Call for Affirmers of the Safety of the Covid Vaccines

Daniel Klein
3 min readJun 17, 2022

--

Purpose: Arranging a debate on the safety of the Covid vaccines

Debate resolution:

Resolved: The Covid vaccines are reasonably safe.

For: Two people, who do not necessarily claim to believe that the vaccines are reasonably safe, but do claim to be making a good effort to mount evidence and reasoning supportive of the conclusion that they are reasonably safe.

Against: Two people.

This Call is a step toward arranging a high-quality, respectful, in-depth debate on Covid vaccine safety. I, Dan Klein, call for individuals to step forward to serve as an affirmer of the resolution, by writing to me at:

Parmenides_addresses_Plato@proton.me

When writing to me, tell me of your engagement with the issue and qualifications. As stated above, one serving as affirmer need not believe the affirmative, but he or she must claim to be trying to put forward the best case for it. In selecting those to take the affirmative, I will, naturally, give preference to sincere affirmers; I open the position up to others because it is possible that less than two sincere affirmers step forward.

Setting up the debate: The first task is to sign up two affirmers. Once that is done, I will seek two against. Several of the prominent skeptics have expressed an interest in debating the issue, and I would look to recruit two of them.

As editor of Econ Journal Watch, I have experience in hosting exchanges between conflicting views. I believe in civil debate as edifying to virtue and, correspondingly, as beneficial to humankind. My personal webpage is here.

Structure of the debate:

1. The two against the resolution will produce a video in which each speaks for between 25 and 35 minutes. They are expected to coordinate with one another. These two segments shall be put together into one video recording, constituting a compounded opening statement for the negative (total length being between 50 and 70 minutes). Posted along with the video will be PowerPoint files, links, and so on.

2. Three weeks after the ‘against’ video is posted online, a video by the two affirmers, who are expected to coordinate with one another, will be posted. Each affirmer is to speak for between 25 and 35 minutes, making a video of between 50 and 70 minutes. And posted along with the video will be PowerPoint files, links, and so on. (I suggest that the two affirmers tell us, at the outset, whether they are sincere affirmers of the resolution or whether they are merely playing the part of affirmer.)

3. Three weeks after the affirmative video is posted, all meet for a discussion online, up to 120 minutes, structured as follows:

Rebuttals:

· Against-1, for between 8 and 15 minutes.

· For-1, for between 8 and 15 minutes.

· Against-2, for between 8 and 15 minutes.

· For-2, for between 8 and 15 minutes.

Open-exchange for available minutes.

Closings:

· Against, for between 5 and 10 minutes (to be used by team as they wish).

· For, for between 5 and 10 minutes (to be used by team as they wish).

Some clarifications:

The resolution clarified: The Covid vaccines are reasonably safe, in the sense that the risk-outcome hazard involved in getting injected, relative to not getting injected, is roughly comparable to vaccines of the past 20 years.

The actor’s point of view: In formulating the issue, several situations might be considered:

· The individual of each age/health status: Should I take the injection? Which one?

· The doctor: Should I encourage my patients to take the injection? Which injection? Should I discourage them?

· The policymaker/regulator/legislator/public administrator: Should I permit the injection, as opposed to ban it? Should I promote it? Should I mandate it, as opposed to leaving it a matter of voluntary choice?

· The private-sector employer: Should I mandate it within the firm or workplace, as opposed to leaving it optional? Should I collect information on employee vaccine status?

· Media/social media personnel: Should I suppress discourse about vaccine safety? Should I encourage it? Should I suppress/encourage some of the discourse? Which should I suppress/encourage?

Participants are encouraged to clarify actor situations when formulating the issue.

At this time, the next step forward is to enlist affirmers. If you are interested in being one of the two affirmers, email me at: Parmenides_addresses_Plato@proton.me

--

--

No responses yet