaccines-eradicated-common-diseases-in-the-us-infographic/#7fc16e8e721f
These are only the most dramatic and well-known successes of vaccines. They have eliminated or dramatically reduced cases of many dangerous diseases. Even if they do make us dumber - which there's no evidence for - dumber is preferable to dead. Vaccines are one of humanity's greatest success stories and have saved millions of lives.
Here's something to read that seems similar to your case.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm
It's just a modest proposal, nothing serious.
"You need to watch the link more "
I did. The fox news clip didn't mention imprisonment. The lady in the video did, but I don't recognize random people on YouTube as authorities. Do you have any actual examples of people being imprisoned for refusing to be vaccinated or have their children vaccinated? If it is a widespread issue, it should be easy to find the evidence for it.
"This is not about google having the right to censorship.It is about google censoring people to keep people's from seeing information they do not like."
So? Google has the right to do that on their platforms. You're free to say they're wrong to do that, but it isn't evidence of a conspiracy.
"I do not need big brother or any of these shell article's telling me what to believe and not to believe."
Why do you assume that they are wrong and that the conspiracy theorists are right?
"Neo-Con Republican strategist and Never Trumper Rick Wilson has suggested that anti-vaxxers should be put in re-education camps and have their children taken away."
Yeah, there are idiots out there who say stupid things. So?
"How can i endanger them by not vaccinating when they are suppose to be immune because there vaccinating."
Not all vaccines are 100% effective, although they are close. Furthermore, while 95+% of vaccinated people would be protected, you aren't the only person in the world who plans on refusing the covid vaccine. Thus, if you refuse vaccination and go to work, you risk spreading it to other people who haven't been vaccinated.
"The risk goes into technicality's.I am harming them because i breath out co2.Which can harm my fellow employees,The 1 percent that the vaccine might not work for them.The risk is a non issue"
Weak analogy. The risks from covid are orders of magnitude higher than from CO2.
"I will repeat myself.I said no vaccine is safe because vaccine company's have not done proper safety testing in 30 years."
And you are still wrong. Vaccines have to be safety tested or they don't get approved. You can read about how they are tested here.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/history/index.html
Your claim that they haven't been tested is unsubstantiated nonsense.
"Your bluntly B#### me.Let say a judge puts away a rapist.The judge is wrong because he did not take sex ed."
Not a valid comparison. Judges are trained to do exactly that. They are not trained to be medical professionals capable of determining whether or not a vaccine caused injury or death.
"The link they used to source this information has been taken down.I won't help you research.Your ignorance is your choice."
On the contrary, I showed you that they have plenty of information available. I'll repost it here for your convenience.
Here's an fda report from 2009 on gardasil.
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availability-biologics/gardasil-vaccine-safety
Here's a report on gardasil with data from 2014 to 2017.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31740500/
Here's an entire webpage devoted to the safety and effectiveness of the HPV vaccine.
https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/hcp/vaccine-safety-data.html#adverse-events
Contrary to your assertions, they aren't hiding anything. They're posting the data for all to see.
"i copied and pasted that from my article i linked."
I couldn't find your link. Could you post it again?
"He is a lawyer all his claims are based on the evidence provided.If billgates can have a medical organization.The crooked cdc.Then Kennedy can have his children health defense.Fair is fair"
Yes, he is allowed to do that. However, I just showed you evidence that he made up an outrageous accusation out of thin air. He is a liar.
"Hundreds of Colombian girls hospitalized after vaccinations"
Your link goes to a DuckDuckGo search for Debate Art. I'm assuming that isn't the source you intended to link for this claim.
You might want to edit the debate title before some smart alec accepts the debate and tries to make you argue against the Kalam Cosmetological Argument instead of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
"Google isn't the government. They are a corporation. They have the right to kick people and ideas off their platform. That doesn't necessarily mean that they should, but they have the right to. If they really wanted to, they could boot everyone who doesn't literally bow down and worship Google. It would be stupid, but they have the legal right to do so."
I should probably clarify that this only applies to things like posting YouTube videos or other scenarios in which Google is publishing other people's content. Google can choose what content is allowed on its platform. It can't choose, for example, who is allowed to have a gmail account (at least as far as I'm aware).
"I linked you to a fox news segment talking about giving your child a shot or going to jail."
The fox news segment never mentioned going to jail. It did not specify what the state was going to do. It just made vague references to "or else" or "the hard way."
"No Jacobson was forced to have a vaccine or go to jail. If he refused he would be in jail"
While the court decided that the states (the states, not the federal government) have the right to mandate vaccines, I have been unable to find any reference to sending Jacobson to jail. Apparently, the punishment was a fine if he refused. https://constitution.laws.com/preamble/jacobson-v-massachusetts-1905
However, you're beating around the bush. If the government throws people in prison for refusing vaccines, then it should be easy for you to find systematic (not anecdotal) evidence of this. Instead, there are large numbers of people and children who are not vaccinated who are not in prison.
"Your article's are fake news."
Saying "It's fake" isn't an argument. Prove they're fake.
"Your biased fact checkers are created to stop the spread of conspiracy theory's.They are doing that because they are true."
Or it could just be that the conspiracy theories are wrong, and the fact checkers are trying to keep gullible people from falling for them. Why is that less likely than an enormous, worldwide cover-up?
"tech giant Google will begin cracking down on adverts featuring "misleading health claims" linked to Coronavirus and 5G conspiracy theories, it was revealed this week"
Google isn't the government. They are a corporation. They have the right to kick people and ideas off their platform. That doesn't necessarily mean that they should, but they have the right to. If they really wanted to, they could boot everyone who doesn't literally bow down and worship Google. It would be stupid, but they have the legal right to do so.
"Can an employer fire you if a female gets an abortion.Or if a man gets a transgender surgery."
It depends. If I recall correctly, it's legal for Christian universities to fire their employees for behavior that contradicts their statement of beliefs, so an organization like that could. A different organization that doesn't have a code of conduct or statement of beliefs might not be able to. However, neither of these behaviors endanger other people in the workplace. Can't say the same about the aborted baby, though.
"Can i choose not to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding."
You might get dragged through the courts for several years, but you could, and you would probably win in the end, given the current makeup of the Supreme Court. So, yes.
"Can my employer force me to take any other pharmaceutical like diabetes or bipolar.Can my employer force me to take antibiotics."
No, and he probably couldn't fire you for them either, because refusing to take those medications only affects you. In the case of vaccines, being unvaccinated would endanger people in the workplace, so he could absolutely fire you for refusing vaccines. He couldn't force you to take them, though. You have the right to refuse vaccines because it's your health that's at risk. However, when school or work gets involved, other people's health becomes a concern, and employers and schools have the right to refuse or fire people to avoid endangering their students or employees.
"I stand by no vaccine is safe."
Then substantiate that claim by proving that every single vaccine ever is dangerous. Show me proof for every single one.
"They have not done the proper safety test in over 30 years"
Nonsense. Every single vaccine has to be given to thousands of people to test for safety before they can be approved for general use.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/basics/test-approve.html
"Jeffery Kennedy exposed by suing and winning over that.Which you had a pretty hard time responding to."
Jeffery Kennedy is not a medical experts, and neither are the people in the judicial system. There's nothing to respond to. Their opinions are meaningless because they are not backed by relevant qualifications and work in the related fields.
"Snope is fake news."
Saying "It's fake" isn't an argument. Prove it's fake.
"They responded to cannibalism claims by saying we only make our taste receptor's they put in Pepsi out of aborted babies."
Not what they said. Here's what they actually said: "neither Pepsi nor any other U.S. food company is manufacturing or selling any consumable products “that are actually made using the cell tissue of unborn babies that were murdered through abortion.” What we’re talking about here is a cell line derived from a single (healthy, aborted) fetus over forty years ago: claiming that current food products employing flavorings derived from research based on the HEK 293 cell line “are actually made using the cell tissue of unborn babies” is like saying that possessing a digitized image of a photocopy of a picture of a Beethoven manuscript is the same as “owning a document in Beethoven’s own handwriting” — the original is not present in substance, only in a multi-generational, representational form."
"They bluntly ignore are the court ruling showing the gardisol shot has killed and focus on there lie's.us court just paid 6 million because of the gardison shot."
That's because the people in the judicial system are not medical experts. Courts frequently make wrong decisions, especially about things like this that the judges don't know anything about. You might as well cite a plumber as an authority on quantum mechanics as cite a court as an authority on science.
"Your article linked a source that had been taken down. They took down the source of that medical investigation.Wonder why."
Hmm...because that was 11 years ago and they have more data that says exactly the same thing, except that it's more up to date?
"All that left is the Indian governments and India doctor's spreading the truth of what happened."
Why do you believe they're telling the truth?
"The source for this information that the article linked no longer exist.It was a government site and they took down this information"
The link doesn't work, but the information is easy to find. Here's an fda report from 2009 on the subject.
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availability-biologics/gardasil-vaccine-safety
Here's a report on gardasil with data from 2014 to 2017.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31740500/
Here's an entire webpage devoted to the safety and effectiveness of the HPV vaccine.
https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/hcp/vaccine-safety-data.html#adverse-events
Contrary to your assertions, they aren't hiding anything. They're posting the data for all to see.
"Indian doctors blame the Gates campaign for a devastating non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) epidemic that paralyzed 490,000 children beyond expected rates between 2000 and 2017."
Nope. This claim originated from Robert F. Kennedy but has no basis in reality.
https://thelogicalindian.com/fact-check/bill-gates-polio-vaccine-covid-19-gates-foundation-21270
In fact, the region of the world India is in was polio-free in 2014.
https://www.who.int/southeastasia/news/detail/27-03-2019-marking-five-years-of-polio-free-certification-who-south-east-asia-region-uses-polio-legacy-to-enhance-overall-immunization
"In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) reluctantly admitted that the global explosion in polio is predominantly vaccine strain."
What's your source?
"children health defense is ran by Robert f Kennedy nephew of our former president.He is very qualified to make these article's he is a lawyer who defends people injured by vaccine's."
No, he isn't. He has absolutely no medical expertise, and, as I just showed you, he is willing to make up outlandish accusations out of thin air. He is not qualified; he is a liar.
Furthermore, the logic you're using is flawed at the most basic level. Simply because 100% of vaccines are not 100% safe does not mean that 100% of vaccines are 100% dangerous. You are making an enormous and unwarranted logical leap.
"Legal experts confirmed for the Verify team that the 1905 Supreme Court decision, Jacobson V. Massachusetts, gives states the authority to not only mandate vaccinations but also institute punishments like fines or jail time. "
Yes, they have the authority. However, having the authority and using the authority are not the same thing. To quote an article you linked earlier, "There is no civil or criminal penalty for refusing to vaccinate children in any state, and all states allow parents to opt out for medical reasons."
"don't want to get a vaccine for yourself or your child? Prepare to face the consequences. In the last month, a Detroit mother went to jail because she refused to vaccinate her child."
No, she went to jail because she violated a court order.
"Fifty people lost their jobs at a group of Midwestern hospitals and clinics because they declined a flu shot. And an Oregon university has blocked students from registering for classes unless they have a meningitis shot."
Employers are allowed to fire people. Being unvaccinated is not a protected status. Universities are allowed to attempt to halt the spread of diseases on their campus.
"Some countries" are not the US.
"i doubt any politician care's about my safety"
Maybe not, but they do care about getting reelected, which forces them to care.
" (CNN)The head of the US Food and Drug Administration says that if states don't require more schoolchildren to get vaccinated, the federal government might have to step in."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/20/health/vaccine-exemptions-fda-gottlieb/index.html
There federal government forcing vaccine's."
No, that isn't the federal government forcing vaccines. That's the FDA chief making vague statements about federal agencies limiting vaccine exemptions in schools. As was mentioned in the article, that would almost certainly lead to a legal challenge. Also, even if his ideas were carried out, it still wouldn't force anyone to get vaccinated, although it would provide strong incentives to do so.
"My employer can not discriminate against my political viewpoint.Vaccine's are a political viewpoint."
Your opinions about vaccines are a political viewpoint, but your vaccination record (i.e. whether you've been vaccinated) is not. Your employer can't fire you for thinking vaccines are bad, but he can fire you for not being vaccinated.
""At least 400 children in India would have developed polio after receiving the oral polio vaccine (OPV) over the past five years"
This is because they are using an oral vaccine that contains a live virus. In rare cases, it can cause actual polio. However, there is a better injected vaccine containing a dead virus that has no risk of causing polio. This is the one used in developed countries like the US.
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/16/780068006/how-the-oral-polio-vaccine-can-cause-polio
Yes, there are sometimes vaccines that cause people to get the disease that it's supposed to prevent. This is extremely rare.
"In 2010, the Gates Foundation funded a phase 3 trial of GSK's experimental malaria vaccine, killing 151 African infants and causing serious adverse effects, including paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions, to 1,048 of the 5,949 children. During Gates' 2002 MenAfriVac campaign in Sub-Saharan Africa, Gates' operatives forcibly vaccinated thousands of African children against meningitis."
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/government-corruption/gates-globalist-vaccine-agenda-a-win-win-for-pharma-and-mandatory-vaccination/"
That is an incredibly unreliable source.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/childrens-health-defense/
Furthermore, that specific claim is false.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/dec/20/blog-posting/anti-vaccination-blog-revives-debunked-hpv-story/
To quote from the article, "A full medical investigation determined that the girls died from causes completely unrelated to the vaccine. Some were poisoned by insecticide, malaria took others, and one drowned."
"No vaccine is safe.Robert f kennedy just sued the heck out of hhc because they have not done the proper safety testing in 30 years"
Robert F. Kennedy's opinion on vaccines is totally meaningless.
"Court Ruling Confirms Merck’s Gardasil HPV Vaccine Kills People – Did Anyone Even Notice"
https://www.naturalblaze.com/2019/01/court-ruling-confirms-mercks-gardasil-hpv-vaccine-kills-people-did-anyone-even-notice.html
The stories of people being killed by the HPV vaccine lack any strong causal link between the vaccine and the death.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/06/08/gardasil-vaccine/
"https://youtu.be/18bCga8yo-I?t=865"
YouTube is the definition of an unreliable source.
"https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/polio-cases-now-caused-vaccine-wild-virus-67287290"
This is because of the same oral vaccine I mentioned earlier. Also, the fact that a even a few cases of polio being caused by vaccines outnumbers the cases of polio being caused naturally should tell you something about how effectively this once widespread disease has been eradicated by vaccines.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Benjamin Franklin
No power is being ceded to the federal government so far as the vaccine is concerned, and the states and local governments already had that power. Employers have always had the right to terminate people, so long as they aren't discriminating based on any protected status (being unvaccinated isn't one).
"president bush took away our privacy in order to make sure i was not Muslim.He took away so many rights under the pretext of safety. They invaded millions of people's privacy under the pretext of safety.This was done under the patriot act."
And he was wrong to do so. The patriot act was unconstitutional.
"Right now they are using the tragedy's of school shooting's to try take away the right to own guns.This is what they are doing right now."
That also is wrong, and that also is unconstitutional. I'm not here to say that the government never abuses their power.
"They are using this virus to take away more Americans rights.They do not care if the virus spreads to infinity.They are just using that as a reason to take away rights."
I don't doubt that there are politicians who think like this. However, this does not translate to the federal government forcing people to be vaccinated. This is just argument by insinuation.
"https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/04/14/cutter-polio-vaccine-paralyzed-children-coronavirus/"
Yes, unsafe vaccines occasionally happen. However, this doesn't mean that the government wants that to happen or that all vaccines are unsafe. All this says is that there was an unsafe vaccine 65 years ago. This is more argument by insinuation.
"https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/states-have-authority-to-fine-or-jail-people-who-refuse-coronavirus-vaccine-attorney-says"
From the article: "Fox noted authorities in the United States have never attempted to jail people for refusing to vaccinate, but other countries like France have adopted the aggressive tactic." So it actually hasn't happened in the US. Sure, the states theoretically have the power to mandate a vaccine, but "could" does not mean "will", although some states might try it.
"Detroit mom jailed for refusing court order to vaccinate
https://www.today.com/health/detroit-mom-jailed-refusing-court-order-vaccinate-child-t117126"
If you read the article, the refusal to vaccinate was only an issue because of the court order. From the article: "There is no civil or criminal penalty for refusing to vaccinate children in any state, and all states allow parents to opt out for medical reasons. Some states also allow parents to decline to vaccinate their kids for philosophical or religious reasons, although no organized religion explicitly disallows vaccination. What Rebecca Bredow’s case is about is her refusal to follow orders she agreed to, said Oakland County, Michigan, Circuit Court Judge Karen McDonald." She wasn't jailed for refusing to vaccinate. She had agreed to a court order to vaccinate her children and then violated the order she had agreed to. Furthermore, she had "disregarded other court orders and agreements made as part of her divorce from Horne, changing schools and therapists without the consent of the childrens’ father." The issue was not the vaccination but the court order. That vaccination was involved was coincidental.
"It was an example.You are taking my stuff out of context.You did the same thing with my mark of the beast comment."
Sorry, that isn't my intention.
"They said it was optional.Now it's mandatory."
It was optional before the virus had spread so far that masks were necessary. Now that the virus has spread across the country, it is necessary for people to wear masks.
"They have thrown people in jail for not vaccinating in past."
When? Do you have a source?
"I was saying that those situations are the same as being barred from public space's like school and work."
Being thrown in prison is not at all the same as being barred from school or work. One is the government actively punishing people; the other is schools and employers trying to keep the virus from spreading in their facilities.
"Stop taking my stuff out of context."
Sorry, it isn't on purpose.
"But i do believe they are going to throw people in jail for not taking it."
Why?
"They already do it with other vaccine's"
No, they don't. Do you have a source for this claim?
"if i compare not taking vaccine and not being allowed to work or go to school. To not taking the mark and not being able to buy and sell.I am comparing the two not saying vaccine is mark."
Ok. I misunderstood you. There are people out there who are actually saying the covid vaccine will be the mark of the beast, so I thought that was what you were saying. My bad.
"If i do not get a covid 19 vaccine and i get thrown in jail because of it.Was the jail an incentive.That is mandatory. For example my mom vaccinated her cow because you can not get it butchered without vaccinations. That's mandatory.If i get fined money because i do not vaccinate.Then it is mandatory.They are punishing me if i do not get."
There's no evidence that they're going to put people in jail or fine them for not taking the vaccine.
"So no barring people from public space's like schools is mandatory."
It's a strong incentive, but it is still different than being mandatory. Also, the federal government isn't the ones making that kind of mandate. It's the state and local governments that are doing that.
"They said mask were optional."
That was before the virus had spread so far that they were necessary for everyone.
"Now it is federal law that i can not go outside without a mask."
No, it isn't. It's the state and local governments that are mandating masks. The federal government hasn't done that and does not have the power to do that.
"Covid 19 vaccine will be mandatory i promise you."
What is your promise based on? A nonexistent federal mask mandate?
"All vaccine are mandatory in a way because you are giving them to newborn baby's"
Those aren't mandatory. The parents can refuse those.
"Experts say it appears government agencies and even employers can require people to get a COVID-19 vaccine once it’s available."
I already responded to that.
"Experts say it appears government agencies and even employers can require people to get a COVID-19 vaccine once it’s available."
Yes, they can require their employees to vaccinated or be fired. However, while a strong incentive, that's still different that a mandate.
I do understand where you're coming from, although I disagree with it. Even in the absence of a mandate from the federal government, employers and schools can put considerable pressure on people to get vaccinated. However, I don't see that as a bad thing. Employers and schools would be within their rights to do that. Furthermore, people should be incentivized, but not mandated, to do get the vaccines. Yes, they can absolutely refuse if they want to. It's their own life, after all. However, going to work or school with other people without being vaccinated puts others at risk.
"I did not say the mark of the beast was the vaccine's"
Ok.
"The hpv vaccine is mandatory to all 12 and 11 years old.
https://www.npr.org/2011/09/16/140530716/in-texas-perrys-vaccine-mandate-provoked-anger"
What Texas does with the HPV vaccine has nothing to do with what the federal government will do with the covid vaccine.
"Those article's are right forced is unconstitutional but that has not stopped them."
It would be if the federal government was doing it. States have more power than the federal government.
"State laws establish vaccination requirements for school children. These laws often apply not only to children attending public schools.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/laws/state-reqs.html"
Again, those are state laws, not the federal government.
"Look this is a mandate.You are mandating vaccine's if you punish those whose who do not take it."
Refusing to have unvaccinated kids in school is a strong incentive to get vaccinated, but that isn't the same thing as mandating it, although I get why it seems similar.
"Do you believe that the covid 19 vaccine will not be required to go to school."
Some states will probably do that, and others probably won't.
"Then your kidding yourself.That is mandatory"
It is a strong incentive to get the covid vaccine. It isn't a mandate.
Again, that article is one guy saying that people "could" be barred from going to work or school. Nowhere does it provide any evidence that "will" happen. There is an enormous difference between "could" and "will."
"Mark of the beast won't be mandatory. You just won't be able to buy or sell"
There is a grand total of 0 Scriptural support for the idea that this vaccine or any other vaccine will be the mark of the beast. That is nothing but baseless speculation.
The article you linked is about the Australian PM walking back his earlier comments that it would be mandatory. It doesn't relate to the US.
"You are giving 70 plus shots to infants so they can not refuse it."
No, but the parents can refuse the shots if they want. Whether or not children are vaccinated is ultimately the parents' decision, at least in the US.
"They bluntly tell you they censor anti vaxxers on Facebook and YouTube under the pretext that they are dangerous ."
Facebook and YouTube are doing that of their own accord. That isn't the federal government.
"and the goverment throw's people in jail if they do not treat a disease they do not have."
When has that happened?
"They are dumbing down children at birth with vaccine's."
Nope. But even if vaccines do make people dumber, being dumb is preferable to dying of completely preventable diseases.
"Censoring us."
Tech companies are, but they aren't the government.
"So they can keep people believing in there garbage."
What garbage?
"Plus keeping you controlled with stigmas."
How so?
"Plus throwing you in jail if you refuse to dumb yourself down and be a good steeple."
When has that happened?
Firstly, that article is one guy saying that the government theoretically could force people to take it. It says nothing about whether they actually will. Currently, the government has no plans to do so. Secondly, according to other legal scholars, the federal government does not have that power. To quote from the article I linked:
"What’s more, while it may offer incentives, the federal government cannot mandate a vaccine. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, has said that mandatory coronavirus vaccinations would be “unenforceable and not appropriate,” a stance that legal scholars agree with. Lawrence O. Gostin, director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University, told The Dispatch Fact Check that claims that the federal government is going to force the coronavirus vaccine on the public are “without foundation.”
“Firstly, the federal government has no power to mandate any vaccine for any reason,” said Gostin. “States do have the power to mandate vaccines but there is only one state that has mandated a vaccine for adults. That state is Massachusetts that recently adopted a mandate for influenza vaccines.”
Gostin said that he isn’t aware of any state considering a COVID vaccine mandate and that the CDC “does not have plans to recommend that states create a mandate.” He says that while states could mandate a vaccine, it’s unlikely they will do so because of the strong likelihood of backlash."
In addition to not being right-wing, I don't think Death23 is a bigot either. Opposing BLM doesn't make him a bigot or mean that he thinks black lives don't matter. The organization and the idea are not the same thing.
"A lot of rap is political (more than any genre by far). This is why a lot of it can be irritating, especially to the right-wing as more rap is left-wing supportive than right-wing."
While that doesn't surprise me, I didn't know that before. Now that I think about it, I have heard left-leaning raps. I'd have to actually be interested in that style of music before I could really care about the subject matter, though.
I liked them both. I think Tangled was slightly better, but it's close. At Last I See the Light is the best song out of the two movies, in my opinion. Let It Go definitely has power, but it's less emotional. It could be improved with a heavy guitar riff to go with the piano, but that's probably just my inner metalhead talking. It still wouldn't have the same emotion, though.
I don't know about that. Trump is the sort of person who would appeal to anyone if he thought they would vote for him. Regardless, it only makes so much difference whether he's racist or not, given his other very public immoralities. Defending Trump's moral character by saying he isn't racist is akin to saying a sewer is clean because it isn't dusty.
That was a lot of work, but it was worth it. Well done.
My RFD is in the two comments below.
Firstly, thank you to the participants for this highly interesting debate. After reading Pro's first round, I wasn't sure how Con would be able to compete, but he fought back gamely. Well done to both of you.
Pro organizes the debate into three main points, so I will judge based on those points.
Burden of Proof
Before I can start evaluating the arguments, I need to find out how the burden of proof is allocated. In R1, Con proposed that Pro had the burden to prove all three of his points and that Con only has to undermine one of those points to win. While Pro never agrees to this, he never contests it either, and I am compelled to agree with Con that "if a point is dropped, that means it is uncontested and therefore ceded."
The other relevant point here is that Con takes advantage of Pro's use of the phrase "its citizens." This cleverly avoids the need to argue for a stateless society.
Point 1: Protection from foreign armies.
Pro allows the eloquent John Jay to argue that a unified country is better able to resist foreign invasions than individuals or divided organizations or states. Because Con was able to avoid arguing for a stateless society, he is free to point to several examples of states that don't provide protection from foreign armies to their citizens. Pro argues forcefully against this, and, incredibly, Con cedes every single one of these examples by the end of the debate. This is such a massive blow to Con's argument that it almost loses this point by itself. However, while Con is down here, he's not out. He argues that, while Pro may have defeated his practical examples, the theoretical possibility of a state that doesn't protect its citizens from foreign invasion still stands. Con lays out three points arguing for the theoretical possibility of such a state...and ends up dropping all three of them. I'm guessing he forgot that when he ceded his examples to Pro.
Con also objects to Pro's argument here because Pro is allegedly using violent, xenophobic rhetoric. According to Con, Pro's characterization of foreign nations as potential threats is "otherizing" them. Pro objects to this by arguing that that doesn't match the definition of xenophobia, which is prejudice towards people of other countries. He brings up two examples to prove his point. Con argues fervently against one (USA vs USSR) but drops the other (Alexander vs Persia). The surviving example and the definition of xenophobia are easily enough to dismiss Con's accusation.
Pro wins this point rather decisively.
Point 2: Protection against domestic threats.
Pro argues here that governments are needed for protection from terrorism and for a unified law code. Con never addresses the point about a unified law code (although it's discussed somewhat in the next point). He also cedes the point about protection from terrorism, but launches a powerful counterpoint. He argues that the government itself is a more significant threat of domestic terrorism, and points to cases like the Uyghur genocide in China to prove his point. Pro concedes that a government taking such actions is a domestic threat. However, he points out that this does not refute the need for protection against domestic threats. At this point, Con argues against a strawman, claiming that Pro is justifying genocide because its better than being invaded. This is very clearly not what Pro was saying. While Pro did say that government-sourced terrorism doesn't negate the need for protection from foreign armies, he did say that "I don't agree with political genocide of course, and in some cases, the threat of government overreach is greater than the threat of foreign armies." This clearly shows that he believes genocide does outweigh the threat of foreign armies. Casting aside the strawman, this argument boils down to whose point is stronger: Pro's point that protection from domestic terrorism is necessary, or Con's point that the government itself is a domestic terror threat. In this case, Con's point is stronger. He brings up concrete cases such as the Uyghurs and the Holocaust. Pro restricts himself to arguing that they are separate issues. While they are separate to a degree, I think it is fair to say that the government posing a domestic threat is a valid counterpoint to the government protecting against domestic threats. Thus, Con wins this point.
Point 3: Providing a method for settling disputes.
Pro argues that governments are needed, with their unified code of laws and judicial systems, to settle disputes. Con argues that governments simply fail to settle disputes, pointing to 1.3 million backlogged immigration cases. He also argues that private adjudication removes the need for public adjudication. However, he drops this point, which I think was a mistake. Regardless, Pro counters that governments can settle disputes, pointing out that the government settled 1.3 million immigration cases in one year. Con rebuts this by saying that settling some of the disputes is not the same as settling all of them. The government has still failed. Pro argues that the government has still managed to settle a large number of disputes. I think Con does manage to show that the government's system here is inefficient, but Pro does demonstrate that it still settles a large number of disputes. This is where dropping private adjudication comes back to bite Con. Without an alternative to the government, none of these cases would have been settled. Some is better than none. This point goes to Pro.
In the final analysis, Con has won one of the main points. Due to Pro's incredible failure to challenge Con on the burden of proof, this is sufficient to win the argument points. Arguments to Con.
Sources and S&G were fine.
As for conduct, I was troubled by Con's allegations that Pro was using violent, xenophobic rhetoric. However, he wasn't rude about it, and he did attempt to justify his allegations, although I think they were ultimately basis. I won't detract points for conduct here.
Overall, Pro probably would have won this debate but for an astounding failure to challenge Con's interpretation of the burden of proof. Con, on the other hand, escaped by the skin of his teeth on the BoP. He dropped point after point in the debate. Whether this was due to a failure to do sufficient research before making arguments, a failure to anticipate his opponent's arguments, or both, is unclear to me. However, I advise Con to rectify whatever issues caused this in the future in order to avoid this problem in the future.
Once again, I want to thank both debaters for their efforts. It was well-contested on both sides. You were both able to turn points against the other in ways that I didn't have time to go into here. You both showed a talent for debating. It was a pleasure to analyze it and vote on it.
Hail to the knight, he's the one we all give hail to,
We give him hail cause he keeps his armor clean!
He's got the power cause he gives his sword a scour,
Hail to the knight!
If no one gets there first, that is.
I'll vote on it tonight.
Are you a chess fan?
You're welcome. I don't often have the time to read debates, but I enjoyed reading this one. Your conduct is always excellent, and you bring out the best in others.
I think you've improved some. You were making some decent arguments. As I said in my vote, brevity and clarity would help. You need to think about what you need to prove and how your points relate to that. While you wrote a lot of words, many of them didn't have much to do with the resolution.
I've been doing some research. Well, sort of. I've read most of this in books before and just needed to find sources I could link to. Anyway, here are my results.
Various smallpox inoculations have used in China for over 2000 years. George Washington used a crude smallpox vaccine on his soldiers in Valley Forge in the winter of 1777-1778. I can guarantee you that he had no interest in making his soldiers dumber. From the result of the war, it's easy to tell that no dumbing-down occured.
https://www.history.com/news/smallpox-george-washington-revolutionary-war
The smallpox vaccine didn't become widespread immediately after that. It was pioneered by Edward Jenner almost 20 years later. He found that inoculating people with cowpox, a milder form of pox, made them immune to smallpox. By 1980, smallpox had been entirely eradicated. Its destruction was so complete that the CDC said the vaccine is no longer needed, although they keep plenty of emergency smallpox vaccines just in case the unthinkable happens.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/when-was-the-first-vaccine-created.html
The first polio vaccine was developed in the early 50s and was widely distributed in 1954. In the following years, the incidence of polio fell from 18 cases per 100,000 people to 2 cases per 100,000 people.
https://www.britannica.com/science/polio-vaccine
Since 1979, there have been no cases of polio in the United States.
https://www.cdc.gov/polio/what-is-polio/polio-us.html
Here's a list of 7 diseases - smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, diptheria, and pertussis - which mostly or entirely eradicated by vaccines in the US.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2020/05/14/how-vaccines-eradicated-common-diseases-in-the-us-infographic/#7fc16e8e721f
These are only the most dramatic and well-known successes of vaccines. They have eliminated or dramatically reduced cases of many dangerous diseases. Even if they do make us dumber - which there's no evidence for - dumber is preferable to dead. Vaccines are one of humanity's greatest success stories and have saved millions of lives.
Here's something to read that seems similar to your case.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm
It's just a modest proposal, nothing serious.
"You need to watch the link more "
I did. The fox news clip didn't mention imprisonment. The lady in the video did, but I don't recognize random people on YouTube as authorities. Do you have any actual examples of people being imprisoned for refusing to be vaccinated or have their children vaccinated? If it is a widespread issue, it should be easy to find the evidence for it.
"This is not about google having the right to censorship.It is about google censoring people to keep people's from seeing information they do not like."
So? Google has the right to do that on their platforms. You're free to say they're wrong to do that, but it isn't evidence of a conspiracy.
"I do not need big brother or any of these shell article's telling me what to believe and not to believe."
Why do you assume that they are wrong and that the conspiracy theorists are right?
"Neo-Con Republican strategist and Never Trumper Rick Wilson has suggested that anti-vaxxers should be put in re-education camps and have their children taken away."
Yeah, there are idiots out there who say stupid things. So?
"How can i endanger them by not vaccinating when they are suppose to be immune because there vaccinating."
Not all vaccines are 100% effective, although they are close. Furthermore, while 95+% of vaccinated people would be protected, you aren't the only person in the world who plans on refusing the covid vaccine. Thus, if you refuse vaccination and go to work, you risk spreading it to other people who haven't been vaccinated.
"The risk goes into technicality's.I am harming them because i breath out co2.Which can harm my fellow employees,The 1 percent that the vaccine might not work for them.The risk is a non issue"
Weak analogy. The risks from covid are orders of magnitude higher than from CO2.
"I will repeat myself.I said no vaccine is safe because vaccine company's have not done proper safety testing in 30 years."
And you are still wrong. Vaccines have to be safety tested or they don't get approved. You can read about how they are tested here.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/history/index.html
Your claim that they haven't been tested is unsubstantiated nonsense.
"Your bluntly B#### me.Let say a judge puts away a rapist.The judge is wrong because he did not take sex ed."
Not a valid comparison. Judges are trained to do exactly that. They are not trained to be medical professionals capable of determining whether or not a vaccine caused injury or death.
"The link they used to source this information has been taken down.I won't help you research.Your ignorance is your choice."
On the contrary, I showed you that they have plenty of information available. I'll repost it here for your convenience.
Here's an fda report from 2009 on gardasil.
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availability-biologics/gardasil-vaccine-safety
Here's a report on gardasil with data from 2014 to 2017.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31740500/
Here's an entire webpage devoted to the safety and effectiveness of the HPV vaccine.
https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/hcp/vaccine-safety-data.html#adverse-events
Contrary to your assertions, they aren't hiding anything. They're posting the data for all to see.
"i copied and pasted that from my article i linked."
I couldn't find your link. Could you post it again?
"He is a lawyer all his claims are based on the evidence provided.If billgates can have a medical organization.The crooked cdc.Then Kennedy can have his children health defense.Fair is fair"
Yes, he is allowed to do that. However, I just showed you evidence that he made up an outrageous accusation out of thin air. He is a liar.
"Hundreds of Colombian girls hospitalized after vaccinations"
Your link goes to a DuckDuckGo search for Debate Art. I'm assuming that isn't the source you intended to link for this claim.
That's true, they could do that.
It wasn't hard to guess.
You might want to edit the debate title before some smart alec accepts the debate and tries to make you argue against the Kalam Cosmetological Argument instead of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
"Google isn't the government. They are a corporation. They have the right to kick people and ideas off their platform. That doesn't necessarily mean that they should, but they have the right to. If they really wanted to, they could boot everyone who doesn't literally bow down and worship Google. It would be stupid, but they have the legal right to do so."
I should probably clarify that this only applies to things like posting YouTube videos or other scenarios in which Google is publishing other people's content. Google can choose what content is allowed on its platform. It can't choose, for example, who is allowed to have a gmail account (at least as far as I'm aware).
"I linked you to a fox news segment talking about giving your child a shot or going to jail."
The fox news segment never mentioned going to jail. It did not specify what the state was going to do. It just made vague references to "or else" or "the hard way."
"No Jacobson was forced to have a vaccine or go to jail. If he refused he would be in jail"
While the court decided that the states (the states, not the federal government) have the right to mandate vaccines, I have been unable to find any reference to sending Jacobson to jail. Apparently, the punishment was a fine if he refused. https://constitution.laws.com/preamble/jacobson-v-massachusetts-1905
However, you're beating around the bush. If the government throws people in prison for refusing vaccines, then it should be easy for you to find systematic (not anecdotal) evidence of this. Instead, there are large numbers of people and children who are not vaccinated who are not in prison.
"Your article's are fake news."
Saying "It's fake" isn't an argument. Prove they're fake.
"Your biased fact checkers are created to stop the spread of conspiracy theory's.They are doing that because they are true."
Or it could just be that the conspiracy theories are wrong, and the fact checkers are trying to keep gullible people from falling for them. Why is that less likely than an enormous, worldwide cover-up?
"tech giant Google will begin cracking down on adverts featuring "misleading health claims" linked to Coronavirus and 5G conspiracy theories, it was revealed this week"
Google isn't the government. They are a corporation. They have the right to kick people and ideas off their platform. That doesn't necessarily mean that they should, but they have the right to. If they really wanted to, they could boot everyone who doesn't literally bow down and worship Google. It would be stupid, but they have the legal right to do so.
"Can an employer fire you if a female gets an abortion.Or if a man gets a transgender surgery."
It depends. If I recall correctly, it's legal for Christian universities to fire their employees for behavior that contradicts their statement of beliefs, so an organization like that could. A different organization that doesn't have a code of conduct or statement of beliefs might not be able to. However, neither of these behaviors endanger other people in the workplace. Can't say the same about the aborted baby, though.
"Can i choose not to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding."
You might get dragged through the courts for several years, but you could, and you would probably win in the end, given the current makeup of the Supreme Court. So, yes.
"Can my employer force me to take any other pharmaceutical like diabetes or bipolar.Can my employer force me to take antibiotics."
No, and he probably couldn't fire you for them either, because refusing to take those medications only affects you. In the case of vaccines, being unvaccinated would endanger people in the workplace, so he could absolutely fire you for refusing vaccines. He couldn't force you to take them, though. You have the right to refuse vaccines because it's your health that's at risk. However, when school or work gets involved, other people's health becomes a concern, and employers and schools have the right to refuse or fire people to avoid endangering their students or employees.
"I stand by no vaccine is safe."
Then substantiate that claim by proving that every single vaccine ever is dangerous. Show me proof for every single one.
"They have not done the proper safety test in over 30 years"
Nonsense. Every single vaccine has to be given to thousands of people to test for safety before they can be approved for general use.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/basics/test-approve.html
"Jeffery Kennedy exposed by suing and winning over that.Which you had a pretty hard time responding to."
Jeffery Kennedy is not a medical experts, and neither are the people in the judicial system. There's nothing to respond to. Their opinions are meaningless because they are not backed by relevant qualifications and work in the related fields.
"Snope is fake news."
Saying "It's fake" isn't an argument. Prove it's fake.
"They responded to cannibalism claims by saying we only make our taste receptor's they put in Pepsi out of aborted babies."
Not what they said. Here's what they actually said: "neither Pepsi nor any other U.S. food company is manufacturing or selling any consumable products “that are actually made using the cell tissue of unborn babies that were murdered through abortion.” What we’re talking about here is a cell line derived from a single (healthy, aborted) fetus over forty years ago: claiming that current food products employing flavorings derived from research based on the HEK 293 cell line “are actually made using the cell tissue of unborn babies” is like saying that possessing a digitized image of a photocopy of a picture of a Beethoven manuscript is the same as “owning a document in Beethoven’s own handwriting” — the original is not present in substance, only in a multi-generational, representational form."
"They bluntly ignore are the court ruling showing the gardisol shot has killed and focus on there lie's.us court just paid 6 million because of the gardison shot."
That's because the people in the judicial system are not medical experts. Courts frequently make wrong decisions, especially about things like this that the judges don't know anything about. You might as well cite a plumber as an authority on quantum mechanics as cite a court as an authority on science.
"Your article linked a source that had been taken down. They took down the source of that medical investigation.Wonder why."
Hmm...because that was 11 years ago and they have more data that says exactly the same thing, except that it's more up to date?
"All that left is the Indian governments and India doctor's spreading the truth of what happened."
Why do you believe they're telling the truth?
"The source for this information that the article linked no longer exist.It was a government site and they took down this information"
The link doesn't work, but the information is easy to find. Here's an fda report from 2009 on the subject.
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availability-biologics/gardasil-vaccine-safety
Here's a report on gardasil with data from 2014 to 2017.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31740500/
Here's an entire webpage devoted to the safety and effectiveness of the HPV vaccine.
https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/hcp/vaccine-safety-data.html#adverse-events
Contrary to your assertions, they aren't hiding anything. They're posting the data for all to see.
"Indian doctors blame the Gates campaign for a devastating non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) epidemic that paralyzed 490,000 children beyond expected rates between 2000 and 2017."
Nope. This claim originated from Robert F. Kennedy but has no basis in reality.
https://thelogicalindian.com/fact-check/bill-gates-polio-vaccine-covid-19-gates-foundation-21270
In fact, the region of the world India is in was polio-free in 2014.
https://www.who.int/southeastasia/news/detail/27-03-2019-marking-five-years-of-polio-free-certification-who-south-east-asia-region-uses-polio-legacy-to-enhance-overall-immunization
"In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) reluctantly admitted that the global explosion in polio is predominantly vaccine strain."
What's your source?
"children health defense is ran by Robert f Kennedy nephew of our former president.He is very qualified to make these article's he is a lawyer who defends people injured by vaccine's."
No, he isn't. He has absolutely no medical expertise, and, as I just showed you, he is willing to make up outlandish accusations out of thin air. He is not qualified; he is a liar.
Furthermore, the logic you're using is flawed at the most basic level. Simply because 100% of vaccines are not 100% safe does not mean that 100% of vaccines are 100% dangerous. You are making an enormous and unwarranted logical leap.
"Legal experts confirmed for the Verify team that the 1905 Supreme Court decision, Jacobson V. Massachusetts, gives states the authority to not only mandate vaccinations but also institute punishments like fines or jail time. "
Yes, they have the authority. However, having the authority and using the authority are not the same thing. To quote an article you linked earlier, "There is no civil or criminal penalty for refusing to vaccinate children in any state, and all states allow parents to opt out for medical reasons."
"don't want to get a vaccine for yourself or your child? Prepare to face the consequences. In the last month, a Detroit mother went to jail because she refused to vaccinate her child."
No, she went to jail because she violated a court order.
"Fifty people lost their jobs at a group of Midwestern hospitals and clinics because they declined a flu shot. And an Oregon university has blocked students from registering for classes unless they have a meningitis shot."
Employers are allowed to fire people. Being unvaccinated is not a protected status. Universities are allowed to attempt to halt the spread of diseases on their campus.
"Some countries" are not the US.
"i doubt any politician care's about my safety"
Maybe not, but they do care about getting reelected, which forces them to care.
" (CNN)The head of the US Food and Drug Administration says that if states don't require more schoolchildren to get vaccinated, the federal government might have to step in."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/20/health/vaccine-exemptions-fda-gottlieb/index.html
There federal government forcing vaccine's."
No, that isn't the federal government forcing vaccines. That's the FDA chief making vague statements about federal agencies limiting vaccine exemptions in schools. As was mentioned in the article, that would almost certainly lead to a legal challenge. Also, even if his ideas were carried out, it still wouldn't force anyone to get vaccinated, although it would provide strong incentives to do so.
"My employer can not discriminate against my political viewpoint.Vaccine's are a political viewpoint."
Your opinions about vaccines are a political viewpoint, but your vaccination record (i.e. whether you've been vaccinated) is not. Your employer can't fire you for thinking vaccines are bad, but he can fire you for not being vaccinated.
""At least 400 children in India would have developed polio after receiving the oral polio vaccine (OPV) over the past five years"
This is because they are using an oral vaccine that contains a live virus. In rare cases, it can cause actual polio. However, there is a better injected vaccine containing a dead virus that has no risk of causing polio. This is the one used in developed countries like the US.
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/16/780068006/how-the-oral-polio-vaccine-can-cause-polio
Yes, there are sometimes vaccines that cause people to get the disease that it's supposed to prevent. This is extremely rare.
"In 2010, the Gates Foundation funded a phase 3 trial of GSK's experimental malaria vaccine, killing 151 African infants and causing serious adverse effects, including paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions, to 1,048 of the 5,949 children. During Gates' 2002 MenAfriVac campaign in Sub-Saharan Africa, Gates' operatives forcibly vaccinated thousands of African children against meningitis."
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/government-corruption/gates-globalist-vaccine-agenda-a-win-win-for-pharma-and-mandatory-vaccination/"
That is an incredibly unreliable source.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/childrens-health-defense/
Furthermore, that specific claim is false.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/dec/20/blog-posting/anti-vaccination-blog-revives-debunked-hpv-story/
To quote from the article, "A full medical investigation determined that the girls died from causes completely unrelated to the vaccine. Some were poisoned by insecticide, malaria took others, and one drowned."
"No vaccine is safe.Robert f kennedy just sued the heck out of hhc because they have not done the proper safety testing in 30 years"
Robert F. Kennedy's opinion on vaccines is totally meaningless.
"Court Ruling Confirms Merck’s Gardasil HPV Vaccine Kills People – Did Anyone Even Notice"
https://www.naturalblaze.com/2019/01/court-ruling-confirms-mercks-gardasil-hpv-vaccine-kills-people-did-anyone-even-notice.html
The stories of people being killed by the HPV vaccine lack any strong causal link between the vaccine and the death.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/06/08/gardasil-vaccine/
"https://youtu.be/18bCga8yo-I?t=865"
YouTube is the definition of an unreliable source.
"https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/polio-cases-now-caused-vaccine-wild-virus-67287290"
This is because of the same oral vaccine I mentioned earlier. Also, the fact that a even a few cases of polio being caused by vaccines outnumbers the cases of polio being caused naturally should tell you something about how effectively this once widespread disease has been eradicated by vaccines.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Benjamin Franklin
No power is being ceded to the federal government so far as the vaccine is concerned, and the states and local governments already had that power. Employers have always had the right to terminate people, so long as they aren't discriminating based on any protected status (being unvaccinated isn't one).
"president bush took away our privacy in order to make sure i was not Muslim.He took away so many rights under the pretext of safety. They invaded millions of people's privacy under the pretext of safety.This was done under the patriot act."
And he was wrong to do so. The patriot act was unconstitutional.
"Right now they are using the tragedy's of school shooting's to try take away the right to own guns.This is what they are doing right now."
That also is wrong, and that also is unconstitutional. I'm not here to say that the government never abuses their power.
"They are using this virus to take away more Americans rights.They do not care if the virus spreads to infinity.They are just using that as a reason to take away rights."
I don't doubt that there are politicians who think like this. However, this does not translate to the federal government forcing people to be vaccinated. This is just argument by insinuation.
"https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/04/14/cutter-polio-vaccine-paralyzed-children-coronavirus/"
Yes, unsafe vaccines occasionally happen. However, this doesn't mean that the government wants that to happen or that all vaccines are unsafe. All this says is that there was an unsafe vaccine 65 years ago. This is more argument by insinuation.
"https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/states-have-authority-to-fine-or-jail-people-who-refuse-coronavirus-vaccine-attorney-says"
From the article: "Fox noted authorities in the United States have never attempted to jail people for refusing to vaccinate, but other countries like France have adopted the aggressive tactic." So it actually hasn't happened in the US. Sure, the states theoretically have the power to mandate a vaccine, but "could" does not mean "will", although some states might try it.
"Detroit mom jailed for refusing court order to vaccinate
https://www.today.com/health/detroit-mom-jailed-refusing-court-order-vaccinate-child-t117126"
If you read the article, the refusal to vaccinate was only an issue because of the court order. From the article: "There is no civil or criminal penalty for refusing to vaccinate children in any state, and all states allow parents to opt out for medical reasons. Some states also allow parents to decline to vaccinate their kids for philosophical or religious reasons, although no organized religion explicitly disallows vaccination. What Rebecca Bredow’s case is about is her refusal to follow orders she agreed to, said Oakland County, Michigan, Circuit Court Judge Karen McDonald." She wasn't jailed for refusing to vaccinate. She had agreed to a court order to vaccinate her children and then violated the order she had agreed to. Furthermore, she had "disregarded other court orders and agreements made as part of her divorce from Horne, changing schools and therapists without the consent of the childrens’ father." The issue was not the vaccination but the court order. That vaccination was involved was coincidental.
"It was an example.You are taking my stuff out of context.You did the same thing with my mark of the beast comment."
Sorry, that isn't my intention.
"They said it was optional.Now it's mandatory."
It was optional before the virus had spread so far that masks were necessary. Now that the virus has spread across the country, it is necessary for people to wear masks.
"They have thrown people in jail for not vaccinating in past."
When? Do you have a source?
"I was saying that those situations are the same as being barred from public space's like school and work."
Being thrown in prison is not at all the same as being barred from school or work. One is the government actively punishing people; the other is schools and employers trying to keep the virus from spreading in their facilities.
"Stop taking my stuff out of context."
Sorry, it isn't on purpose.
"But i do believe they are going to throw people in jail for not taking it."
Why?
"They already do it with other vaccine's"
No, they don't. Do you have a source for this claim?
"if i compare not taking vaccine and not being allowed to work or go to school. To not taking the mark and not being able to buy and sell.I am comparing the two not saying vaccine is mark."
Ok. I misunderstood you. There are people out there who are actually saying the covid vaccine will be the mark of the beast, so I thought that was what you were saying. My bad.
"If i do not get a covid 19 vaccine and i get thrown in jail because of it.Was the jail an incentive.That is mandatory. For example my mom vaccinated her cow because you can not get it butchered without vaccinations. That's mandatory.If i get fined money because i do not vaccinate.Then it is mandatory.They are punishing me if i do not get."
There's no evidence that they're going to put people in jail or fine them for not taking the vaccine.
"So no barring people from public space's like schools is mandatory."
It's a strong incentive, but it is still different than being mandatory. Also, the federal government isn't the ones making that kind of mandate. It's the state and local governments that are doing that.
"They said mask were optional."
That was before the virus had spread so far that they were necessary for everyone.
"Now it is federal law that i can not go outside without a mask."
No, it isn't. It's the state and local governments that are mandating masks. The federal government hasn't done that and does not have the power to do that.
"Covid 19 vaccine will be mandatory i promise you."
What is your promise based on? A nonexistent federal mask mandate?
"All vaccine are mandatory in a way because you are giving them to newborn baby's"
Those aren't mandatory. The parents can refuse those.
"Experts say it appears government agencies and even employers can require people to get a COVID-19 vaccine once it’s available."
I already responded to that.
"Experts say it appears government agencies and even employers can require people to get a COVID-19 vaccine once it’s available."
Yes, they can require their employees to vaccinated or be fired. However, while a strong incentive, that's still different that a mandate.
I do understand where you're coming from, although I disagree with it. Even in the absence of a mandate from the federal government, employers and schools can put considerable pressure on people to get vaccinated. However, I don't see that as a bad thing. Employers and schools would be within their rights to do that. Furthermore, people should be incentivized, but not mandated, to do get the vaccines. Yes, they can absolutely refuse if they want to. It's their own life, after all. However, going to work or school with other people without being vaccinated puts others at risk.
"I did not say the mark of the beast was the vaccine's"
Ok.
"The hpv vaccine is mandatory to all 12 and 11 years old.
https://www.npr.org/2011/09/16/140530716/in-texas-perrys-vaccine-mandate-provoked-anger"
What Texas does with the HPV vaccine has nothing to do with what the federal government will do with the covid vaccine.
"Those article's are right forced is unconstitutional but that has not stopped them."
It would be if the federal government was doing it. States have more power than the federal government.
"State laws establish vaccination requirements for school children. These laws often apply not only to children attending public schools.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/laws/state-reqs.html"
Again, those are state laws, not the federal government.
"Look this is a mandate.You are mandating vaccine's if you punish those whose who do not take it."
Refusing to have unvaccinated kids in school is a strong incentive to get vaccinated, but that isn't the same thing as mandating it, although I get why it seems similar.
"Do you believe that the covid 19 vaccine will not be required to go to school."
Some states will probably do that, and others probably won't.
"Then your kidding yourself.That is mandatory"
It is a strong incentive to get the covid vaccine. It isn't a mandate.
Again, that article is one guy saying that people "could" be barred from going to work or school. Nowhere does it provide any evidence that "will" happen. There is an enormous difference between "could" and "will."
"Mark of the beast won't be mandatory. You just won't be able to buy or sell"
There is a grand total of 0 Scriptural support for the idea that this vaccine or any other vaccine will be the mark of the beast. That is nothing but baseless speculation.
The article you linked is about the Australian PM walking back his earlier comments that it would be mandatory. It doesn't relate to the US.
"You are giving 70 plus shots to infants so they can not refuse it."
No, but the parents can refuse the shots if they want. Whether or not children are vaccinated is ultimately the parents' decision, at least in the US.
"They bluntly tell you they censor anti vaxxers on Facebook and YouTube under the pretext that they are dangerous ."
Facebook and YouTube are doing that of their own accord. That isn't the federal government.
"and the goverment throw's people in jail if they do not treat a disease they do not have."
When has that happened?
"They are dumbing down children at birth with vaccine's."
Nope. But even if vaccines do make people dumber, being dumb is preferable to dying of completely preventable diseases.
"Censoring us."
Tech companies are, but they aren't the government.
"So they can keep people believing in there garbage."
What garbage?
"Plus keeping you controlled with stigmas."
How so?
"Plus throwing you in jail if you refuse to dumb yourself down and be a good steeple."
When has that happened?
Firstly, that article is one guy saying that the government theoretically could force people to take it. It says nothing about whether they actually will. Currently, the government has no plans to do so. Secondly, according to other legal scholars, the federal government does not have that power. To quote from the article I linked:
"What’s more, while it may offer incentives, the federal government cannot mandate a vaccine. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, has said that mandatory coronavirus vaccinations would be “unenforceable and not appropriate,” a stance that legal scholars agree with. Lawrence O. Gostin, director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University, told The Dispatch Fact Check that claims that the federal government is going to force the coronavirus vaccine on the public are “without foundation.”
“Firstly, the federal government has no power to mandate any vaccine for any reason,” said Gostin. “States do have the power to mandate vaccines but there is only one state that has mandated a vaccine for adults. That state is Massachusetts that recently adopted a mandate for influenza vaccines.”
Gostin said that he isn’t aware of any state considering a COVID vaccine mandate and that the CDC “does not have plans to recommend that states create a mandate.” He says that while states could mandate a vaccine, it’s unlikely they will do so because of the strong likelihood of backlash."
Actually, the government has no plans to force people to take the vaccine. https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/is-the-government-going-to-force
This sounds like a modest proposal.
You're welcome.
With this victory, you've officially made it to FDR's fourth term.
In addition to not being right-wing, I don't think Death23 is a bigot either. Opposing BLM doesn't make him a bigot or mean that he thinks black lives don't matter. The organization and the idea are not the same thing.
"Pro put the right-wing bigot"
Death23 has Socialism listed as his political ideology. I'm pretty sure he isn't right-wing.
Wow. You really just did that.
You'd be correct.
"A lot of rap is political (more than any genre by far). This is why a lot of it can be irritating, especially to the right-wing as more rap is left-wing supportive than right-wing."
While that doesn't surprise me, I didn't know that before. Now that I think about it, I have heard left-leaning raps. I'd have to actually be interested in that style of music before I could really care about the subject matter, though.
That's about it.
I liked them both. I think Tangled was slightly better, but it's close. At Last I See the Light is the best song out of the two movies, in my opinion. Let It Go definitely has power, but it's less emotional. It could be improved with a heavy guitar riff to go with the piano, but that's probably just my inner metalhead talking. It still wouldn't have the same emotion, though.
It has nothing to do with how good of a debater he is. imabench is a big frozen fan. It turned into his schtick at some point.
It'sssss DAVID, you say?
https://youtu.be/g8Y0I9jHEZo?t=152
Babylon Bee: Jesus Surprised to Learn Christianity Not a Religion
https://babylonbee.com/news/jesus-surprised-to-learn-christianity-not-a-religion/
He was a Type1 alt. That dude needs to find a better hobby than creating sock puppets on DART.
I don't know about that. Trump is the sort of person who would appeal to anyone if he thought they would vote for him. Regardless, it only makes so much difference whether he's racist or not, given his other very public immoralities. Defending Trump's moral character by saying he isn't racist is akin to saying a sewer is clean because it isn't dusty.
My theory is that Trump is Trumpist. If your name isn't Donald Trump, you're inferior.
This should be fun.
That might actually work. Based on the grammar of the resolution, the only available antecedents for "it" are abortion or science.
Which side are you debating for? I can't tell from the description.