Datasets:

zeta-alpha-ai

/

NanoTouche2020

like 0

Follow

Zeta Alpha 11

f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00023-000

What if a majority is not allowed to be vaccinated due to some particular reason? If we get rid of the lower soicety than we are saving the higher gened people thus making me save more lives than you Also, the herd theory only works in an ideal situation, where none of the unimmunized people get sick. This is not an ideal world and the reality is that they will get sick. You cannot ignore that fact by trying to cover them in vaccinated people. Instead, tell the world what's going on, give them the pros and cons, don't lie and falsly publicize, and be honest. I believe that we are smart people, smart enough to realize what the right thing to do is. That is the best way that everyone can get immunized with the least amount of casualties. We are not all the same, and you must acknowledge the fact that some are different. Think in terms of clothes. You cannot force a size 5 on everyone, for it will fit some, but not all. This is the same. Do not try to make it fit, or someone will get hurt trying. If you have compulsory vaccination, there is NO NEED for herd immunity at all. herd immunity is a voluntary structure, and compulsory immunizations are not voluntary, hence: COMPULSORY. Therefore, herd immunity does not work for the affirmative.

f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00054-000

saying the government can do whatever they want is not right its like telling them ok heres my body inject me with what ever you want. You are being injected with some thing that can be or will be harmful. in 1950 the Polio Vaccination was infected with a virus called Simian Virus 40 (SV40). SV40 caused Lung and Brain cancer to most of the recipricants of the vaccination. in 1976 the swine flu vaccine was given out and caused a little less than 50% to become paralyzed and die. when questioned the government stated that we needed to reduce population. What if you where the so called population needed to be reduced???

f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00039-000

Many parents are worried that there are side effects to vaccines, particularly fears over some vaccines being a contributory factor to autism.Most side effects from vaccines are relatively minor and do not last long. For example DTaP/IPV vaccine for diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough) and inactivated polio can in about one in ten people result in swelling and redness where the injection took place. Less regularly there can be a slightly raised temperature, sickness, tiredness and headache. And sometimes swollen glands (lymphadenopathy) and a severe, but temporary, swelling of the upper arm. Worst case but very rare can be a severe allergic reaction.[[http://www.immunisation.nhs.uk/Vaccines/DTaP_IPV/Vaccine/What_side_effects_may_be_seen]] This has long been recognised. There has however been a change in recognition of more severe side effects. In the 1990s the view of the medical community was that there were no serious side effects to vaccinations. Such reported side effects were complications like seizures, encephalitis, autoimmune reactions, bleeding disorders, and neurological injuries. This has however changed to recognising that while such side effects are extreemly rare they do exist. [[Dr. Bob Sears, Vaccines And Autism: What Can Parents Do During This Controversy?, The Huffington Post, 9th September 2009, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-bob-sears/vaccines-and-autism-what_b_279745.html ]] Dr Andrew Wakefield provided evidence in the lancet journal that there is a link between vaccination and autism. “We saw several children who, after a period of apparent normality, lost acquired skills, including communication. They all had gastrointestinal symptoms, including abdominal pain, diarrhoea, and bloating and, in some cases, food intolerance.” As an example Wakefield lancet article He [child four] received a dose of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine at age 4•5 years, the day after which his mother described a striking deterioration in his behaviour that she [child four’s mother] did link with the immunisation. Previous studies had found problems with the intestine within children with autism, these support the hypothesis that the consequences of an inflamed or dysfunctional intestine may play a part in behavioural changes in some children.[[D'Eufemia P, Celli M, Finocchiaro R, et al. Abnormal intestinal permeability in children with autism. Acta Paediatrica, vol.85, 1996, pp.1076-1079.]] Those children that Wakefield looked at in the study had such problems with their intestine (each remarkably similar) where previously they did not. In the conclusion the authors state Wakefield lancet article We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation.[[Dr Andrew J Wakefield et al, Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children, The Lancet, Vol.351, no.9103, 28th Feb 1998, pp.637-641. ]]

f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00040-000

Freedom of religion does not permit a group to serve as a vector for disease any more than it permits a group to perform ritual sacrifice. Resurgence of diseases such as polio, a result of the failure to vaccinate, are a clear reminder of the importance of these vaccinations.

f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00048-000

A vaccine controversy is a dispute over the morality, ethics, effectiveness, and safety of vaccination. The medical and scientific evidence is that the benefits of preventing suffering and death from infectious diseases outweigh rare adverse effects of immunization.[1][2] Since vaccination began in the late 18th century, opponents have claimed that vaccines do not work, that they are or may be dangerous, that individuals should rely on personal hygiene instead, or that mandatory vaccinations violate individual rights or religious principles.[3] Concerns about immunization safety often follow a pattern: some investigators suggest that a medical condition is an adverse effect of vaccination; a premature announcement is made of the alleged adverse effect; the initial study is not reproduced by other groups; and finally, it takes several years to regain public confidence in the vaccine.[1] Mass vaccination helped eradicate smallpox, which once killed as many as every seventh child in Europe.[4] Vaccination has almost eradicated polio.[5] As a more modest example, incidence of invasive disease with Haemophilus influenzae, a major cause of bacterial meningitis and other serious disease in children, has decreased by over 99% in the U.S. since the introduction of a vaccine in 1988.[6] Fully vaccinating all U.S. children born in a given year from birth to adolescence saves an estimated 33,000 lives and prevents an estimated 14 million infections.[7] Some vaccine critics claim that there have never been any benefits to public health from vaccination.[8][9] They argue that all the reduction of communicable diseases which were rampant in conditions where overcrowding, poor sanitation, almost non-existent hygiene and a yearly period of very restricted diet existed, are reduced because of changes in conditions excepting vaccination.[9] Other critics argue that immunity given by vaccines is only temporary and requires boosters, whereas those who survive the disease become permanently immune.[3] As discussed below, the philosophies of some alternative medicine practitioners are incompatible with the idea that vaccines are effective.[10] Children who survive diseases such as diphtheria develop a natural immunity that lasts longer than immunity developed via vaccination. Even though the overall mortality rate is much lower with vaccination, the percentage of adults protected against the disease may also be lower.[11] Vaccination critics argue that for diseases like diphtheria the extra risk to older or weaker adults may outweigh the benefit of lowering the mortality rate among the general population.[12] [edit] Population health Lack of complete vaccine coverage increases the risk of disease for the entire population, including those who have been vaccinated. One study found that doubling the number of unvaccinated individuals would increase the risk of measles in vaccinated children anywhere from 5–30%.[13] A second study provided evidence that the risk of measles and pertussis increased in vaccinated children proportionally to the number of unvaccinated individuals among them, again highlighting the evident efficacy of widespread vaccine coverage for public health.[14] [edit] Cost-effectiveness Commonly-used vaccines are a cost-effective and preventive way of promoting health, compared to the treatment of acute or chronic disease. In the U.S. during the year 2001, routine childhood immunizations against seven diseases were estimated to save over $40 billion per birth-year cohort in overall social costs including $10 billion in direct health costs, and the societal benefit-cost ratio for these vaccinations was estimated to be 16.5.[15] [edit] Events following reductions in vaccination In several countries, reductions in the use of some vaccines were followed by increases in the diseases' morbidity and mortality.[16][17] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, continued high levels of vaccine coverage are necessary to prevent resurgence of diseases which have been nearly eliminated.[18] Stockholm, smallpox (1873–74) An anti-vaccination campaign motivated by religious objections, by concerns about effectiveness, and by concerns about individual rights, led to the vaccination rate in Stockholm dropping to just over 40%, compared to about 90% elsewhere in Sweden. A major smallpox epidemic then started in 1873. It led to a rise in vaccine uptake and an end of the epidemic.[19] In a postwar poster the Ministry of Health urged British residents to immunize children against diphtheria.UK, DPT (1970s–80s) A 1974 report ascribed 36 reactions to whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine, a prominent public-health academic claimed that the vaccine was only marginally effective and questioned whether its benefits outweigh its risks, and extended television and press coverage caused a scare. Vaccine uptake in the UK decreased from 81% to 31% and pertussis epidemics followed, leading to deaths of some children. Mainstream medical opinion continued to support the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine; public confidence was restored after the publication of a national reassessment of vaccine efficacy. Vaccine uptake then increased to levels above 90% and disease incidence declined dramatically.[16] Sweden, pertussis (1979–96) In the vaccination moratorium period that occurred when Sweden suspended vaccination against whooping cough (pertussis) from 1979 to 1996, 60% of the country's children contracted the potentially fatal disease before the age of ten years; close medical monitoring kept the death rate from whooping cough at about one per year.[17] Pertussis continues to be a major health problem in developing countries, where mass vaccination is not practiced; the World Health Organization estimates it caused 294,000 deaths in 2002.[20] Netherlands, measles (1999–2000) An outbreak at a religious community and school in The Netherlands illustrates the effect of measles in an unvaccinated population.[21] The population in the several provinces affected had a high level of immunization with the exception of one of the religious denominations who traditionally do not accept vaccination. The three measles-related deaths and 68 hospitalizations that occurred among 2961 cases in the Netherlands demonstrate that measles can be severe and may result in death even in industrialized countries. UK and Ireland, measles (2000) As a result of the MMR vaccine controversy vaccination compliance dropped sharply in the United Kingdom after 1996.[22] From late 1999 until the summer of 2000, there was a measles outbreak in North Dublin, Ireland. At the time, the national immunization level had fallen below 80%, and in part of North Dublin the level was around 60%. There were more than 100 hospital admissions from over 300 cases. Three children died and several more were gravely ill, some requiring mechanical ventilation to recover.[23] Nigeria, polio, measles, diphtheria (2001 onward) In the early 2000s, conservative religious leaders in northern Nigeria, suspicious of Western medicine, advised their followers to not have their children vaccinated with oral polio vaccine. The boycott was endorsed by the governor of Kano State, and immunization was suspended for several months. Subsequently, polio reappeared in a dozen formerly polio-free neighbors of Nigeria, and genetic tests showed the virus was the same one that originated in northern Nigeria: Nigeria had become a net exporter of polio virus to its African neighbors. People in the northern states were also reported to be wary of other vaccinations, and Nigeria reported over 20,000 measles cases and nearly 600 deaths from measles from January through March 2005.[24] In 2006 Nigeria accounted for over half of all new polio cases worldwide.[25] Outbreaks continued thereafter; for example, at least 200 children died in a late-2007 measles outbreak in Borno State.[26] Indiana, USA, measles (2005) A 2005 measles outbreak in the US state of Indiana was attributed to parents who had refused to have their children vaccinated.[27] Most cases of pediatric tetanus in the U.S. occur in children whose parents objected to their vaccination.[28] [edit] Safety Few deny the vast improvements vaccination has made to public health; a more common concern is their safety.[29] All vaccines may cause side effects, and immunization safety is a real concern. Unlike most other medical interventions, vaccines are given to healthy people, and people are far less willing to tolerate vaccines' adverse effects than adverse effects of other treatments. As the success of immunization programs increases and the incidence of disease decreases, public attention shifts away from the risks of disease to the risk of vaccination,[1] and it becomes challenging for health authorities to preserve public support for vaccination programs.[30] Concerns about immunization safety often follow a pattern. First, some investigators suggest that a medical condition of increasing prevalence or unknown cause is an adverse effect of vaccination. The initial study, and subsequent studies by the same group, have inadequate methodology, typically a poorly controlled or uncontrolled case series. A premature announcement is made of the alleged adverse effect, resonating with individuals suffering the condition, and underestimating the potential harm to those whom the vaccine could protect. The initial study is not reproduced by other groups. Finally, it takes several years to regain public confidence in the vaccine.[1] Controversies in this area revolve around the question of whether the risks of perceived adverse events following immunization outweigh the benefits of preventing adverse effects of common diseases. There is scientific evidence that in rare cases immunizations can cause adverse events, such as oral polio vaccine causing paralysis. Current scientific evidence does not support the hypothesis of causation for more-common disorders such as autism.[1] Although the hypotheses that vaccines cause autism are biologically implausible, it would be hard to study scientifically whether autism is less common in children who do not follow recommended vaccination schedules, due to the ethics of basing experiments on withholding vaccines from children, and due to the likely differences in health care seeking behaviors of undervaccinated children.[31] [edit] Vaccine overload Vaccine overload is the assertion that giving many vaccines at once may overwhelm or weaken a child's immune system, and lead to adverse effects. It has been presented as a cause for autism. Although no scientific evidence supports this idea, it has caused many parents to delay or avoid immunizing their children.[32] The idea has several flaws.[31] For example, common childhood conditions such as fevers and middle ear infections pose a much greater challenge to the immune system than vaccines do.[33] Also, because of changes in vaccine formulation, the number of immunological components in the fourteen vaccines administered to U.S. children in 2009 is less than 10% of what it was in the seven vaccines given in 1980.[31] Numerous studies have tested the assertion that "vaccine overload" damages the immune system, generally by studying whether vaccination increases the risk of acquiring other (non-vaccine-preventable) infectious diseases. These studies have repeatedly found that vaccine burden does not compromise overall immunity.[34] The lack of evidence supporting the vaccine overload hypothesis, combined with these findings directly contradicting it, have led to the conclusion that currently recommended vaccine programs do not "overload" or weaken the immune system.[35] [edit] Thiomersal Main article: Thiomersal controversy In 1999, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) asked vaccine makers to remove the organomercury compound thiomersal from vaccines as quickly as possible, and thiomersal has been phased out of U.S. and European vaccines, except for some preparations of influenza vaccine.[36] The CDC and the AAP followed the precautionary principle, which assumes that there is no harm in exercising caution even if it later turns out to be unwarranted, but their 1999 action sparked confusion and controversy that has diverted attention and resources away from efforts to determine the causes of autism.[36] Since 2000, the thiomersal in child vaccines has been alleged to contribute to autism, and thousands of parents in the United States have pursued legal compensation from a federal fund.[37] A 2004 Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee favored rejecting any causal relationship between thiomersal-containing vaccines and autism.[38] Currently there is no accepted scientific evidence that exposure to thiomersal is a factor in causing autism.[39] [edit] MMR vaccine Main article: MMR vaccine controversy In the UK, the MMR vaccine was the subject of controversy after publication in The Lancet of a 1998 paper by Andrew Wakefield, et al., reporting a study of 12 children mostly with autism spectrum disorders with onset soon after administration of the vaccine.[40] During a 1998 press conference, Wakefield suggested that giving children the vaccines in three separate doses would be safer than a single vaccination. This suggestion was not supported by the paper, and several subsequent peer-reviewed studies have failed to show any association between the vaccine and autism.[41] It later emerged that Wakefield had received funding from litigants against vaccine manufacturers and that Wakefield had not informed colleagues or medical authorities of his conflict of interest;[42] had this been known, publication in The Lancet would not have taken place in the way that it did.[43] Wakefield has been heavily criticized on scientific grounds and for triggering a decline in vaccination rates,[44] as well as on ethical grounds for the way the research was conducted.[45] In 2009 The Sunday Times reported that Wakefield had manipulated patient data and misreported results in his 1998 paper, creating the appearance of a link with autism.[46] In 2004 the MMR-and-autism interpretation of the paper was formally retracted by 10 of Wakefield's 12 co-authors.[47] The CDC,[48] the IOM of the National Academy of Sciences,[49] and the UK National Health Service[50] have all concluded that there is no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. A systematic review by the Cochrane Library concluded that there is no credible link between the MMR vaccine and autism, that MMR has prevented diseases that still carry a heavy burden of death and complications, that the lack of confidence in MMR has damaged public health, and that design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies are largely inadequate.[2] A special court convened in the United States to review claims under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ruled on 12 February 2009 that parents of autistic children are not entitled to compensation in their contention that certain vaccines caused autism in their children.[51] [edit] Prenatal infection There is evidence that schizophrenia is associated with prenatal exposure to rubella, influenza, and toxoplasmosis infection. For example, one study found a seven-fold increased risk of schizophrenia when mothers were exposed to influenza in the first trimester of gestation. This may have public health implications, as strategies for preventing infection include vaccination, antibiotics, and simple hygiene.[52] When weighing the benefits of protecting the woman and fetus from influenza against the potential risk of vaccine-induced antibodies that could conceivably contribute to schizophrenia, influenza vaccination for women of reproductive age still makes sense, but it is not known whether vaccination during pregnancy helps or harms.[53] The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Family Physicians all recommend routine flu shots for pregnant women, for several reasons:[54] their risk for serious influenza-related medical complications during the last two trimesters; their greater rates for flu-related hospitalizations compared to nonpregnant women; the possible transfer of maternal anti-influenza antibodies to children, protecting the children from the flu; and several studies that found no harm to pregnant women or their children from the vaccinations. Despite this recommendation, only 16% of healthy pregnant U.S. women surveyed in 2005 had been vaccinated against the flu.[54] [edit] Aluminum Aluminum compounds are used as immunologic adjuvants to increase the effectiveness of many vaccines.[55] Although the quantities of aluminum ingested in this way are much smaller than the quantities ingested from other sources such as infant formula,[56] questions have been raised about the safety of aluminum used in vaccines.[57] In some cases these compounds have been associated with redness, itching, and low-grade fever,[55] and aluminum as such is considered neurotoxic for humans, but its use in vaccines has not been associated with serious adverse events.[58] In some cases aluminum-containing vaccines are associated with macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF), localized microscopic lesions containing aluminum salts that persist up to 8 years. However, recent case-controlled studies have found no specific clinical symptoms in individuals with biopsies showing MMF, and there is no evidence that aluminum-containing vaccines are a serious health risk or justify changes to immunization practice.[58] [edit] Individual liberty Further information: Vaccination policy Compulsory vaccination policies have provoked opposition at various times from people who say that governments should not infringe on the freedom of an individual to choose medications, even if the choice increases the risk of disease to themselves and others.[3][59] If a vaccination program successfully reduces the disease threat, it may reduce the perceived risk of disease enough so that an individual's optimal strategy is to refuse vaccination at coverage levels below those optimal for the community.[60] If many exemptions are granted to mandatory vaccination rules, the resulting free rider problem may cause loss of herd immunity, substantially increasing risks even to vaccinated individuals.[61] [edit] Religion Main article: Vaccination and religion Vaccination has been opposed on religious grounds ever since it was introduced, even when vaccination is not compulsory. Some Christian opponents argued, when vaccination was first becoming widespread, that if God had decreed that someone should die of smallpox, it would be a sin to thwart God's will via vaccination.[62] Religious opposition continues to the present day, on various grounds, raising ethical difficulties when the number of unvaccinated children threatens harm to the entire population.[61] Many governments allow parents to opt out of their children's otherwise-mandatory vaccinations for religious reasons; some parents falsely claim religious beliefs to get vaccination exemptions.[63] [edit] Alternative medicine Many forms of alternative medicine are based on philosophies that oppose vaccination and have practitioners who voice their opposition. These include anthroposophy, some elements of the chiropractic community, non-medically trained homoeopaths, and naturopaths.[10] Historically, chiropractic strongly opposed vaccination based on its belief that all diseases were traceable to causes in the spine, and therefore could not be affected by vaccines; Daniel D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, wrote, "It is the very height of absurdity to strive to 'protect' any person from smallpox or any other malady by inoculating them with a filthy animal poison."[64] Vaccination remains controversial within chiropractic.[65] Although most chiropractic writings on vaccination focus on its negative aspects,[64] antivaccination sentiment is espoused by what appears to be a minority of chiropractors.[65] The American Chiropractic Association and the International Chiropractic Association support individual exemptions to compulsory vaccination laws, and a 1995 survey of U.S. chiropractors found that about a third believed there was no scientific proof that immunization prevents disease.[65] While the Canadian Chiropractic Association supports vaccination,[64] a survey in Alberta in 2002 found that 25% of chiropractors advised patients for, and 27% against, vaccinating themselves or their children.[66] Although most chiropractic colleges try to teach about vaccination responsibly, several have faculty who seem to stress negative views.[65] A survey of a 1999–2000 cross section of students of Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, which does not formally teach antivaccination views, reported that fourth-year students opposed vaccination more strongly than first-years, with 29.4% of fourth-years opposing vaccination.[67] Several surveys have shown that some practitioners of homeopathy, particularly homeopaths without any medical training, advise patients against vaccination.[68] For example, a survey of registered homeopaths in Austria found that only 28% considered immunization to be an important preventive measure, and 83% of homeopaths surveyed in Sydney, Australia did not recommend vaccination.[10] Many practitioners of naturopathy also oppose vaccination.[10] [edit] Financial motives Critics of vaccines state that the profit motive explains why vaccination is required, and that vaccine makers cover up or suppress information, or generate misinformation, about safety or effectiveness.[3] Some vaccine critics allegedly have financial motives for criticizing vaccines.[45] Legal counsel and expert witnesses employed in anti-vaccine cases may be motivated by profit.[69] In the late 20th century, vaccines were a product with low profit margins.[70] The number of companies involved in vaccine manufacture declined, with only Merck, Wyeth, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi continuing major production. In addition to low profits and liability risks, manufacturers complained about low prices paid for vaccines by the CDC and other U.S. government agencies.[71] In the early 21st century the vaccine market greatly improved with the approval of the vaccine Prevnar (a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine), along with a small number of other highly-priced blockbuster vaccines such as Gardasil and Pediarix that each provided sales revenues of over $1 billion in 2008.[70] [edit] Dispute resolution Main article: Vaccine court The U.S. Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was created to provide a federal no-fault system for compensating vaccine-related injuries or death. It is funded by a 75 cent excise tax on vaccines sold in the country and was established after a scare in the 1980s over the DPT vaccine: even though claims of side effects were later generally discredited, large jury awards had been given to some claimants of DPT vaccine injuries, and most DPT vaccine makers had ceased production. Claims against vaccine manufacturers must be heard first in the vaccine court.[37] By 2008 the fund had paid out 2,114 awards totaling $1.7 billion.[72] Thousands of cases of autism-related claims are pending before the court, and have not yet been resolved.[37] In 2008 the government conceded one case concerning a child who had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder and whose autism-like symptoms came after five simultaneous injections against nine diseases.[73] [edit] History Edward JennerReligious arguments against inoculation were advanced even before the work of Edward Jenner; for example, in a 1772 sermon entitled "The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation" the English theologian Rev. Edward Massey argued that diseases are sent by God to punish sin and that any attempt to prevent smallpox via inoculation is a "diabolical operation".[62] Some anti-vaccinationists still base their stance against vaccination with reference to their religious beliefs.[74] After Jenner's work, vaccination became widespread in the United Kingdom in the early 1800s.[75] Variolation, which had preceded vaccination, was banned in 1840 because of its greater risks. Public policy and successive Vaccination Acts first encouraged vaccination and then made it mandatory for all infants in 1853, with the highest penalty for refusal being a prison sentence. This was a significant change in the relationship between the British state and its citizens, and there was a public backlash. After an 1867 law extended the requirement to age 14 years, its opponents focused concern on infringement of individual freedom, and eventually a 1898 law allowed for conscientious objection to compulsory vaccination.[3] In the 19th century, the city of Leicester in the UK achieved a high level of isolation of smallpox cases and great reduction in spread compared to other areas. The mainstay of Leicester's approach to conquering smallpox was to decline vaccination and put their public funds into sanitary improvements.[76] Bigg's account of the public health procedures in Leicester, presented as evidence to the Royal Commission, refers to erysipelas, an infection of the superficial tissues which was a complication of any surgical procedure. In the U.S., President Thomas Jefferson took a close interest in vaccination, alongside Dr. Waterhouse, chief physician at Boston. Jefferson encouraged the development of ways to transport vaccine material through the Southern states, which included measures to avoid damage by heat, a leading cause of ineffective batches. Smallpox outbreaks were contained by the latter half of the 19th century, a development widely attributed to vaccination of a large portion of the population.[77] Vaccination rates fell after this decline in smallpox cases, and the disease again became epidemic in the 1870s (see smallpox). 1904 cartoon opposing the mandatory vaccination law in Brazil. "The Congress", depicted as a Roman Caesar, threatens "the People", in rags, with a sharp object and shackles.Anti-vaccination activity increased again in the U.S. in the late 19th century. After a visit to New York in 1879 by William Tebb, a prominent British anti-vaccinationist, the Anti-Vaccination Society of America was founded. The New England Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League was formed in 1882, and the Anti-Vaccination League of New York City in 1885. John Pitcairn, the wealthy founder of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company (now PPG Industries) emerged as a major financer and leader of the American anti-vaccination movement. On March 5, 1907, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, he delivered an address to the Committee on Public Health and Sanitation of the Pennsylvania General Assembly criticizing vaccination.[78] He later sponsored the National Anti-Vaccination Conference, which, held in Philadelphia on October, 1908, led to the creation of The Anti-Vaccination League of America. When the League was organized later that month, Pitcairn was chosen to be its first president.[79] On December 1, 1911, he was appointed by Pennsylvania Governor John K. Tener to the Pennsylvania State Vaccination Commission, and subsequently authored a detailed report strongly opposing the Commission's conclusions.[79] He continued to be a staunch opponent of vaccination until his death in 1916. In November 1904, in response to years of inadequate sanitation and disease, followed by a poorly-explained public health campaign led by the renowned Brazilian public health official Oswaldo Cruz, citizens and military cadets in Rio de Janeiro arose in a Revolta da Vacina or Vaccine Revolt. Riots broke out on the day a vaccination law took effect; vaccination symbolized the most feared and most tangible aspect of a public health plan that included other features such as urban renewal that many had opposed for years.[80] In the early 19th century, the anti-vaccination movement drew members from across a wide range of society; more recently, it has been reduced to a predominantly middle-class phenomenon.[81] Arguments against vaccines in the 21st century are often similar to those of 19th-century anti-vaccinationists URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-vaccinationist

f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00033-000

In fact it is the exact opposite. America is based on the principles of freedom and compulsory immunizations would take this away. We are also guaranteed life, liberty and the persuit of happiness in the constitution, and compulsory immunizations could infringe upon these rights.

f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00034-000

Benjamin Franklin has stated that “An ounce prevention is worth a pound of cure.” That is a true statement even now. For example, the recent swine flu break out have cost different government around the world much more than it takes to produce and spread the vaccine. Our country has spent over $114,500 on swine flu, with most of the money going toward personnel costs, according to a report by the country’s health official. It cost way less to just give and enforce a vaccine, because it is the most “cost-effective” way to save lives, said by the World Health Organization. If people were not have immunization, it also puts a burden on the health care system to treat all of those infected which must in some way be paid, most likely through taxes. With compulsory immunizations, all of this can be avoided thus minimizing suffering, because taxpayers will not have to pay extra tax for the treatment from health care system, in turn achieves societal welfare. If people will not choose to make the right, justifiable, and sensible choice to be vaccinated, then the choice will be made for them. Vaccinations have undoubtedly saved millions of lives since their inception, the risks are minimal; the benefits are massive. However, without compulsion, the greatest possible protection of the population would just be a waste of resource. Without compulsion, those benefits will not be seen. As a result, I urge you to affirm the resolution.

f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00019-000

Compulsory Immunization will create a herd immunity to protect those who cannot be vaccinated.

f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00057-000

The herd effect argues that if enough members of a population are vaccinated from a certain disease, than all non-vaccinated will be protected from the disease as they will have such a low possibility of coming with the disease that it can be classified as nearly impossible. The big problem with this argument is that if vaccination is made compulsory and everyone is made to receive it, who is left un-vaccinated to benefit from the Herd Effect? If government force vaccinations on everyone, then everyone is thus vaccinated. Who then would be un-vaccinated and benefit from the herd effect? I am aware that is the US there are certain religious or philosophical reasons why a person can be considered exempt from compulsory immunization; these people would benefit from the herd effect, however this is not truly compulsory immunization. A distinction should be made, otherwise the argument of the ehrd effect is counter-intuitive.

f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00027-000

Yes however they are side effects and every human 's body is different so it responds to certain vaccines in different manners. Therefore if some one's body was to have a certain reaction to that side effect can easily cause something much worse including autism They wouldn't be called vaccines if they didn't protect us. So, if you realize that many people got major side effects due to vaccines, would you change your mind? FIRST - Are you saying vaccines cause autism, or they don't cause autism. SECOND - THEY WOULDN'T BE CALLED VACCINES IF THEY DON'T PROTECT US. Also there aren't nearly 150 billion people on the planet. there is just over 6.7 billion people on the planet right now. it is estimated that only 69 to 110 billion have actually lived on earth.

f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00050-000

I want to warn you in advance folks that tonight I am going to do a lot of reading; I'm going to quote a lot of different people, and I want you to understand from the start that I am not making up anything from what I'm going to be saying here tonight, but that everything I mention here is scientific fact which I have discovered in my own research. I make this warning because you are not going to want to believe what you are about to hear. I'm going to talk to you tonight about vaccinations. Most of you out there have probably received some form of vaccination at one point or another in your life, or you may have children who are in the process of receiving vaccinations. Well, I have some very bad news for you folks; you, once again, have been conned. I am sure, that you, like myself, have been raised to believe that doctors know what is best for you, that everything that comes out of the medical industry is done to help you and that everything that doctors do is safe and well-tested and proven, vaccinations included. unfortunately, we have all been lied to, and once again, me and all of you are responsible because we would rather put the responsibility of our health into someone else's hands, instead of taking charge of our own lives and our own well-being. I'm going to say this bluntly, so that it will make an impact on you and so that you will hear me. You and your children are being poisoned, folks, and you are making pharmaceutical companies incredibly rich, and you are also unknowingly helping along the progress of what is going to become the greatest epidemic that the human race has ever seen, namely AIDS. With ignorance and foolish trust in the experts, you have been had. Now, the theory of vaccinations is based on four basic principles. Number one: Vaccinations are relatively harmless; Number two: Vaccinations are effective; Number three: Vaccinations are responsible for the decline of infectious diseases, and Number four: Vaccinations are the only practical and dependable way to prevent both epidemics and potentially dangerous diseases. But, ladies and gentlemen, every single one of these assumptions is totally false. The theory of vaccinations states that by giving a person a mild form of the disease, by the use of an immunizing agent, specific antibodies are produced that will protect the organism when the real thing comes along. it sounds plausible enough, but it is totally wrong. No greater lie has ever been told to you, and believe it or not, vaccinations will not protect you from any disease and you can still get, and many people are getting measles, small pox, polio, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus and other common diseases even after they have been vaccinated. This is a matter of public record, and I will give you some statistics later on that will truly shock you. Let me read you a little portion from Walene James' book, Immunizations; the Reality Behind the Myth. But before that, write down this author and title; that's Walene James, W-a-l-e-n- e, last name James, J-a-m-e-s, and the title is Immunizations; the Reality Behind the Myth. Most of what I'm reading from here tonight comes right out of that book, and it's very well footnoted and documented, but to save time, I'm not going to read you all the references, but you can get the book and you can check it out and you can check out the references. Here we go... Besides introducing foreign proteins and even live viruses into the bloodstream, each vaccine has its own preservative, neutralizer and carrying agent, none of which are indigenous to the body. For instance, the triple antigen, DPT, which is the Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus vaccine, contains the following poisons: Formaldehyde, Mercury, and aluminum phosphate, and that's from the Physician's Desk Reference, 1980. The packet insert accompanying the vaccine, lists the following poisons: aluminum potassium sulfate, a mercury derivative called Thimersol and sodium phosphate. The packet insert for the polio vaccine lists monkey kidney cell culture, lactalbumin hydrozylate, antibiotics and calf serum. The packet insert for the MMR vaccine produced by Merck Sharp and Dhome which is for measles, mumps and rubella lists chick embryo and neomycin, which is a mixture of antibiotics. Now chick embryo, monkey kidney cells and calf serum are all foreign proteins which are biological substances composed of animal cells which because they enter directly into the bloodstream can become part of our genetic material. They can become part of our genetic material, folks, remember that, it's going to be important later. These foreign proteins, as well as other carriers and reaction products of a vaccine are potential allergens and can produce anaphylactic shock. Folks, anaphylactic shock is a nice word for brain damage. Reading on... Another problem with vaccines is that they go directly into the bloodstream without filtering by the liver. Dr. William Albrecht tells us the following, "If you take water into your system as a drink, it goes into your bloodstream directly from the stomach, but if you take in fats, they move in through your lymphatic system. When you take other substances like carbohydrates and proteins, they go into the intestines and from there are passed into the liver as the body's chemical filter. Before they go out into the blood and circulate in the body. Most of your vaccination serums and proteins are not filtered by the liver, consequently vaccinations can be a terrific shock to the system. Injections of foreign substances like viruses, toxins and foreign proteins into the blood stream via vaccinations, have been associated with diseases and disorders to the blood, brain, nervous system and skin. Rare diseases such as atypical measles and monkey fever as well as such well- known disorders as premature aging, allergies, etc. have been associated with vaccines. Also linked to immunizations are such well-known diseases as cancer, leukemia, paralysis, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, and sudden infant death syndrome." Folks, I'm not making this up. This is mostly out of Physician's Desk Reference, 1980, and Organic Consumer Reports of 1977. Now, let me tell you some of the effects of vaccinations that the medical profession admits to as expected side effects of various vaccines, again from Walene James' book. The insert for the DTP vaccine, which is for Diphtheria, Pertussis and Tetanus, under side effects and adverse reactions are listed the following: 1.Severe temperature elevations 105 degrees or higher. 2.Collapse with rapid recovery. 3.Collapse followed by prolonged prostration in shock-like state. 4.Screaming episodes. 5.Isolated convulsions with or without fever. 6.Frank encephalopathy, which is brain damage, with changes in the level of consciousness, focal neurological signs, convulsions with or without permanent neurological and/or mental deficit. Nice big words,folks, but it's talking about brain damage, shock and severe temperature. The occurrence of sudden infant death syndrome, which is SIDS, that's the acronym, has been reported following the DPT vaccine. Now, the whooping cough vaccine which is a component in the DPT vaccine has such a high percentage of neurological complications, including death, that several physicians have decided not to give it at all. And that is quoting Dr. Robert Mendelsohn. He goes on to say, Dr. Edward B. Shaw, a distinguished university of California physician has stated in the Journal of the American Medical Association in March, 1975, "I doubt that the decrease in pertussis is due to the vaccine, which itself is a very poor antigen, and an extremely dangerous one, with many very serious complications." Reading on from Walene James' book: "A recent study at UCLA estimates that as many as 1 in every 13 children had persistent, high-pitched crying after the DTP shot. This may be indicative of brain damage in the recipient child," says Dr. Bobby Young. And later on he says, "You know, we start off with healthy infants, and we pop them not once, but three or four times with a vaccine. The probability of causing damage is the same each time. My greatest fear is that very few of them escape some kind of neurological damage out of this." An even more recent figure on the reaction to the DTP vaccine indicates that 1 in every 100 children react with convulsions or collapse or high-pitched screaming. One out of every 3 of these, that is 1 out of every 300 will remain permanently damaged. Now, according to the testimony of the Assistant Secretary of Health, Edward Grant, Jr., before the u.S. Senate Committee on May 3rd, 1985, every year 35,000 children suffer neurological damage because of the DTP vaccine. Bet your doctor didn't tell you that, folks. It just makes you wonder why he never told you this, doesn't it. It also makes you want to run out and get your kids vaccinated, doesn't it? Well, it gets worse. Here are some of the long term effects of vaccines. This brings us to perhaps the most serious charge against vaccination, the subtle long-term effects. And again, I'm reading from Walene James' book. Evidence suggests that immunizations damage the immune system itself. By focusing exclusively on increased antibody production, which is only one aspect of the immune process, immunizations isolate dysfunction and allow it to substitute for the entire immune response, because vaccines trick the body so that it will no longer initiate a generalized response. They accomplished what the entire immune system seems to have been evolved to prevent. That is, they place the virus directly into the blood and give it access to the major immune organs and tissues without any obvious way of getting rid of it. The long-term persistence of viruses and other foreign proteins within the cells of the immune system has been implicated in a number of chronic and degenerative diseases. In 1976 Dr. Robert Simpson of Rutgers university addressed science writers at a seminar of the American Cancer Society, and pointed out the following. "Immunization programs against flu, measles, mumps, polio and so forth may actually be seeding humans with RNA to form latent pro viruses in cells throughout the body. These latent pro viruses could be molecules in search of diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Parkinson's disease, and perhaps cancer." Remember that, folks, seeding humans with RNA to form latent pro viruses in cells throughout the body. That's important. Moving on... Live viruses, the primary antigenic material of vaccines, (don't be scared by antigenic, folks, it just means any agent that will stimulate antibody production) the primary antigenic material of vaccines, which are live viruses, are capable of surviving or remaining latent in the host cell for years, without provoking acute disease. They attach their own genetic material as an extra particle or episome to the chromosomes of the host cell and replicate along with it. This allows the host cell to continue its own normal functions for the most part, but imposes on it additional instructions for the synthesis of viral proteins. This presence of antigenic material in the host cell can not fail to provoke auto immune phenomenon, such as herpes, shingles, warts, tumors, both benign and malignant, and diseases of the central nervous system such as various forms of paralysis and inflammation of the brain. So what we're actually talking about here, folks, is viral genetic material being incorporated into your cells, and laying the groundwork for auto immune diseases. And we're going to get into this right now. Reading on... If the components of the immune system were designed to help the organism discriminate self from non-self as a number of researchers believe, then latent viruses, auto immune phenomenon and cancer would seem to represent different aspects of chronic immune failure, wherein the immune system cannot recognize its own cells as unambiguously its own, or eliminate parasites as unequivocally foreign. By the same token, we might say that the inability of the immune system to distinguish between harmful and harmless substances in the environment, such as allergies, constitutes another aspect of chronic immune failure. Folks, what they're saying here is that vaccines encourage chronic immune failure, by virtue of the genetic material that you get shot up into your bloodstream whenever you get vaccinated. The well-known author, lecturer and health activist, Betty Lee Morales, writes that her parents who were naturopathic doctors predicted 50 years ago that cancer would be epidemic in her lifetime as a result of mass vaccinations. Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, who is an authority on vaccinations, and truly one of the most heroic medical doctors in this century... [Because he is telling the truth]... extends this idea when he says, "I think that most of the degenerative diseases are going to be shown to be due to x-rays, drugs and polluted food, additives, preservatives, and immunizations. With all of our discoveries about the effects on the human body of ingesting substances not found in nature, one thing we ought to know by now, is that many of these toxins, and vaccinations are toxins by definition, kill slowly, or kill only after the lapse of significant periods of time. And that's a quote from Nicholas von Hoffman in his Washington Post column. Now from around the world. From West Germany, we read of more vaccination casualties. A reader writing to Organic Consumer Report, June 13, 1968 mentions an article which appeared in Medical World which stated that about 3,000 children each year suffer varying degrees of brain damage as a result of the small pox vaccination. This same writer mentions another medical journal in which Dr. G. Kotel reported that in the previous year, small pox vaccination damaged the hearing of 3,296 children in W. Germany and 71 became totally deaf. Hearing loss was reported by Dr. William Albrecht, who said in the article that I quoted earlier, that a typhoid shot he received made him stone deaf in one ear as well as deathly ill at the time of the shot. Now listen to this, folks, because this is where the big con starts. In case after case of deaths which are really deaths from vaccinations, the cause of death is never listed as the vaccine. Asthma, however, acute lymphatic leukemia, streptococcal cellulitis, tubercular meningitis, and infantile paralysis are just a few of the fake causes of death listed on the death certificate of people who are dying from vaccinations. So much for these poisons being safe, now let's see how effective they are. Statistics from around the world show unequivocally that infectious diseases like small pox, diphtheria, whooping cough, scarlet fever, etc., began to disappear long before vaccinations ever came on the scene. Now I'm quoting World Health Statistics Annual 1973-1976, Volume II. "There has been a steady decline of infectious diseases in most developing countries regardless of the percentage of immunizations administered in these countries." I'll bet you didn't know that, folks, and I'll bet you didn't know this either, but I do know this from my research and from my own experimentation; personal hygiene and diet stop diseases, folks, not injecting virulent free-floating genetic material into your veins with all kinds of poisonous cancerous carrying agents which is what vaccines are. I'm going to now give you a key as to why you've been conned into believing that vaccines do stop diseases. I'm looking at a chart from Australian Nurses Journal from June of 1981. A top chart shows a curve of deaths per million children under 15 attributable to scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles. We're looking at a graph here. The graph runs the years from 1860 to 1965, and the death rate just goes down, having peaked in 1860 at 6,000 fatalities per million, and bottoming out near zero in 1965. So, it's just a downward sloping line going down from 6000 to 0 from 1860 to 1965. It looks really impressive, like could all of these communicable diseases have been wiped out. However, the only problem is that immunizations were introduced into this picture in the 1940s when the number of fatalities per million had already dropped from 6000 to 1000, thus from looking at the nearly straight line of the curve, you see that the vaccinations did absolutely nothing, because there is no alteration in the rate of disappearance of these diseases from the vaccinations, at the time when the vaccinations first started to be administered. A similar chart below it refers to tuberculosis and typhoid from 1900 to 1960, and again the line's a straight slopes downward, and you can see that the epidemics simply ran their course naturally, and are totally unaffected by the vaccination programs, but the medical industry wants you to believe that vaccines are what wipe out diseases and that is totally a bold-faced lie. If you've never read the book, How To Lie With Statistics, by Daryl Huff, I strongly suggest you do because you will get a much better idea of how you've been tricked. Now, I want to tell you about a much bigger lie that you've been fed. I want to talk to you about polio, because polio is a disease that most people think was the great success story of vaccinations. Let me read again from Walene James' book. Jonas Salk, the discoverer of the Salk polio vaccine has been called the 20th century miracle maker, and the savior of countless lives. We read glowing reports of the dramatic decrease in polio in the u.S. as a result of the Salk vaccine. For instance, the Virginia State Department of Health distributes a folder which tells us that polio vaccines reduced the incidence of polio in the u.S. from 18,000 cases in 1954 to fewer than 20 in 1973-78. A recent article in Modern Maturity states that in 1953 there were 15,000 some odd cases of polio in the u.S. and by 1957 due to the Salk vaccine, the number had dropped to 2499. However, during the 1962 Congressional hearings on HR10541, Dr. Bernard Greenberg, head of the Department of Biostatistics at the university of North Carolina, School of Public Health, testified that not only [now listen to this, folks...] not only did polio increase substantially after the introduction of mass and frequently compulsory immunization programs, but statistics were manipulated and statements made by the Public Health Service to give the opposite impression. You have been lied to folks. The polio vaccine caused more polio than it protected people from. Moving on... For instance, in 1957, the North Carolina Health Department made glowing claims for the efficacy of the Salk vaccine, showing how polio steadily decreased from 1953 to 1957. These figures were challenged by Dr. Fred Klenner who pointed out that it wasn't until 1955 that a single person in the state even received the polio vaccine injection. Even then, the injections were administered on a very limited basis because of the number of polio cases resulting from the vaccine. It wasn't until 1956 that polio vaccinations assumed inspiring proportions. The 61% drop in polio cases in 1954 was credited to the Salk vaccine, when it wasn't even in the state yet. Nevertheless, by 1957, when the massive vaccination program had taken place, polio was again on the increase. Digest that for a minute, folks, let Bill flip the tape over, and we'll be back in a minute......... Okay, back to the Salk vaccine. Other ways polio statistics were manipulated to give the impression of Salk vaccine success follow: 1.Redefinition of an epidemic. More cases were required to refer to polio as an epidemic after the introduction of the Salk vaccine. In other words, you needed 20 cases per hundred thousand to have an epidemic before the vaccine was introduced, and after the vaccine they changed that number to 35 cases per hundred thousand per year to require the definition of epidemic. 2.Redefinition of the disease. In order to qualify for classification as paralytic polio mytolitis, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for at least 60 days after the onset of the disease. Now that's after they started the vaccination programs, folks. Before the vaccination program started in 1954, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for only 24 hours. What this means folks, is that if you walked into a doctor's office before the vaccine was introduced, and you said, "Oh, I have paralytic symptoms here. I've had them for about 2 weeks." They'd say, "Oh, that's polio. You've had it for more than a day." But after the vaccine, if after the vaccine, you walked into that same doctor's office, and you say, "Oh, I've had these symptoms for 2 or 3 weeks, now." They'd say, "Oh, wait two months, then we can call it polio." That's how the statistics get manipulated, folks. Moving on... Doctor Greenberg said, "This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely paralytic poliomyelitis, with a longer lasting paralysis. The third way statistics were manipulated was mislabeling. After the introduction of the Salk vaccine, cocsacci virus and aseptic meningitis have been distinguished from paralytic poliomyelitis," explained Dr. Greenberg, "and in 1954 large numbers of these cases were undoubtedly mislabeled as paralytic polio." Now, another way of reducing the incidence of disease by way of semantics or statistical artifacts, as Dr. Greenberg calls it, is to simply reclassify the disease. Now, I have my own version of this here, folks. From the Los Angeles County Health Index Morbidity and Mortality Reportable Disease Data, I'm looking at a chart of cases of viral or aseptic meningitis and polio from 1955 to 1966, and lo and behold, what do I find. From 1955 to 1966 cases of polio dropped from 273 cases to 5. Ah, but, the number of cases of aseptic meningitis from 1955 to 1966 increases in almost the same proportion from 50 cases to 256 cases. They simply changed the name, same disease, and you thought polio was wiped out at that point. Now, folks, the reality is this. Diseases, like everything else in nature, follow cycles. They come in, they reach their peak and leave, and no vaccination program on Earth has ever been able to change that. Polio disappeared in Europe between 1940 and 1950 without any vaccination programs, whatsoever. In 1958, Israel had a massive type 1 polio epidemic after mass immunizations. And from the same hearings on HR10541, that I talked about earlier, we find out that Massachusetts had a type 2 polio outbreak and there were more paralytic cases in people who were triple vaccinated than in the people who were unvaccinated. Surprise, surprise! You thought the vaccine protected you, didn't you? Well, most of those cases of polio came from the vaccination. And that's fact, folks. Even Jonas Salk has admitted it now that more than two-thirds of the polio in this country [then] came from his vaccine. From Coutler and Fisher's book, DPT: A Shot in The Dark, we learn: There is a natural tendency for doctors to under-report whooping cough when it occurs in a vaccinated population, and to over report it when it appears in an unvaccinated population. Which means that if you go into a doctor's office and you are allegedly vaccinated, and you have whooping cough, they won't call it whooping cough. They'll call it something else, and that's how they keep all our statistics nice and safe and clean. Same thing's been done with measles, folks; reading from Walene James' book: 1.From 1958 to 1966, the number of measles cases reported each year dropped from 800,000 to 200,000. The drug industry claimed this was due to vaccinations. However, there are some very interesting discrepancies. Number one, the incidence of measles had already been declining steadily for the past 100 years and was totally unaffected by the immunization programs for measles. 2.It wasn't until 1967 that the live virus vaccine, which is presently used, was introduced, because the killed virus vaccine which came out in 1963 was found to be ineffective and harmful, and yet, the vaccine which was good, and which they alleged did the job, did not even come out during the time that they are trying to take credit for wiping out the diseases in. 3.A survey of pediatricians in New York City revealed that only 3.2% of them were actually reporting measles cases to the Health Department, and 4.in 1974 the Center for Disease Control determined that there were 36 cases of measles in all of Georgia. But the Georgia State Surveillance System reported 660 cases that same year. Folks, you can't believe anything you read, because every single statistic out there has been manipulated and twisted, and that's a fact that I can tell you unequivocally, from my own research. Let me read a little bit about rubella here: A large proportion of children are found to be sero-negative (which means they show no evidence of immunity in blood tests) 4-5 years after receiving the rubella vaccination. In another study, 80% of army recruits who had been immunized against rubella, came down with the disease. Once again, folks, evidence that these vaccinations will not even protect you against the disease they are supposed to protect you from. And it goes on to say here that the same results were shown in a consecutive study that took place in an institution for the mentally retarded. Now, could the real reason vaccination promise and performance seem so contradictory be that the vaccination premise itself is faulty? As stated earlier, the theory of vaccination postulates that the use of immunizing agents produces a mild form of the disease for which specific antibodies are formed that will protect the body when the real thing comes along. But as I mentioned earlier, it doesn't work that way and Dr. Alec Burton, who is another brave doctor out there, points out the following: That there are children with what is called A Gamma Globulin Anemia [which means that they cannot produce antibodies], and yet these same children develop and recover from measles and other diseases as spontaneously as other children. Now what this means is that there are children out there who can't produce antibodies. Nevertheless, antibodies are the things that vaccines are supposed to stimulate in you against the particular diseases they're designed for, and yet, as shown here by Dr. Alec Burton, even without those antibodies, you will get cured or you will naturally become healthy again after having this disease without any vaccination. So, folks, so much for the idea that vaccinations are the only way to protect you, and the basic premise that they are built on, namely stimulating antibodies, is totally wrong. Okay. Another quote from Walene James' book. The mystery begins to unravel when we look at the work of Drs. Dettman and Kalikerinos. In one of their articles, they quote Dr. Wendall Bellfield of San Jose, California, who says the following. "Antibodies are not needed when the primary immunological defense which is leukocytes and interferon, etc. is functioning at maximum capacity. Interferon production appears to occur only when the ascorbate level [and ascorbate is just a big word for vitamin C] and the primary defense components are at low levels, thereby permitting some viruses to survive the primary defense. What this basically means, folks, is that the premise that vaccinations are built upon are totally false. Vaccinations are allegedly designed to stimulate antibody production for the specific diseases they're designed for, and yet, as Dr. Burton showed earlier, antibodies are not even necessary for your body to properly and effectively combat diseases. In short, folks, this means that vaccines do not protect you against the diseases they are supposed to protect you from. Diseases, in this day and age have become self-fulfilling prophecy because doctors tend not to diagnose specific diseases if the subject has already been vaccinated against those specific diseases. Vaccinations, unquestionably, do not guarantee you any protection, their side effects are disastrous, and often worse than the disease, itself, and worse still, the premise that vaccines are built upon, are pure, unadulterated nonsense. You've been taught that antibodies, are the little shock troops of your immune system, that they go out and kill all the nasty germs that are attacking you day in and day out, and the reality, however, is that antibody production is not your primary immunological defense, and that the idea of stimulating them by injecting you with poisons, serums, and free-floating genetic material, and all kinds of poisonous agents and stabilizers and vaccines, is completely absurd. Okay, let me read you a little bit about immunity here, because it's going to become important over the next few minutes in what I'm talking about. When immunity to a disease is acquired naturally, [and again, from Walene James' book] the possibility of reinfection is only 3.2%, according to journalist Marion Thompson. If the immunity comes from a vaccination, however, the chance of reinfection is 80%. Did you hear that, folks? Eighty percent chance of reinfection from unnaturally acquired immunity from vaccinations. Dr. William Howard Hay has pointed out that in any epidemic of communicable disease, only a small percentage of the population contracts the disease. Most people are naturally immune, so if a man who has been vaccinated does not contract the disease that really proves absolutely nothing. If he had not been vaccinated, the chances are he would not have contracted the disease, anyway. We have no way of knowing. Further, Just because you give somebody a vaccine and maybe get an antibody reaction doesn't mean a thing. The only true antibodies, of course, are those you get naturally. And that's from Dr. Dettman in an interview with Jay Patrick. Natural diseases are a lot safer than acute artificial complications from vaccinations. And that's a quote from Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, whom I mentioned earlier. However, perhaps the strongest statement against the effectiveness of artificial immunization comes from Dr. William Howard Hay. It is nonsense to think that you can inject pus, which is most of the serums that we're talking about, into a little child, and in any way improve its health. There is no such thing as immunization, but we sell it under that name. If we could, by any means, build up a natural resistance to disease through these artificial means, I would applaud it to the echo, but we cannot do it. The body has its own methods of defense. These defense methods depend upon the vitality of the body at the time. If it is vital enough, the body will resist all infections. If it isn't vital enough, it won't and you can't change the vitality of the body for the better by introducing poisons of any kind into it. And those poisons of any kind he's referring to are vaccines. Vaccinations are poisons, they do not protect you, they are weakening our immune systems, and my research indicates that allergies are the direct result of large scale immunization programs foisted upon us in the last fifty years, and isn't it weird how right now, there is such a big push on to force every child and every person in the u.S. to be vaccinated for all kinds of diseases. Thanks, Bill Clinton. Now, be logical, folks. The only person you put at risk, even by the medical industry's own stupid logic is yourself, if you refuse to be vaccinated. Think about it; if everyone else is vaccinated, then they shouldn't get the disease, right? Then the only person that you're putting at risk by not being vaccinated is you. Makes sense. Then how does the government dare to justify forced vaccination? I can assure you that even without any intentionally created diseases, many Americans will be dying over the next ten to fifteen years, and AIDS will be blamed. Be careful. Wouldn't it be ironic if AIDS as we know it, did not exist at all. >From my own research I can tell you with complete confidence that the vaccines being foisted upon us can weaken our immune systems to the degree that AIDS-like symptoms and reactions will be all too common with or without AIDS. Do you remember what I read earlier about the genetic material being introduced into our bloodstreams from vaccinations, and producing auto-immune diseases. Folks, we don't even need a government-created disease to have massive epidemic rates of auto-immune failure, because that's what these vaccines are promoting. Now you've been conned another way, and this is by the word virus. Because you think you know what a virus is, and you do not. Rest assured viruses are not what you think they are, and I'm gonna quote you a little bit more from Walene , to give you a hint. All living organisms, including bacteria and viruses contain genetic material, which is DNA and RNA. In fact, live viruses themselves are genetic messages. Live bacteria and viruses can transfer their genetic information through animal cells, including human cells which are taken up by other cells in the body. Although the body generally will not make antibodies against its own tissue, it appears that slight modifications of the antigenic character of tissues will cause it to appear foreign to the immune system, and thus a fair target for antibody production. [Remember what I said earlier, about how vaccines give us genetic material that can incorporate into our cells.] Thus vaccines lay the foundation for auto-immune diseases and other disorders of the immune system such as rheumatoid arthritis, rheumatic fever, lupus, sclerodema, and a lot of other nasty diseases. It is reasonable to assume that our contemporary "epidemic of allergies" has at least some of its roots in the practice of vaccination. And again, that's from Walene James. Now beware, folks, I have saved the best for last. The Clinton Administration has buckled under the pressure to implement a stepped up mass vaccination program. Every day I see stories of the various state laws forcing Americans to inject these poisons into their veins and don't buckle to the pressure, because you don't have to because no one, absolutely no one, can force you to inject anything into your blood, and no one can force you or your children to be vaccinated. I've avoided vaccinations, and you can, too. They will threaten you with not letting your kids go to school, or not get a job, or anything else they can think of, but it is all, excuse this folks, it's all bullshit. However, if enough people do not speak up now, we may all be forced to take in these horrible poisons. Often, all it takes to avoid vaccinations, is a simple form you can type up by yourself, referring to Senate bill 942 #3380, under the title, Exemption From Immunizations, and let me read that bill right now, it's really interesting. 3380. Immunization of a person shall not be required for admission to a school or other institution if the guardian parent or adult has assumed responsibility for his or her custody or care in the case of a minor, or the person seeking admission themselves, files with the governing authority a letter or affidavit stating that such vaccination is contrary to his or her belief. The other thing you can do is go to your doctor and ask for a vaccination guarantee. Basically, what you're saying in this little form is that, you're guaranteeing me that this vaccination will protect me and not cause any nasty side effects, or you will give me a million dollars. And if a doctor refuses to sign that you can refuse to get the vaccination. Now, even better, there's a book written by a lawyer who's done a lot in this area and has a lot of first-hand experience in circumventing vaccination laws. It's called, Dangers of Compulsory Immunizations; How to Avoid Them Legally, by Tom Finn. Your best bet is also to get a copy of a little booklet called, Vaccinations Do Not Protect, by Eleanor McBean. Get a pen, folks. You won't find these books in Barnes and Noble. You can call 203-929-1557, that's 203-929-1557, and ask for Jo Willard, because the only place I know you can get any of the books I talked about today, is from an organization called Natural Hygiene, in Connecticut. That's 203-929-1557, and ask for Jo Willard. In the McBean book are the forms that I mentioned earlier. It'll be four bucks, or maybe ten bucks, if you get both of them. You can even learn how to travel abroad without getting vaccinated, folks. Get educated and let your representatives in Congress know, and let your family doctors know that you know what's going on, because you have to protect yourself and your kids. Your congressmen and doctors may not have any clue about any of this, and you have to educate them, because most doctors are woefully ignorant of these things, and have also, like you and me, abdicated their responsibilities for most of their life. URL: http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/vaccinations-the-hour-of-the-time.html

f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00051-000

So if vaccines are good, then we should all get them to protect against infectious diseases.

f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00036-000

It's preferable that the general population retain their right to avoid diseases that would result from certain groups' refusal to vaccinate.

f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00021-000

Above all else this is a question of basic human rights. I have the right to decide whether to medicate myself or my children, and the government does not have the right to force medicate a population, especially when known dangers are present. This is not about disease eradication, it is about "Big Pharma" and the billions given to them to come up with an endless and ever increasing supply of inoculations. That being said, the yes points are highly inaccurate. Immunization does not eliminate disease. The truth is that vaccines are a deadly cocktail of foreign proteins, and there has been a dramatic increase in auto-immune diseases since mass inoculations were introduced. Some 40-50 years ago children were not vaccinated until they were ready for the first grade at age six. Neurological disorders were very uncommon then. Today, children are vaccinated at birth for HiB and begin their long vaccination-journey at 2 months of age, before the blood brain barrier is fully developed. Before the 1940s, autism was extremely rare or unheard of. Then in the mid-1940s we began a massive vaccination programs and autism was "born". At first, it only occurred in the children of wealthy parents, since vaccinations were not free or government sponsored like today. Later autism became a disease of all classes (with government-sponsored vaccine programs). Currently, the rate of autism is staggering, with some estimates as high as one in fifty-six children. Compare this with Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, a well respected American pediatrician, who has 40,000 non-vaccinated patients since the 1970's, with almost no incidents of autism. Diseases such as Polio had been on a steady decline prior to the introduction of the vaccine. According to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, childhood diseases decreased 90% between 1850 and 1940, paralleling improved sanitation and hygienic practices, well before mandatory vaccination programs. Infectious disease deaths in the U.S. and England declined steadily by an average of about 80% during this century (measles mortality declined over 97%) prior to vaccinations. In Great Britain, the polio epidemics peaked in 1950, and had declined 82% by the time the vaccine was introduced there in 1956 and the rate of decline remained virtually the same after vaccines were introduced. Furthermore, European countries that refused immunization for small pox and polio saw the epidemics end along with those countries that mandated it. The final point is correct. People have not experienced the dangers of disease, but we have experienced the dangers of the poisons in the vaccines. The CDC knew about the mercury in the vaccines and the dangers but decided to cover it up. Dr. Mendelsohn states the following, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease. While it is true that some once common childhood diseases have diminished or disappeared since inoculations were introduced, no one really knows why, although improved living conditions may be the reason. If immunizations were responsible for the diminishing or disappearance of these diseases in the United States, one must ask why they disappeared simultaneously in Europe, where mass immunizations did not take place." Historically, homeopathy has been more effective than "mainstream" allopathic medicine in treating and preventing disease. In a U.S. cholera outbreak in 1849, allopathic medicine saw a 48-60% death rate, while homeopathic hospitals had a documented death rate of only 3%. According to the NVIC, there are over 250 new vaccines being developed for everything from earaches to birth control to diarrhea, with about 100 of these already in clinical trials. Researchers are working on vaccine delivery through nasal sprays, mosquitoes (yes, mosquitoes), and the fruits of "transgenic" plants in which vaccine viruses are grown. If you start mandating forced immunization you are traveling down a slippery slope. Even if you are a supporter of immunizations I would hope that you would also be a supporter of the Constitution and respect the rights of the citizens to decide for themselves what goes in their bodies. Governments have always used fear to suspend the rights of the people. Your government does not have the right to force medicate, especially when they have taken away your right to sue if your child has been vaccine injured. They don't want to tell you that you have the right to opt out of immunizing your child via a waiver. Educate before you vaccinate! There is a reason that many medical personnel refuse to vaccinate themselves and their families. Ignorance is not bliss, it is dangerous! Not necessarily in some diseases like smallpox or flu the shots dont work all the time. People as americans have a right to choose if the want the vaccination or not. You take away that choice you take away what makes America america. Your wasting money on stuff that not everybody wants. The worlds econimic stabilty is going down. Soon were all gonna be third world countries. If you waste money on something that not everybody agrees on. The people that want it get it but dont force anyone to take it. What if it doesnt work? What happens if the side effects are worse then what you were trying to get away from? If you got the Chicken Pox immuization when you were little, what happen if you dont get it through childhood but adulthood? Childhood you would be a little sick and itchy but most likely not be able to remember it. Now if you were an adult you get very ill, and if your pregant it could kill your child. Just remember with all this techonolgy advancement sometimes things are better basic. Vaccines are dangerous because they can cause negative side effects. According to the ProCon article, about 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, meaning associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death. According to the CDC, infants (children less than one year old) are at greatest risk for adverse medical events from vaccination including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome.

ed52489a-2019-04-19T12:45:22Z-00010-000

A university degree has far less worth than it once did

ed52489a-2019-04-19T12:45:22Z-00011-000

Distinctions can be still be made between those who entered university simply for a more ‘rounded’ education or as a stop gap before working full-time, and those who attended university for the sole purpose of furthering their career. It is beneficial that a crowded marketplace means that people are having to stay on at university longer in order to gain more unique qualifications – this means that those in the top jobs have far more knowledge and education than they would have 50 years ago when further qualifications were not needed for distinction.

ed52489a-2019-04-19T12:45:22Z-00028-000

The more people who attend university, the more widely read the nation becomes, and the more culturally diverse. It is important for young people to be widely read and educated in order to enhance their artistic and cultural appreciation. Where else can one get this if not university? Those who end up ruling the country are the ones that went to university. The democratic process does not work. It would be foolish for poorer people to not pursue a path that allows them at least a chance of being part of the power system. Being a plumber, while useful, is no way to do that. For an able youngster, it would be unwise to forgo a likelihood of a good future simply to avoid debt.

3d7a338e-2019-04-19T12:47:35Z-00002-000

Analogies with other sports are false

848388f4-2019-04-19T12:45:37Z-00008-000

Graduation Tests don't demonstrate the capabilities whether in the form of knowledge or skills such as organization or time management. [[Fair Test "Why Graduation Tests/Exit Exams Fail to Add Value to High School Diplomas" Accessed 26.08.09http://www.fairtest.org/gradtestfactmay08]] A large number of employers don't look for standardized test results when it comes to employing high school graduates. Instead employers are more likely look for a portfolio of different work which provide a demonstration of students capabilities for instance in problem solving. [[ Fair Test "Why Graduation Tests/Exit Exams Fail to Add Value to High School Diplomas" The National Centre for Open and Fair Testing Accessed 26.08.09 http://www.fairtest.org/gradtestfactmay08%5D%5D

848388f4-2019-04-19T12:45:37Z-00010-000

As a result of preparing for exams which could decide the outcome of whether a person goes to college or not teachers tend to "teach to the test" and not around it meaning that skills and subjects outside the test can become secondary to succeeding when they shouldn't be. Currently the Standardized Assessment Test I focuses on verbal and mathematical abilities rather then on the wider subjects meaning more emphasis is put on English and maths rather than on other subjects which deserve more attention. [[ Richard C Atkinson "Achievement Versus Aptitude Tests" http://www.ucop.edu/pres/speeches/achieve.htm%5D%5D Its rival exam the ACT tests scientific reasoning and a persons essay writing capabilities on a current affairs issue in addition to english and mathematics[[ ACT "The ACT Test" http://www.act.org/aap/%5D%5D but this does not cover the range of subjects. Admittedly the person who made the point about Atkinson was not arguing that all standardised tests should be abolished but it is a strong indicator against having standardised tests given the variety of professions that high school students may be looking to go in through.

e0f3c01e-2019-04-19T12:46:51Z-00004-000

Research shows very little difference between using a handheld and a hands-free mobile phone, in ter...

e0f3c01e-2019-04-19T12:46:51Z-00006-000

Clearly, using a mobile phone while driving can be dangerous in some circumstances, but equally it is not dangerous in many situations, for example while the car is at a standstill in gridlocked traffic, while waiting at traffic lights, or on a quiet road with good visibility ahead. Other things in the car can be at least as distracting, such as eating, changing tapes, retuning the radio, arguing with your spouse about directions, trying to stop children squabbling, etc. We should not introduce a law that victimises mobile phone users under all conditions, while ignoring many other causes of accidents.

e0f3c01e-2019-04-19T12:46:51Z-00005-000

Using a mobile phone while driving is very dangerous. Physically holding a handset removes one hand...

3b255dde-2019-04-19T12:44:21Z-00004-000

As soon as something is released into the public realm, it is, by definition, shared. Once someone ...

840adc3e-2019-04-19T12:45:10Z-00018-000

It is true that renewable energy is a beneficent way of acquiring the energy we demand; however, even with rigorous development of these energy resources they are far from being able to produce the energy needed in the world. The opposition of course supports renewable energy, but it is the reality that we do need huge amounts of energy in the meantime, and offshore drilling is a very reasonable and viable way of obtaining it. The proposition stated that ‘’There is a finite amount of oil.'' Although we realize that oil is not sustainable we believe that until it is diminished (or renewable energy becomes widely feasible) we should use it in the most efficient way possible. Additionally, it would be a miracle if we can make the whole world switch from using oil to the energy of solar and tidal energy. We on side opposition see this as an infeasible event; the cost of solar power is high, insufficiency of output without sun, creates pollution as it is made of toxic metals, unstable, 60% of insufficiency and hard to attain for the whole population of the entire world. If we refer to tidal energy the drawbacks are numerous. First to even find an area to construct the system would be complicated to attain, luckily if we do find a spot sufficient enough it will go on to demand an immense amount of money. When constructed it can only be used irregularly thus making it not as profitable. Tidal power requires there to be dams built in the water which requires harsh expenses, endured a lot of a lot of time and labor. When the dams are built it will prevent fish migration, or even worse kill them in the spinning turbines and other wildlife. The bottom line is that renewable energy, although being the energy source of future, is not yet feasible. The opposition also does not believe that more oil from offshore drilling needs to avert the attention from renewable resources because oil companies do not generally partake in the development of green energy.

db654555-2019-04-19T12:46:56Z-00008-000

Mind sports play host to some of the oldest games in the world where people have played competitively. For example Chess traces its history extending back to the 6th century and it's modern competitive form began to evolve in the 15th century. Go or Weiqi has a much longer history and again has been played competitively. In addition both of these sports are contested by millions of people. Chess has a following of at around 600 million. While Go was reported to have a following of at least 27 million in 2003 [[http://osdir.com/ml/games.devel.go/2003-01/msg00040.html]], Given these sports history and number of players isn't it time that they took their place amongst other sports like Wrestling.

e897bde-2019-04-19T12:47:15Z-00010-000

Providing condoms to students is a wise investment of government funds. A fortune is spent by world governments each year addressing the public health problems created by risky sexual behaviour. The cost of raising the many children created through unintended pregnancies over a lifetime can be astronomical. The cost of treating a patient with HIV can be enormous.

c54d13cd-2019-04-19T12:44:35Z-00016-000

A inequality in palliative care in places around the world is not enough to justify its circumvention. If anything, the option of PAS not only decreases the growth of the success some palliative care has been able to prevent, but it will prevent it's growth in the future as well. Legalizing physician-assisted suicide is merely a part of the debate about improving end-of-life care. It cannot be viewed as a quick and easy fix, or a way to protect patients from inadequate care arrangements. Too many people still suffer needlessly, often because doctors and families just do not know how to serve people who are dying. The main problem lies with a lack of knowledge. Many suffer because doctors fail to provide adequate medication for pain. To legalize physician-assisted suicide would make real reform, such as better pain control, less likely. And ultimately hurts the growth of the medical industry. Without the reform of pain medication, patients end up with no prospects to live well while dying. In this scenario, making suicide an option is not offering a genuine choice but instead forcing a decision on the patient who again loses rights under this plan the affirmative have presented. [[http://www.growthhouse.org/mortals/mort2526.html]]

c54d13cd-2019-04-19T12:44:35Z-00028-000

The prestigious position of doctors could quite easily be abused if euthanasia were to become legalised. A prime example of this would be the late Dr Harold Shipman, who killed between 215 and 260 elderly women[[ Bonnie Malkin et al " Harold Shipman in dictionary of biography" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574271/Harold-Shipman-in-dictionary-of-biography.html Acccessed 01.06.09]] Vulnerable, ill people trust their doctor and if he confidently suggested a course of action, it could be hard to resist. A patient and his family would generally decide in favour of euthanasia according to the details fed to them by their doctor. These details may not even be well founded: diagnoses can be mistaken and new treatment developed which the doctor does not know about. Surely it is wrong to give one or two individuals the right to decide whether a patient should live or die? On the contrary, the majority of doctors would make well-informed, responsible and correct decisions, but for those few like Harold Shipman, they can get away with murder, undetected, for 23 years.[[ Bonnie Malkin et al " Harold Shipman in dictionary of biography" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574271/Harold-Shipman-in-dictionary-of-biography.html Acccessed 01.06.09]]

c54d13cd-2019-04-19T12:44:35Z-00032-000

The opposition stands with critics of PAS who have found that once assisted suicide is accepted as an available option for competent terminally ill adults, it may be permitted for ever-larger groups of persons, including the non-terminally ill, those whose quality of life is perceived to be diminished by a physical disability, persons whose pain is emotional instead of physical, and so forth. Critics point to the fact that permitting euthanasia and assisted suicide, as is done in the Netherlands, does not prevent violation of procedures (e.g., failure to report) which occurs frequently in the medical profession, or abuse (e.g., involuntary euthanasia). 
 It is further contended by the opposition that adequate safeguards are not possible. For example, requiring written requests to be repeated over a period of time, such as 15 days, and witnessed by two unrelated witnesses while simultaneously involving at least two physicians AND a psychiatrist's or psychologist's examination is unrealistic. Persons at the end of their lives typically have neither the energy nor the ability to meet such conditions. In addition, the option of assisted suicide for mentally competent, terminally ill people could give rise to a new cultural norm of an obligation to speed up the dying process and subtly or not-so-subtly influence end-of-life decisions of all sorts. Which ultimately costs the patient one of the three inalienable rights, the pursuit of Life. [[http://www.apa.org/pi/eol/arguments.html]]

c54d13cd-2019-04-19T12:44:35Z-00021-000

Coma patients are not 'living until their natural end' because modern medicine has developed so we can support them artificially. Perhaps it was God's will that they die, and we are interefering in this plan by treating them? This point should be erased. The debate specifically says "Do you agree or disagree with euthanasia or mercy killing?". What is being advocated is the right of an individual to make a decision, not to have a say or coerce an individual to make the decision to want to die. Although in some cases, involuntary euthanasia has a dark region (grey area).

7cc54135-2019-04-19T12:44:52Z-00015-000

How much a degree is worth is proportional to how prestigious the institution is and how well-known the course is. A rise in tuition fees will only lead to the poor being forfeited the chance to enrol in a degree course and hence, resulting in only the better off people obtaining degrees. A degree, in this sense, has lost its purpose and worth as it is just a luxury good that can only be afforded by the affluent. One might argue that financial aid is available for the poor who perform well academically, but then again, with the rising costs of tuition fees, will there be more grants and scholarships handed out? I highly doubt so.

7cc54135-2019-04-19T12:44:52Z-00023-000

It is not only students that suffer from increases; everyone suffers every year, particularly with tax increases. The fact that students don't have to pay taxes justifies the decision to impose higher education charges on students. It is more than fair.

7cc54135-2019-04-19T12:44:52Z-00017-000

Both rich and poor families do not have to pay tuition fees directly, they are paid using a "tuition fee loan". This would merely make the loan larger. This does not in any way affect whether any student is able to "afford" to go to university, only the length of time it takes to pay off the loan after graduating, and starting to earn over £15K per year. Additionally, the money is paid back based on salary of the graduate, not the size of the loan. Once the student has graduated, their background has no relevance to their current financial situation, they can get just as good a job as those with a more well off background.

7cc54135-2019-04-19T12:44:52Z-00025-000

Students were easily one of the best off during the recession, which has now after all ended. They don't pay tax and are given a steady reliable income. Graduates have been hit in the same way as everyone else looking for a job, but graduates are by definition no longer students. taking a bit longer to pay back their loans does not affect studetnts until after university, and then only marginally.

8f3cacc9-2019-04-19T12:44:38Z-00012-000

People cannot just choose to ignore advertising, because advertisers use many underhand methods to get their message across. Posters have attention grabbing words, or provocative pictures. Some adverts today are even being hidden in what seem like pieces or art or public information so people don't realise they are being marketed to. By targeting people’s unconscious thoughts adverts are a form of brainwashing that take away people's freedoms to make choices.

8f3cacc9-2019-04-19T12:44:38Z-00003-000

Many adverts do more than just advertising products. Some try to make people feel inferior if they ...

8f3cacc9-2019-04-19T12:44:38Z-00000-000

Advertising gives an unfair advantage to big businesses. Small companies might have much better pro...

dd214e3-2019-04-19T12:44:08Z-00016-000

This policy isn’t about punishment and nothing else. Schools and the state should offer support to students with needs, and to troubled families. For example, Britain has invested millions in improving schools, supporting individual children, mentoring, running breakfast clubs, offering parenting classes, etc. But there are still some families that won’t take the help on offer, so the policy has to include sticks as well as carrots. After all, schools cannot support children with special needs if they are not in the classroom in the first place.

dd214e3-2019-04-19T12:44:08Z-00019-000

This policy is heavy-handed and often applied unfairly. Different schools and local officials have different approaches, and some resort to threats of prison far too quickly. Often they have been given targets by the government and feel under pressure to get quick results. As threats are quicker than long-term support, this means more people end up in court.

440caa6f-2019-04-19T12:44:22Z-00015-000

With great movements of people from state to state every year, it is difficult to readjust the electoral vote totals to keep up with the changes in population distribution. This can lead to an even more inaccurate outcome, a problem which is exacerbated by the fact that allocating vote totals is a highly politicised process.

780175fb-2019-04-19T12:44:30Z-00016-000

The enormous expense of zero tolerance in money and manpower and prisons actually makes policing worse. Either we have to throw limitless money at doubling the number of officers (it is almost impossible to recruit and train so many even if we could afford it). Or we have to divert officers away from investigations and serious crime prevention in order to put them back on the pavement. This reduces detection of important crimes in return for catching graffiti artists. Even when reported crime rates drop this does not prove that zero tolerance achieves anything because it is corporate crime, large scale drug dealing that is ignored and these are rarely reported. A patrolling officer might pass a burglary every 18 years and probably wouldn't notice it.

6e2bff99-2019-04-19T12:47:58Z-00005-000

Water is the most vital of Earth’s randomly occurring resources; it is essential for survival. Consequently, water-rich countries have no moral right to profit from this resource. Every inhabitant of the planet has an equal right to water, and flowing water has no political boundaries.

6e2bff99-2019-04-19T12:47:58Z-00002-000

Water resources are distributed unequally. Uneven distribution and wasteful consumption warrant the...

6388e7e9-2019-04-19T12:47:11Z-00005-000

It is self inflicted. I eat a lot but I work or excercise. Obesity is called a terrible desease. It is only terrible because of idilitis and the amount of money folk have to gorge themselves.Ask your parents or grandparents how many fat folk there were years ago,rare.So it is not an illness,there were more depressed folk years ago so that is no excuse. Rubbish food is no excuse,we all eat it. Smokers pay a lot of extra tax but the obese are costing the nhs(tax payer) far more with larger ambulances,inhouse lifts and stairlifts,more paramedics to lift them,hospital beds and refrigerators in the morgues. And its down to being idle and a glutton, one cannot do both. A girlfriend of mine who weighs 8 stone has to pay excess if her bags are a bit over at the airport, then a 20 st person climbs aboard at no extra charge, where is the justification in that ?. She bought her teams rugby shirt,child size. She paid the same price as the person buying an xxl, where's the justification in that ? triple the amount of cloth. Its the same in all clothes shops, its not right. If you purchase material they charge per mtr. Yes charge them more,they are not paying extra tax, it will go towards the forthcoming gastric band they may require because they have no will power. Having worked with depressed people for many years it was rarely an excuse for obesity,its a new thing because they can. If we returned to stateing they are FAT instead of obese this would help.

6388e7e9-2019-04-19T12:47:11Z-00008-000

why do obease people get less rights than other people and it is their choice to do this and you might as well just don,t worry about it

6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00012-000

Levels the playing field. Currently suspicion over drug use surrounds every sport and every successful athlete, and those competitors who don’t take performance-enhancing drugs see themselves as disadvantaged. Some drugs can’t be tested for, and in any case, new medical and chemical advances mean that the cheats will always be ahead of the testers. Legalisation would remove this uncertainty and allow everyone to compete openly and fairly.

ae9120ad-2019-04-19T12:45:22Z-00009-000

Whilst they may be unreliable, not enough has been done to make use of all the natural energy sources that do not create the kind of damage nuclear power generation causes. Yes we need to develop more efficient ways to capture wind, water and solar power, to explore other options and to reduce the level of power required. This is not an argument for nuclear power but one for greater resources to be applied to developing natural energy sources and help protect the planet for future generations. [[ Update of the nuclear illustrative programme in the context of the second strategic energy review, 13th November 2008, Brussels, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0776:FIN:EN:HTML%5D%5D

ae9120ad-2019-04-19T12:45:22Z-00008-000

Although Britain along with other EU countries are using energy more efficiently, demand for energy continues to rise. The demand for electricity is expected to rise by 8-9% by 2020 meaning more need for generating capacity.[[Update of the nuclear illustrative programme in the context of the second strategic energy review, 13th November 2008, Brussels, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0776:FIN:EN:HTML%5D%5D At the same time World energy consumption is projected to expand by 50 percent from 2005 to 2030 leading to high oil and gas prices making these less desirable for electricity generation.[[International Energy Outlook 2008, Energy Information Administration, June 2008, Chapter 1, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/world.html%5D%5D The production of renewable energy is not growing at a fast enough pace to replace the desired decrease in usage of environmentally unfriendly fossil fuels. Nuclear power is a cost efficient and reliable source of power in the EU, and as the first generation of power stations are decommissioned, new stations must be built in the near future to ensure that the sizeable contribution of nuclear power to the energy mix is sustained. The next generation of power stations produce cleaner energy, more efficiently and safely. Additionally nuclear plants must be kept online in order to bridge the time gap until new generations of power plants like fusion reactors come up an replace them.

dd5c2196-2019-04-19T12:45:53Z-00018-000

having read articles and watched documentaries on the subject, i completely disagree with the subject of this debate. Not having access to contraceptives is not the major cause of teenage pregnancy. Apart from all the other 'no' points, another contributor is the immature attitude of teenagers have to sex, with excuses ranging from 'I forgot to take the pill' to ' i didn't think you could get pregnant if you just did it once'. the fact is teenagers know all about their rights and not about their responsibility. 'Yes you may get away with underage sex but do you fully understand the consequence of your actions?' and let's face it, Sex Education in Secondary schools doesn't really touch on the subject. Making contraception easier to access shouldn't be the major priority, what should be the priority is making teenagers fully understand the consequences of unprotected sex or even underage sex...... from getting pregnant to STIs and STDs.

dd5c2196-2019-04-19T12:45:53Z-00002-000

We are partly responsible for creating the problem by providing people who get pregnant with automatic housing assistance and a wealth of state handouts. Take away these and there will be much less reason for young people to get pregnant – or much more reason for them to choose other options than having the child themselves. By providing greater access to contraception we don’t deal with the cause but a symptom and this issue will not be dealt with until we start attacking its root.

4e990cbd-2019-04-19T12:47:38Z-00026-000

Not vaccinating a child can have serious consequences, such as illness, severe complications from the illness and death. The pain of the vaccination serves to protect the child. Pierced ears do not protect the child from anything and are in no way necessary. The issue is not necessarily how painful the ear piercing ritual is- it is the fact that pain is being caused to the baby in the name of vanity. Pierced ears also require maintenance that vaccine injection sites do not. It is not a "one time thing" because the earrings remain in place and need to be cleaned and turned on a regular basis.

e8fec7bb-2019-04-19T12:44:44Z-00015-000

The rate of obesity in the United States has risen dramatically. According to the CDC, more than one third of the population is considered obese. The rate of obesity is similar among children to the rate of obesity in the general population. Many more people are not obese but overweight. According to USAToday, around two thirds of the population is overweight. According to ScienceDaily, even moderate obesity can substantially shorten life expectancy. Over consumption of junk foods is a major contributing factor in the obesity epidemic. Many junk foods are extremely high in calories, and it's easy for a person to exceed the recommended number of calories when they eat junk foods. Banning junk food in schools would reduce the amount of junk food that kids eat. Furthermore, some schools have already taken this step.

e14e9db-2019-04-19T12:45:06Z-00015-000

Bill Owens Government can‘t create wealth but it can create the conditions for private enterprise to flourish. The presence of government in the pensions sector, as in most others, "crowds-out" private providers of pensions. Private providers of pensions are supported only by their pension funds with occasional risk-sharing with other financial services. This forces them to make realistic and sustainable choices as to the rates they change and the level of pensions they give out. Governments, however, are able to mask inefficiencies, corruption and unsustainable practices by drawing on taxes and be such means as increasing the retirement age as has happened in Greece.[[http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/research/detail/health-care-reform]] This renders most pension practices uncompetitive, forcing them to specialize in client niches as the bulk of the population is bought off by promises of high pensions by the government which are unfeasible and lead to measures such as the increasing of the retirement age, stealth taxes which in the whole leave pensioners in a worse off position than under a properly regulated market. The inherent lack of competition of the pension sector reduces choice and quality of services. The effect the government sector has on pensions is similar to the "crowding out" of private options observed in the healthcare sector. [[Ibid.]]The long-term nature of pension funds aggravates this situation by pushing back costs into the long-run. While the government remains active in the provision of pensions other public services will be unable to fully develop and make use of their increased efficiency and flexibility. This is not to say that there is not a legitimate role for government. In support of this motion we advocate a gradual privatization of pension schemes with a phase-out of public schemes. We would regulate the market so as to promote competitiveness and inform consumers of the potential risk associated with each

e14e9db-2019-04-19T12:45:06Z-00012-000

Private Corporations have their own personal objectives. Surely the financial crisis and the ensuing Government bailout is evidence that Private organisations/organizations(such as banks and other failing companies) are not very good at long term planning. The proposition seems to be suggesting that private companies/organizations bailed the government out; this in reality was not and can never be the case. Usually the reason people(however not the proposition) speak for privatisation is to favor the increase of market efficiency via self-regulation. It is understood that financial institutions will have to regulate themselves in the long run in the free market; when the government fall back option is not available. However, practically this has never been the case.This self-correcting mechanism that privatization supporters tout never occurs. Free banking(thus private pension schemes) causes counterfeiting, wildcat banking(Over-issuance of a currency so it cannot be converted) and fraudulence. In the U.S free banking period; bank failures in Indiana, Minnesota and Wisconsin are prime historical examples of where (privatization) free markets fail. The central bank was created out of necessity ; reverting to the mistakes made in the 1970s is not a step forward but two steps taken back. "Stock market failure" [[http://books.google.com/books?id=ZMSw0-jrHcEC&pg=PA581&lpg=PA581&dq=mishkin+eakins+pension+private+vs+public&source=bl&ots=hWsW6RT-1f&sig=3slA3_Bfdmvjjk9hjSifWKAy--8&hl=en&ei=KClrTLKAHIyHcZLXjJQB&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false]] The reason most people prefer public pensions over private even when the payout is significantly lower is because government sponsored contractual saving institutions(entities that collect installments over periods of time to return them with interest at a later date) offer risk free options whereas private companies do not and can not offer up that sort of fool-proof security.

e14e9db-2019-04-19T12:45:06Z-00031-000

The opposition is telling us here that this policy apart from the benefits to pensioners and the state that we have shown will also bring billions of dollars in profits to private companies. This means growth, more jobs, banking sector development and better profusion of risks. Sounds good to us. While our case is focused on benefits to pensioners and the state we'll gladly take yet another set of benefits if the opposition is kind enough to offer. -Markets are too risky to benefit consumers This is unsubstantiated. If the UK, with its "market-based economy" can maintain a larger private pension sector than most of the rest Europe then the prospects for these systems do not look too grim. If the government does not have to incur the crippling burden of having to provide pensions for everyone then it could focus on the poor and the few occasions of bankrupsy. If one in 20 firms goes bankrupt over ten years the government could step in and provide benefits (highter than existing state pension, lower than what they would get if the fund hadn't gone bankrupt to disincentivize consumers from taking policies with risky firms). Even if this is needed, it would be much cheaper than constantly providing pensions for the entire population. The opposition condemns the riskiness of our proposal by using two examples of crises over a century which has otherwise seen extraordinary growth while under the current system, 1 in 4 pensioners live in poverty. [[http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/24/2606874.htm]]. Under the status quo, extensive poverty isn't a risk its guaranteed, and here the government is too indepted to help those in need. -Citizens not able to decide. As we've said, in liberal democracies, we are trusted with finding our own jobs, taking out our own mortgages, insuring our cars and planning for our children's education. The opposition is patronising in claiming that allowing consumers to choose for themselves is too risky and is a recipe for disaster.

e14e9db-2019-04-19T12:45:06Z-00001-000

Private Accounts Would Primarily Benefit Wall Street

e14e9db-2019-04-19T12:45:06Z-00024-000

Senior citizens take the fall: 'A retirement fund that relies on the stock market is simply not a secure benefit...is a sacred compact between the Federal Government and senior citizens.'-[[http://books.google.com/books?id=eaCIX6d3Y5YC&pg=PA4870&lpg=PA4870&dq=pension+funds+privatisation+senior+citizens+take+the+fall&source=bl&ots=7w1L71RHkY&sig=mPDLR2fnKPvY4rsgrAiKw2SytwM&hl=en&ei=p0JrTLqENYiEvAPS8tH1Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false]] 'twas argued in this particular congressional hearing that most senile Americans only have the option of risky privatized securities and therefore privatization is the answer. However we feel that makes no sense; If a child starves that does not entail that all children should starve. We should rather offer safer, more reliable funds to old largely incapacitated people rather than privatize all pensions. The vote at the end of this was fairly close; mainly because the President was not very clear on his exact objective. Obama Personal accounts does not solve the issue...I have not laid out a plan yet, intentionally It is understood however that Privatizing securities puts older citizens at the risk of being left with no pension by being 'forced out'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/401(k)#force-out when it comes to 401 K plans; by not reading the small print in do it yourself retirement schemes and on the whole the public is not rife qualified to handle our own finances and old people need the extra-help. When you are senile the last thing you need is to find out that you don't have retirement pension because you were forced into fishing through financial jargon at a younger age and missed the bottom-line.Insurance policies can also get canceled.The only reliable retirement fund then becomes public/government pension. The removal of that will leave people out on a limb at old-age.An age when we should be sitting comfortably living on definite retirement/old-age funds/benefit.

e14e9db-2019-04-19T12:45:06Z-00009-000

Private Enterprise is more suited to long-term planning and sustainability

e14e9db-2019-04-19T12:45:06Z-00028-000

In Chile and the United Kingdom, the governments persuaded people to make personal investment accounts to reduce the long-term obligations of their Social Security systems, and supporters of privatisation say that these are examples for United States to follow however the experiences in those countries were unsatisfactory and they provide strong arguments against privatisation.World Bank's report expressed dissatisfaction with privatisation in Chile. The report said "More than half of all workers are excluded from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.[[Indermit S. Gil, Truman Packard, and Juan Yermo, Keeping the Promise of Old Age Income Security in Latin America (Washington, D.C.: The World Bank,2004), p. 10, http://wbln1018.worldbank.org/LAC/LAC.nsf/ECADocbyUnid/146EBBA3371508E785256CBB005C29B4?Opendocument%5D%5D Other evidences have also supported the claim that privatisation was unsuccessful in Chile.For example,investment accounts of retirees were much smaller than originally predicted and 41 percent of those who should have collected pensions continued to work.[[Stephen J. Kay and Milko Matijascic, Social Security at the Crossroads:Toward Effective Pension Reform in Latin America,unpublished paper prepared for the Latin America Studies Association XXVI International Conference, Las Vegas,October 6–8, 2004]].In the United Kingdom, the results of privatisation were no better.The workers were made to divert payroll taxes to personal investment accounts in 1978, however people made poor investment choices. As a result the national government suffered new administrative expenses, lost tax revenues,and had to bail out some failed private pension plans. A British government commission headed by Adair Turner reported in 2004 that Britain had been living in “a fool’s paradise” by thinking it had solved its pension problems.[[Financial Times, November 18, 2004]].Evidence shows that privatising pensions is not a good option.

ac29a9a-2019-04-19T12:44:31Z-00008-000

By routinely arming its police officers, the state effectively legitimises the weapon as a symbol of authority. Whether or not this is pragmatic, it is an implied affirmation of the criminal sub-culture, which will accordingly be strengthened.\ By this policy – especially in the absence of a fundamental right for citizens to bear arms – the role of the police is essentially defined in opposition to at least part of the citizenry. This can be contrasted to the more common expectation that police and citizens operate under essentially common rules, for shared values.\

ac29a9a-2019-04-19T12:44:31Z-00012-000

Arming the police is an easy way of ignoring the fundamental failures of society. Guns are an ex post response to crime. What is actually needed is more effort in preventing crime through detective work and policing strategy rather than focussing on responding to it. Nor does arming the police offer a solution to fundamental socio-political issues which contribute to crime.\ Routinely arming the police is an uneven response to gun crime, as it will affect some sections of the community more than others. For example, as certain ethnic groups are often associated with particular types of criminality, police use of firearms will damage police credibility within communities which feel that they are the subject of too much police suspicion. Even if the police believe they are carrying weapons in self-defence, others will view it as an aggressive act.\

ac29a9a-2019-04-19T12:44:31Z-00016-000

This is a big change, both culturally and practically. The large majority of policemen and women go through their whole career without handling firearms. Even with the special selection measures and intensive training given to the few firearms officers today, mistakes sometimes occur and innocent people are shot, either by mistake because the armed officers are acting on inaccurate information, or because they are bystanders caught in the cross-fire of a shoot-out. Arming all police officers would mean ditching the current stringent selection methods and inevitably result in less training being provided, so mistakes would become much more common and more people would be wounded or killed.

ac29a9a-2019-04-19T12:44:31Z-00013-000

Routinely arming police officers allows them to defend themselves. There is a global increase in gun ownership, even in countries which did not traditionally think of themselves as having a large criminal gun culture e.g. Great Britain. This increases the risks to frontline police officers of being the victims of gun crime. Police officers should have a right to protect themselves. Fewer officers may die on duty if they were better able to protect themselves. Arming the police is essentially a matter of self-defence rather than being actively involved in regular firearms incidents. This is shown by the fact that most routinely armed police never fire their weapon on active duty in their whole career.

7872f5d5-2019-04-19T12:47:52Z-00007-000

The wealth of the earth belongs to all men or to none. Under capitalism, property is concentrated into the hands of relatively few well-off people, leaving the many with nothing and at the mercy of the rich for work, charity, etc. This leads to gross inequality, exploitation and misery. Nor is it economically efficient, as the rich have so much already they have no incentive to use their land productively. Socialism seeks to redistribute wealth and to ensure that the means of production are at the service of the whole of society, so that all can benefit and none will go without.

d7776593-2019-04-19T12:46:39Z-00014-000

The Jean Charles Menezes case would not have been able investigated as thoroughly as it was were it not for the CCTV footage which was obtained at the Stockwell tube station where he was shot. A more recent example where CCTV has been used in the justice system is with the trial of the murderer of Rhys Jones. Such a heinous act would still be lingering and unsolved were it not for the ever watchful eye of the CCTV cameras. Such justice and peace of mind cannot be equated to "freedom of privacy".

2de5f2c0-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00011-000

To demand that the rich pay their "fair share" in taxes sounds good in theory - but will spell disaster for the rest of us in practice. How do you think most of the rich became rich? By owning businesses that produce goods and services that the rest of us buy! Now what do you think will happen when they increase taxes on the rich? They will simply pass them on to us in the form of increased prices on the goods and services we buy! It is either that, or lay off more employees! Perhaps it will be both. The other problem with raising taxes on the "rich" is what defines "rich"? According to the President, people who are "rich" are those making over $250,000 a year. I don't know about you, but that isn't my definition of "rich". In my opinion, someone isn't truly rich unless their making at least $1 million a year. But that's the trouble. The definition of "rich" is just someone's arbitrary opinion, and may be subject to change. We may see down the road (and I fully expect to see this if Obama is re-elected) when this approach of increasing taxes to help the "economy" fails (which it will) that the defintion of "rich" will continue to scale downward. Next, it will be people making over $150,000 a year. Will you be targeted next? And don't forget - some of the people earning these salaries are small business people who will also have to increase prices and lay people off. It is higher taxes and an anti-business attitude (among other things) that has driven companies overseas and caused our economy to falter. The President claims to be trying to help the "economy". But what is the economy but businesses, both large and small, who contribute goods, services and jobs to the economy? Rather than "punish" those with the ideas and drive which have made our country great, and have greatly improved the lives of people here and elsewhere in the world, we should be encouring businesses that have left our country to come back through tax incentives, not increases! We should be giving incentives to people who want to start their own businesses - not discourage them because they know, right off the bat, that they will be facing higher tax rates than before! For those of you who feel "downtrodden", I suggest you look elsewhere for the blame other than the rich. Many people have come to this country with absolutely nothing - and have risen through the ranks to realize the American Dream of becoming more free and prosperous. No one is going to "give" you what you desire without unjustly taking it from someone else. You have the OPPORTUNITY in America, like nowhere else, to fulfill whatever your dreams may be. Yes - it might take long, hard work. Yes - it takes thinking outside the box, doing your research. But you are being lazy in your thinking when you just look at want ads and think some dream job is just going to magically appear for you without any mental or other effort on your part. My family came to this country poor - some so poor they lived in sod houses with dirt floors. They managed to raise themselves up. Take a hard look at yourself instead of pointing the finger at the "rich". If my family could make it, why can't YOU?

2de5f2c0-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00002-000

2. No - it discourages incentive, increases dependence upon the government, and, if carried too far, impoverishes and oppresses people.

adee5bf1-2019-04-19T12:44:49Z-00014-000

We live in a country that is supposed to be about individual freedom. Unfortunately we have seen a gradual erosion of those freedoms. Now there are those who would impose upon others their moralities and ideas of what people should and shouldn't eat. I would challenge, in particular, those who come from a moral standpoint. I would wager that many people who think it is immoral to eat meat are also the same people who think abortion is okay. If I am against abortion, (which I haven't said one way or another) shouldn't I be able to force my moral values on you? For that matter, there are many societal issues people on many sides could challenge from a "moral" standpoint. When we are debating about whether people should eat meat strictly from a nutritional viewpoint, vegetarians fall apart in their arguments, as you will read in the other points discussed from a nutritional standpoint. The problem is not with meat per se. The problem expressed by many who say "don't eat meat" is with how animals are raised, how they are fed, and how they are slaughtered. However, passing a law that says you cannot eat meat is short-sighted.. In a free society, we are free to buy or not buy products that we have an issue with, without imposing our morals and choices on others. If you don't like how a particular corporation or farmer raises, feeds and slaughters the animals, then don't buy their meat. Or, go through the proper legal channels to get regulations passed to change their practices. Don't just legislate that people can't eat meat anymore. That is a personal diet, as well as moral, choice. Personally, practicing "fair chase" and obeying the laws when hunting and making sure an animal is killed quickly and humanely is how we come by our venison, which we choose to eat over beef because we know the animal has lived and eaten natural foods. Another choice could be to buy from organically operated farms which raise animals in an environment as close to natural as possible, with the animals being able to roam freely in clean areas with natural foods to eat.

adee5bf1-2019-04-19T12:44:49Z-00012-000

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases and are appropriate for all stages of the life-cycle including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence.[[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12826028]] Furthermore those who require "extreme performance" can find a comparable grade of protein quality from soya based products including soya "milk" shakes. All essential vitamins and nutrients can be acquired from vegan sources. Both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the American Dietetic Association have endorsed vegetarian diets. Studies have shown that vegetarians have stronger immune systems than meat-eaters and that meat-eaters are almost twice as likely to die of heart disease, 60 percent more likely to die of cancer, and 30 percent more likely to die of other diseases. Consumption of meat and dairy products has been conclusively linked with diabetes, arthritis, osteoporosis, clogged arteries, obesity, asthma, and impotence. According to Dr T. Colin Campbell, nutritional researcher at Cornell University and director of the largest epidemiological study in history, "The vast majority of all cancers, cardiovascular diseases, and other forms of degenerative illness can be prevented simply by adopting a plant-based diet." (i.e. a pure vegetarian diet with no animal by-products). Plus just think about this for a moment: some of the world's largest and strongest animals are pure vegetarians e.g. The Elephant, Hippo, Giraffe, Rhino, Cattle, Horses, Gorilla etc. And they seem to be thriving very well living off vegetation and have done so for many hundreds of years. . . . So does this not at least show you that to grow up big and strong we as humans too can gain all of the nutrients and dietary requirements solely from plant sources alone? Of course it does - common sense confirms this statement plus there have been countless studies with much evidence to show that a pure vegetarian diet is one of the healthiest choices you can make for you, the animals and the planet. And about the augument that 'vegetarians don't get enough protein' Plant foods offer abundant protein. Vegetables are around 23% protein on average, beans 28%, grains 13%, and even fruit has 5.5%. For comparison, human breast milk is only 6% (designed for the time in our lives when our protein needs are as high as they'll ever be). Professional recommendations for adults range from 2.5% to 10%, and plant foods supply that easily.

adee5bf1-2019-04-19T12:44:49Z-00002-000

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases and are appropriate for all stages of the life-cycle including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence.[[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12826028]] Eating meat does not in itself make you healthy. Those who eat five ounces of meat daily increase their risk from cancer or heart disease by 30 percent compared to those who eat two-thirds of an ounce daily. Those who eat none at all are least likely to die from heart disease and cancer.[[Jim Montavalli, Meat the slavery of our time, Foreign Policy, 3rd June 2009, http://experts.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/03/meat_the_slavery_of_our_time%5D%5D Additional while some vegetarians do consume supplements, the cost of these are minimal compared to the cost of meat.

adee5bf1-2019-04-19T12:44:49Z-00025-000

The issue is whether people should eat meat or not. From a nutritional and free choice standpoint, the answer is people should be able to choose whether or not to eat meat, and not be subject to any law which would ban the eating of meat. (See the arguments for nutrition in this debate). Those who say "no" from an environmental/moral standpoint are extending this argument which, in my opinion, belongs in another debate. However, to answer the rebuttal to my argument (to the right), his/her argument is more about the practices associated with (in particular) factory farms. I have studied and viewed documentaries concerning factory farm practices, and agree with many of the things my opponent has to say. However, we tread on dangerous ground when we offer the simplistic solution of not eating meat. There are many who would legislate what we put into our own bodies. Freedom in this country means the freedom to eat what we choose to eat (other than cannibalism). We go down a slippery slope when we begin to legislate what people can eat. We are already on a slippery slope, in my opinion, as more laws are passed and government gains more control over the lives of citizens. The answer to the problem outlined above, and by my opponent, is to go through the proper legislative channels to improve regulations concerning how factory farms operate. In the meantime, you can choose not to eat meat, or to buy meat from those corporations and farmers whose practices you approve of. Personally, I choose to eat wild game because it comes from a natural environment in which the animals have eaten natural foods. These range of choices allow us to preserve the freedom to choose what we put in our bodies, including the freedom to do business with those who engage in humane farming practices, as well as the freedom to present legislation to change the inhumane practices of factory farms.

f3bd98d3-2019-04-19T12:44:41Z-00001-000

A lot of people complain that people yakking on phones are the biggest players in causing traffic-jams/accidents/road-problems, but Cell phone technology can and is used greatly to determine which routes are the most congested, so as to signal drivers to change routes on the basis of the information. the more congested a road the more cell phones on that road, signalin the artificially intelligent device in your car, reminding you to avert theg possibility of finding yourself in a jam [[http://washingtontechnology.com/Articles/2009/07/23/Cell-phones-to-aid-traffic-monitoring.aspx]]

827b1042-2019-04-19T12:48:12Z-00009-000

Legitimacy

47553c48-2019-04-19T12:47:31Z-00015-000

So what if they advertise? Its your self control that says "no i shouldn't have that today". If you don't like it, then don't like it. But lets face, they have hundreds of customers per day. Just because you dont agree with fast food doesn't mean no one does. Should we ban advertisements for cookies? Soda? Energy drinks? other 'junk food'? Besides, eating a big mac, some fries and a drink from mcdonalds is better than eating most dishes you can get at an italian restaurant. In face, pizza is really bad for you too. Should we ban pizza advertisements? Do some research to whats bad for you. Most things contain something that people complain about. From Vitamin Water to Perscription Medications. And yes, Meds that have advertisments could be bad for you too! In turn, with the logic of the "yes" argument, nothing should be advertised.

ff33548-2019-04-19T12:46:27Z-00012-000

School is supposed to prepare children for life and yet it is completely disconnected from it. This is necessary to a certain extent so that pupils are safe and can concentrate on their work but it is taken to the extreme. Pupils are hardly allowed to socialise and frequently can't even discuss work with each other during lessons. Social media sites are a good bridge between school and the outside world because you can still focus the class on useful learning activities such as finding the latest news and reactions to it, or submitting work to be reviewed by a wider audience.

a05ea446-2019-04-19T12:44:44Z-00021-000

I personally think that Facebook is a not a good social networking site because it is a place where people can stalk you, and it is unsafe. When people first create a new Facebook account, and it asks you for all of your personal information such as your address, phone number, and email, people don't usually think before submitting in the information. This is dangerous for kids and an easy way for a person to stalk you because they now know a lot about you, and how to contact you. Of course you can hide your profile and limit the access to certain people, but its not really the same once you submit the information. Even though Facebook has an age restriction, people on the internet lie about their age and decide to make an account anyways. Sometimes people's parents know what's best and when they tell their kids that Facebook is not a safe networking site to be on, people go right ahead and make it anyways and sneak around on it hoping not to get caught.

e13904f4-2019-04-19T12:46:42Z-00016-000

Yes go and earn it until something more suitable turns up. Work is good for the soul. I know who I would employ, the one willing to work instead of waiting for the right job. Work for your living, its costing us taxpayers too much carrying you..

ae0d65af-2019-04-19T12:44:48Z-00008-000

Anal sex in a man stimulates the area around the prostrate, which creates sexual pleasure only achievable through sex with another man (or simulation of such). The most sensitive part of the female genitalia is the clitoris, which is not directly stimulated through vaginal intercourse with a man. Sex with another woman is more likely to stimulate the clitoris, and create sexual pleasure. Our human biology is designed for sex between people of both sexes. We are made to be bisexual.

54c72979-2019-04-19T12:45:56Z-00003-000

lets discapline the teachers yay!!!!!!!! :)

cecebeb2-2019-04-19T12:47:39Z-00014-000

no importance of making it free for people who don't have money and can't get to work because of it. why? 1. People who apply for job should know where their job place is, and how they can get there. if they know that they don't have money, they should've find another nearer place that they can get only by walking, etc. it is ridiculous that you apply for job without knowing where your job place is, and even if you know you're still being stubborn and take the position. 2. even if those people are being stubborn, and they still take the position, there's nothing government can do with that. look, when these people want this position, they should know the consequences of having a very far job place or things. and when the consequence is they have to pay some amountt of money because of applying for a far job place. since these people will get money by the job, so that's why this consequence belong to them.

e1347bd3-2019-04-19T12:47:56Z-00009-000

Emergency contraceptive pills can have serious, harmful side-effects including nausea, vomiting, infertility, breast tenderness, ectopic pregnancy and blood clot formation. There are no long-term studies into whether women are at risk of permanent damage or diseases such as cancer as a result of exposure to such high doses of dangerous chemicals.

e1347bd3-2019-04-19T12:47:56Z-00011-000

Emergency contraception may be seen by some as an alternative to safer forms of contraception. Its widespread easy availability would encourage women to have unprotected sex. This increases their risk of getting or passing on sexually transmitted diseases which are prevented by barrier contraceptives such as condoms but not by emergency contraceptives which are taken after sex.

e1347bd3-2019-04-19T12:47:56Z-00014-000

There are good reasons for making the morning-after pill a non-prescription drug. It can take time to get a prescription from a doctor, and in cases of emergency contraception speed is very important. Some patients may be embarrassed to tell their doctor about their sexual behaviour, and consequently be put off seeking a prescription. The restriction of emergency contraception to over-16s makes no sense in any case; a girl under 16 who has had unprotected sex may well need emergency contraception.

e1347bd3-2019-04-19T12:47:56Z-00001-000

There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors...

68d8ce13-2019-04-19T12:45:16Z-00015-000

young children sould not have to be exposed to second hand smoke. (:

68d8ce13-2019-04-19T12:45:16Z-00001-000

Let's face facts smoking is a public health hazard whether it's passive or done directly. With regard to smoking the damage done to lungs and other internal organs in the form of cancer and other diseases is well documented , not to mention premature aging. Passive smoking also causes problems in that as well as causing lung disease and heart cancer if done over a long time, it also reducing the functions of lungs of people with asthma as well as causing eye problems and increased sensitivity.[[ASH "Smoking and disease" http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_94.pdf Accessed 19.06.09]] . All of this costs the National Health Service an estimated £2.7 billion in try to deal with all the smoking related illnesses as well as hitting the UK workforce in terms of lost productivity.[[http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_95.pdf]] It's a dangerous drug and it's high time it was treated as a narcotic and banned So if someone was to go around poisoning peoples foods so the person dies, they would go to jail. Also, if someone tried commiting suicide, they would try to be stopped. Well everyday, thousands of people are slowly committing suicide! Helllloooo! The tobacco companies are poisoning people just to make money!! I'm 15 and have cancer and my dad smokes and I just want it to stop. Do you want brain tumors or black lungs? Putting your kids at risk? Do you want your hair to slowly fall out while you realize you have a risk of death? What if you had to watch your baby go through cancer? The little pleasure smoking gives you is not worth somebodys life.

e74fd589-2019-04-19T12:46:06Z-00007-000

Ignoring the countless warnings about the dangers surrounding obesity is neglect and neglecting a child is a prosecutable offence

e74fd589-2019-04-19T12:46:06Z-00000-000

Some study's suggest that obesity may be more linked to your genes than your lifestyle

e74fd589-2019-04-19T12:46:06Z-00009-000

Obesity costs the NHS millions of pounds each year

dfd4164c-2019-04-19T12:44:12Z-00000-000

Allowing recall elections will help to restore faith in politics and encourage active citizenship. ...

dfd4164c-2019-04-19T12:44:12Z-00004-000

Recall elections need not be vulnerable to abuse. For a start, in a democracy we must trust the peo...

bcde55c5-2019-04-19T12:44:29Z-00007-000

The use of performance-enhancing drugs is widespread in the Olympics and reduces the victories of those who take them to meaninglessness. New drugs such as the growth hormone EPO are very difficult to detect, but the Olympic authorities are doing little to overcome the problem. The President of the International Olympic Committee, Juan Antonio Samaranch, has been notoriously reluctant to put his weight behind attempts to beat doping.

493bf27b-2019-04-19T12:47:58Z-00003-000

The pupils of all abilities benefit from selective education. Rather than aiming at an ill-defined ...

493bf27b-2019-04-19T12:47:58Z-00007-000

Selective education produces better results. Studies have shown that children of equal ability at age 11 go on to have different results at 18, depending on whether they were at a selective school or at a school with children of a mix of abilities.

e208df6-2019-04-19T12:45:31Z-00010-000

Most of the Home students and their families would argue about the fact that Tuition Fees cannot be equally laid down for both International and Home students simply because of the TAX they have been paying all throughout their lives. Glancing at their reasoning might make you say YES, THEY HAVE GOT A POINT! But looking closer at the issue will open your eyes to the blatant reality that is being ignored, and unseen. This argument could have been forceful if we were talking about twenty or thirty years ago, but looking at the current status quo, it is not. Most of the benefit seekers or those being supported by the social welfare fund are, obviously, the English nationals. They have the rights to claim and claim as much as they want, leaving the social burden on those who actually work, normally 3-4 jobs per person, and pay tax without getting anything back except for endless deductions and other miscellaneous contributions. Most of these hardworking individuals, who pay taxes NOW more than BEFORE, are foreigners. Even the INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS themselves are forced and obligated to work and juggle study and job in one go, just to finance and support their education. Here's one funny but annoying truth... these international students are TAXED very highly because most of them are doing part-time work and still CHARGED very high in university fees because they’re foreign. Meanwhile another student, who's jobless and has parents who are claiming disability or jobseeker’s allowance are paying normal fees. Well, if that's the case, its better to change the basis for fees from nationality to income and financial stability!

e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00013-000

University education is an investment.

e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00022-000

Much as i am a supporter of free education, i do not subscribe to the escapist concept of making university education free. If we must attain the height that we have set for ourselves as a people and a nation then free education should be compulsory at the nursery to secondary school level, then everyone should be allowed to foot the university or tertiary institution bills. Because i am yet to understand how university education which is poorly funded and bedeviled by always striking lecturers will be operationable if the education is made free. So i am not an advocate or such education that is not improving our industry or bettering our socio-economic fabric.

e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00016-000

Scrapping tuition fees would increase social mobility

e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00025-000

University should be free for all. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, for the 2007-2008 year, the average student loan debt of graduating college seniors was about $23,000. This means that when a person graduates from college, instead of working to make money for their future, they are working to make money to pay back their past. True, an education allows for a better future, but so many students are stuck paying back loans for years after their graduation that they can’t do things that, such as travel, that students in other countries, where education is free can do. It is unfair that if one does not come from a wealthy family, they are stuck paying back loans for x number of years. While their friends who had their education paid have the opportunity to go doing things such as traveling, those who owe money are forced to find a job right away that they may not necessarily love, because they have to pay back their loans.