Upcoming Show Announcement! Voluntary Japan LIVE Ep. 24 -- Vaccines, Invitation to Debate, and Proposed Resolution
The past few weeks has been a whirlwind of Facebook debate futility for Voluntary Japan as I have been challenged several times about my current stance on vaccination practices.
I am not, in any way, shape, or form setting out to shame, stigmatize, or brand individuals and parents who choose to vaccinate. I am also not, in any way, shape, or form, opposed to modern medicine (Western medicine) where it is called for, and where it is effective.
These frustrating conversations, where my opponent inevitably cites modern popular opinion and mainstream medical "authorities" (which citations I am not by default opposed to) and then ignores any and all data I present to the contrary of their narrative, have left in me a deep longing for a fair and formal debate on a level playing field.
When one is having a one-on-one argument on a platform like Facebook, goal posts are moved, ad homs abound, and peanut gallery "likers" and "ankle biters" always seem to show up and derail the conversation.
I want a focused debate, and here is my proposed resolution:
THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED: THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE BENEFITS OF VACCINES OUTWEIGH THE RISKS.
I would be arguing in the negative, and my opponent in the affirmative. My opponent will be free to choose a moderator of his preference, regardless of the moderator's personal stance, as long as the moderator abides by the rules.
Rules/Format:
- Opening Statements (5 mins. each)
- Rebuttal to Opening Statements (3 mins. each)
- Question from Debater A to Debater B (1 min.) (3 min. answer)
- Question from Debater B to Debater A (1 min.) (3 min. answer)
(Repeat Question section until each debater has asked 3 questions.) - Live Viewer Questions (2 or 3 for each debater)
- Closing Statements (5 mins. each)
In Summary.
To be honest, I think debate is important because it presents a leveled playing field that other platforms (like a Facebook comment thread) cannot. Also, debate is crucial for sharpening one's position on a matter. If I am mistaken in any of my positions, I wish to know. I wish to be correct and standing fast in the path of logic and rational thinking.
Many of the individuals who have challenged me seem to be convinced I am severely mistaken in thinking that the science is not "settled," but refuse to enter into a formal debate scenario with me. I find this to be counterproductive, in terms of progress, science, and a clearer understand of the topic at hand, which is so polarized now by the media as to have mainstream news media organs like the Boston Herald calling for the execution of any parents who so much as question the popular narrative on vaccine safety.
I hope this post will inspire someone to step up to the plate and have a formal debate with me on Tuesday, May 30th. Tomorrow's show, VJLIVE ep. 24, will air at 11:00 PM Japan Standard Time (10:00 AM EST, US), May 23rd, 2017.
On tomorrow's show I will be discussing this proposed debate (as well as a couple other topics). If all goes as planned, and I can find someone who wishes to debate me, it would air the next week, May 30th, at the same time. Any interested parties can tune in tomorrow on the Voluntary Japan Facebook livestream and let me know via the live chat feature. You can also comment below, on this post!
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as Facebook and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)
Look forward to that !
I hope that someone takes up your challenge.
I think that the assertion may be too general though. It could be broken down into debating each vaccine, maybe just pick a few like polio, measles and Hepatitis B on the first day of life.
The assertion that the benefits are always more than the risks for EVERY single vaccine, for EVERY single person is pretty insane really. I don't know if anyone close-minded enough to believe that would actually be able to hold a coherent debate with you.
I mean, who would ever say that penicillin is always more benefit than risk for EVERY single person, when we know that is does indeed kill some people and that those susceptible people should be screened and questioned and not given penicillin. Yes, penicillin has saved many, many lives BUT it is not a one-size-fit all solution for everybody.
Vaccines are a drug. People are unique. Their situations are unique. To say that everybody should be on the same vaccine schedule and needs each and every vaccine that is available, no questions asked is insanity to me.
I would rather debate someone who for example thinks that the polio and whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine are very important for each person to have, but that the chickenpox vaccine is optional, and that maybe every baby in the world does not need a vaccine for a sexually transmitted or IV drug use disease like Hepatitis B within hours of being born.
In other words, I would want to debate a reasonable person.
Besides, science is NEVER settled, and every scientist should know that.
Progress is never made when everybody believes that the science is already settled and no further ideas or investigations should ever be done.
Yeah, I hear you, @canadian-coconut. I could narrow it down a bit. I have had a couple people tell me, though, in the last week (normally very intelligent people) that in general the benefits outweigh the risks and that there is really no question about this. However, if I narrow it down the debate would definitely be more coherent.
I suppose my whole mission here is not to show that "I'm right" but that much more investigation needs to be done, and that the sources most people rely on are actively hiding/suppressing data.
I'll have to chew on this a little bit more, I guess. Going by what these people were telling me, I figured they should be able to accept and prove the resolution (in general) in a heartbeat.
It's totally up to you since you are the one doing the debating.
I just don't think that I personally could have an intelligent debate with anyone who actually believes that all the vaccine science is settled and there is no room for doubt about any vaccines and that all children/people should have the exact same vaccine schedule.
In my view, that person won't be open to any new facts. Their argument will just be, "because the mainstream experts say so" and they'll just call me names for not having the same blind faith that they do. The large number of scientists and doctors that you could quote and show the studies that they have done, that come up with different conclusions than the mainstream experts, will all be called "Quacks."
Although, that might be quite interesting to listen to and show how blind they really are to any evidence outside of their belief system.
That is what has happened to me multiple times over the past two weeks. The reason they are now refusing to debate is, I feel, they know the position is a ridiculous one in the first place.