The Instigator
Jzmn282
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Complicated_Mind
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Everyone deserves equal rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
Complicated_Mind
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2014 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,558 times Debate No: 44264
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (8)

 

Jzmn282

Pro

All people, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, color, background, class, or otherwise are equal because after all we all are human beings and we were all made the same way.
Complicated_Mind

Con

I accept. I will explain why I took this challenge in round two, as I assume this round is for acceptance.

You have the floor, Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Jzmn282

Pro

My stance on this is that all people are born equal considering we were all made the same way, we came came to the world in generally the same way, we have initially the same genetic make-up, we all live on the same planet, and we all are human beings, and therefore we are all equal.
Complicated_Mind

Con

I, too believe that we should live in a society in which no one pays attention to race, gender, sexual orientation, so on and so forth. BUT, your resolution falls apart in one aspect, and that comes to dealing with felons and whether children should have all the rights adults have. I would like to ask my opponent the following questions:

Q1: Should convicted child molesters be able to have the right to be a teacher or a daycare worker? Should they be able to be in a room alone with a defenseless child?

Q2: Should people who have a felon for theft be able to work at a bank or anywhere where they have complete control over money or items that are not theirs?

Q3: Should someone who dangerously stalks another person be able to have the right to be near them? What if it is proven that the stalker is contemplating the rape and/or murder of the person they are stalking? Shouldn't the victim have the right to have a restraining order, thus disallowing the stalker the right to be around the victim?

Q4: Should a serial killer have the right to live amongst more victims?

Q5: Should a 5 year old be able to vote for the president? They are not mature enough. They probably can't even read. That is denying them the right of voting, but it is for the better.

Q6: Should children around the age of nine or ten be able to have sex? Sex is a right for adults, but children are not allowed to have intercourse for good reason.

Thank you for reading. Back to you, Pro.

Debate Round No. 2
Jzmn282

Pro

To answer your questions:
Q1: Just because someone was convicted of molesting a child doesn't necessarily mean they're going to do it again. Doesn't everyone deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt? A second chance if you will?
Q2: Same thing goes for thieves. We all deserve a second chance right?
Q3: Just because someone has a restraining order doesn't necessarily mean that the stalker isn't going to go against said restraining order and kill or rape that person anyways. Also, there's a difference between rights and laws. It's against the law to stalk someone, therefore punishment (So to speak) is reasonable.
Q4: Again, just because someone has killed in the past doesn't mean they're going to do it again. Besides, if you knew the person was a serial killer they'd be in jail for life or dealing with the death penalty and thus wouldn't even be a part of society.
Q5: Reasonably you have stooped me here. However, I feel an argument is necessary. Not all 5 year old's are completely immature and uneducated. In fact when I was 5 I knew quite a bit about politics, and I myself had an opinion of who the president should be.
Q6: Sex isn't really a right so to speak. It's more of an action. I can't think of a single place where sex is outlawed amongst adults and therefore wouldn't really consider it to be a right.
Complicated_Mind

Con

Thank you for your relatively quick response. I look forward to a well-done, cordial final round. Now let's get down to business:


Q1: Just because someone was convicted of molesting a child doesn't necessarily mean they're going to do it again. Doesn't everyone deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt? A second chance if you will?

I never specified one time offenders. Regardless I simply asked if child molesters should be able to be around children. This includes people who have raped and molested tens or even hundreds of children. Would you trust your child with someone has has molested five children? Ten children? Do you think repeating offenders should have the right to be a teacher or a daycare worker? Repeating child molesters are humans. They are born on this planet and their bodies are made from the same things as the rest of us, they are human, however if one has molested many children do you think they should be denied the right to work with a job that involves mostly children? I don't think they should have that right. This successfully negates your resolution.




Q2: Same thing goes for thieves. We all deserve a second chance right?

See above. A person like Bonnie Parker, Clyde Barrows, Al Capone, and Jesse James (repeating offenders) do not deserve the right to work at a bank. Why? Because they are repeating offenders.



Q3: Just because someone has a restraining order doesn't necessarily mean that the stalker isn't going to go against said restraining order and kill or rape that person anyways. Also, there's a difference between rights and laws. It's against the law to stalk someone, therefore punishment (So to speak) is reasonable.

Though you are correct that it doesn't always work, it is denying them the right to meet with the victim. Don't you believe it is worth a try? Murder is against the law, but people still do it anyway. Would you make the same argument for murder?



Q4: Again, just because someone has killed in the past doesn't mean they're going to do it again. Besides, if you knew the person was a serial killer they'd be in jail for life or dealing with the death penalty and thus wouldn't even be a part of society.

See Q1 and Q2... I even said serial killers (repeating offenders). Someone who has killed hundreds of people should not have the right to live amongst regular citizens.



Q5: Reasonably you have stooped me here. However, I feel an argument is necessary. Not all 5 year old's are completely immature and uneducated. In fact when I was 5 I knew quite a bit about politics, and I myself had an opinion of who the president should be.

Look at the average kindergarten classroom. Most of the boys are probably picking their noses and nearly all of the children will likely not know how to read. They simply do not have the ability to make such informed decisions at such an age. I know five year old's who don't even know their last name! It is still a vital time of learning how to do basic things like read and write and do addition. Plenty of kids can barely do that, let alone vote for the the president. Their parents would likely vote for them, making the votes in this country unfair, bias, and would likely screw up the popular vote's results.



Q6: Sex isn't really a right so to speak. It's more of an action. I can't think of a single place where sex is outlawed amongst adults and therefore wouldn't really consider it to be a right.

Your misinterpreting what I intended to write. I mean that children shouldn't have the all of the same rights as adults, sex included. I mean adults (18+) have the right to have sex without getting in trouble, but young children shouldn't have that right for obvious reasons. I will gladly go into more detail in this argument in the next round if you wish.

Quotes by Pro are in a larger font. My bold thing isn't working for some reason.

Back to you, Pro.

Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
ESocialBookworm
Good job! CM
Posted by Complicated_Mind 3 years ago
Complicated_Mind
@Wylted: Oh my apologies for getting defensive. Lol.

@RoyLatham: Yeah, I thought about doing some of what you said but I could tell this debate wasn't necessarily the best out there. Thanks for the feedback, though.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
No, I know that most rational people would make that argument. No sarcasm was intended. I was just happy to see that argument was being used. I certainly didn't intend to make it sound negative at all.
Posted by Complicated_Mind 3 years ago
Complicated_Mind
@Wylted: I'm sorry Wylted. I hadn't realized that you posted that comment. No need for sarcasm. But honestly, isn't that the argument any rational person would think of doing? What other argument can you think of?
Posted by Complicated_Mind 3 years ago
Complicated_Mind
Oops. Didn't realize that was the last round. Lol.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Con took my argument I'm so happy.
Posted by Jzmn282 3 years ago
Jzmn282
Yes, yes he has. He does the same thing with colored people and Mexican people.
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
Has he explicitly stated that homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals?
Posted by Jzmn282 3 years ago
Jzmn282
You don't know my father.........
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
I think that your father would probably disagree with your definition of rights. Also, I doubt that your father said or believes that homosexuals do not have equal worth to other human beings.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by kingcripple 3 years ago
kingcripple
Jzmn282Complicated_MindTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro lives in a world where there is no good or evil. She makes excuses for child molesters and rapists, murderers and thieves. Nonetheless everything aside from arguments is tied. Con was right and proved her points well
Vote Placed by Ryuuikari 3 years ago
Ryuuikari
Jzmn282Complicated_MindTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used real-life situations within her points to successfully rebut Pro's argument. Pro did not really provide any real cushioning to strengthen her points either.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Jzmn282Complicated_MindTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gives herself far too high of a burden, and Con utilizes it to win the round. There are simply too many concerns for absolute equality. It would have been simple to specify that you meant equality for adults under the law, and that those who break the law are not entitled to that equality, but since you try to defend on the issue, it just ends up making you argument look weak.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Jzmn282Complicated_MindTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I too, like Pro was originally thinking of a utopia where all people are equal, though Con reminded me of psychopathic criminals and child molesters who essentially cannot be cured, well, at present. Some day they may discover a magical pill that can cure psychopathic behavior, but, until then Con will remain right. Neither sourced any outside stuff.
Vote Placed by 2Sense 3 years ago
2Sense
Jzmn282Complicated_MindTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was kind of a wishy washy debate. I feel the topic could have been better argued on both sides. I disagreed with Con because his misinterpretation of the word "right" and applying it to inappropriate scenarios such as teaching or "living amongst victims". Those aren't rights, and it would have been helpful for either side to reference the political definition of the word. Pro's arguments were flaky mostly due to the speculative "just because" scenarios. It's better to provide hard facts, rather than vague conjectures of what may or may not be the case. The only thing that wins Con the debate is the example used with children and voting that actually may have some validity to it, and Pro's rebuttal again was just based on speculation. Overall, neither side had very compelling and thorough arguments. Interesting topic though.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
Jzmn282Complicated_MindTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con presents a set of holes in the resolution, one of which Pro could not address at all, stating that she was "stooped" (I think she meant "stumped"). A lot of her responses were opinions and given no reason for them to be considered "won" arguments.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Jzmn282Complicated_MindTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made good arguments. Pro could not provide reasonable reasons why people who are a danger to society should have equal rights.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
Jzmn282Complicated_MindTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro put "or otherwise" in the resolution. That allowed Con to use the examples of children and convicted felons, where age and prior bad acts are reasons for restricting rights. Pro's argument's based on "doesn't necessarily mean" are inadequate, because a high probability suffices. Con would have benefited from citing the recidivism rates for sex offenders and for other types of felons. Also Con could have cited the rejection of the Equal Rights Amendment. Boys don't have the right to join the girls basketball team, etc. The debate would have benefited from more source data and examples.