Vaccines Argumentative Analysis

Words: 1207
Pages: 5

It is without a doubt that vaccines prevent disease, which in turn saves the lives of thousands, even millions, but are all vaccines necessary? Throughout our entire lives, the vast majority of Americans are able to say that they have received a series of vaccinations. Many people feel that it is necessary to enforce vaccines because it is not only beneficial to the person receiving said vaccines, but to those in contact with them. On the other hand, a large amount of people also believe that government regulated vaccines are uncalled for and a violation of their basic freedoms. To people like Bahar Gholipour, staff writer of the Huffington Post, requiring the basic vaccines is a must, especially for children. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, MD would beg to differ, …show more content…
On the discussion of vaccines being mandated there are two obvious sides. Supporters of mandated vaccines such as Bahar Gholipour feel strongly on the matter; not only to protect themselves, but to protect the livelihood of others (Gholipour, 2014). Those oppose to the subject, like Dr. Ron Paul, believe that no one should be able to impose such laws on anyone’s physical health and that it is a violation of rights on a law abiding citizen (Paul, 2011). In the particular case of these two sources, the superior argument between the two would have to be in favor of Dr. Ron Paul. While Bahar Gholipour did effectively get his point across, Paul simply executed his better. Like Gholipour, Dr. Paul’s uses of ethos, pathos, and logos stood alone, but he made his argument stronger when he utilized them in combinations. Gholipour’s argument relied heavily in the use of logos from statistics found through studies conducted in his favor. Ron Paul was not stronger in one rhetorical tool the way Gholipour mainly relied on logos. His ability to effectively use each tool made his argument much more