April PF

Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified.

So your last PF topic of the year before nationals is a health/science topic, much like last year's organ donation topic.  In searching for a current event that spawned this topic, the only thing I could find was that there was a minor measles outbreak after the Superbowl in Indiana.  Fourteen cases were confirmed, but thirteen of those said they had declined the measles vaccine, which is what makes it rather significant.  The debate over mandated vaccines isn't new, but quite a few states have provisions that allow parents to opt-out of vaccines for religious reasons (Texas is one).   Google it and you'll find which states are currently debating legislation on it.

This debate boils down to parents choice vs. public health.  Unfortunately, the way this topic is presented will make the debate tricky.

All debate topics can be classified as one of three types: Propositions of policy, propositions of value and propositions of fact.  Most PF topics are propositions of policy (birthright citizenship, direct popular vote, etc.)  Very few are propositions of value.  Lincoln-Douglas is exclusively a debate over values.  This particular topic is presented as a proposition of fact: " _____A_____   is    ______B_____."  The key word in there is "is," as in "Dr. Conrad Murray is guilty."  So the job of the Pro is to present evidence to prove that A is indeed B, in this case that state mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified.  The Pro might go about this by setting certain criteria to show how it's justified; that not mandating it would result in any number of injustices.  The Pro will also want to want to make some pre-emptive strikes against the Con by showing some misconceptions people have about vaccines.  Another unique aspect of this resolution is that the Pro will be defending the status quo.  The bottom line for the Pro is the promotion of public safety.

The job of the Con is to champion parents rights/individual choice; to show that state mandated anything is an intrusion of the government into the lives of citizens.  Another tactic for the Con is to show that when there are negative side effects of vaccinations (which is a separate debate altogether) the state must be culpable, since they mandated it in the first place.  The link between autism and vaccines is hotly contested between the parents of children with autism who believe there is a link and doctors who cite studies that show there is no link.  What does exist is a lot of hysteria and paranoia.  Your job as Con is not to settle that debate, but to argue that a parent should have the right to choose.

I wasn't very gung ho about this resolution at first, but the more I read about it the more the two sides emerged and the more I grew to like it.  Good luck!