The Instigator
Balacafa
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
DATXDUDE
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: People with disabilities deserve the same rights as people without disabilities.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Balacafa
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 9/18/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 852 times Debate No: 79867
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)

 

Balacafa

Pro

I don't really expect anyone to accept this but if they do then I'm happy to debate this with them.

Debate Structure

Round 1: No acceptance round - just go into arguments

Round 2: My arguments, your rebuttals

Round 3: My rebuttals, you leave this round blank

Definitions

Disability: a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities.

Rights: The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are considered to be entitled to.

Same: identical; not different.

Rules

No forfeiture

No requesting to tie the debate - please ensure that you have enough time to debate this

No trolling

All basic DDO rules apply

Sources

https://www.google.co.uk...

https://www.google.co.uk...

https://www.google.co.uk...


DATXDUDE

Con

First of all, in Pro's definition of the word "rights", he uses the word in the definitions. I propose a new definition of this word: The collection of entitlements which a person may have and which are protected by the government and the courts, or under an agreement.

Second of all, since Pro didn't provide a definition for the word "deserves", I will provide one for him. Deserves: Should have.

Source for "rights": http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

With that out of the way, here is my contention, because I only actually need one.

Contention 1- Not everyone is capable of having/responsible enough to have the same rights.

These are some things that I'm sure even Pro wouldn't want.
  • Deaf musicians
  • Blind people in control of a car
  • Mentally insane children in public schools


I rest my case. Back to Pro.

Debate Round No. 1
Balacafa

Pro

I was hoping for a longer argument from my opponent since they only have 1 argument round. Since this is for arguments only I will not refute my opponents argument. I accept their definition of rights and deserves.

Argument 1

A disability is not a person's fault, it can vary from being a genetic problem to being the fault of the parents. Disabilities are very rarely intentionally caused by the person themselves. When we talk about rights we often start with the most common ones associated with this issue.

A disabled person can often be discriminated because of their condition and be stopped from receiving the job or qualification that they deserve to have. As we know, by the term rights, we are referring to human rights. The key word in this is human. No matter how different they may be from you, they are still human beings.

"[The human rights were] adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948, [and] was the result of the experience of the Second World War. With the end of that war, and the creation of the United Nations, the international community vowed never again to allow atrocities like those of that conflict happen again."

Although it is not directly mentioned, we can tell that the reason that they were created is because of discrimination and prejudice. Although this is not the only factor involved, World War 2 happened because of Hitler's hatred for Jews, gays, disabled and black people. If we did not enforce The Universal Declaration Of Human rights then a similar event to WW2 could have occurred at a later date.

Since you are arguing against the rights of disabled people, I can only assume that you are not disabled. There was always the possibility of you being born disabled. What happens if tomorrow as you walk outside you get hit by a truck and end up having your legs amputated - I know that this may be quite a disturbing thought, but it could happen. If that happened, would you want to keep the rights you already have? The most likely response to this is yes.

Argument 2

If a disabled person has poor vision or even no vision at all, their other senses are sometimes harnessed so that their hearing is better and their sense of smell is better. This is so that they can tell what objects are. With a better sense of smell, they can tell what food they are eating. With better hearing, they can tell when something is coming towards them - e.g whilst a person with good vision would see a car coming towards them, a blind person would be able to hear the car and sometimes they can react quicker than the person with perfect vision! The same concept applies towards deaf people although, their eye sight is improved so that they can lip read more easily.


Since my opponent has only provided 1 argument I will keep mine to 2 arguments. My rebuttals will be in the next round. My opponent's rebuttals should be in this round and the final round should be left blank by my opponent.

Sources

http://thoughtcatalog.com...

http://www.un.org...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
DATXDUDE

Con

The reason I didn't need a longer argument was because this resolution is extremely flawed.

Rebuttal 1:

"A disability is not a person's fault, it can vary from being a genetic problem to being the fault of the parents. Disabilities are very rarely intentionally caused by the person themselves. When we talk about rights we often start with the most common ones associated with this issue."

Nobody in their right mind would disagree with this. However, it doesn't support the resolution whatsoever.

"A disabled person can often be discriminated because of their condition and be stopped from receiving the job or qualification that they deserve to have. As we know, by the term rights, we are referring to human rights. The key word in this is human. No matter how different they may be from you, they are still human beings."

If a business is detremented by someone who has a disability, then the disabled person should not have a job in that business.

After this well meaning but flawed argument, Pro goes on a rant that doesn't support the resolution whatsoever. The Universal Declaration of Human rights was created so that a madman wouldn't decide that he doesn't want a certain group of people to live, and try to kill them all. Some rights should be shared by disabled and abled people, such as the right to live. This doesn't mean all rights should be.

"Since you are arguing against the rights of disabled people, I can only assume that you are not disabled. There was always the possibility of you being born disabled. What happens if tomorrow as you walk outside you get hit by a truck and end up having your legs amputated - I know that this may be quite a disturbing thought, but it could happen. If that happened, would you want to keep the rights you already have? The most likely response to this is yes."

This would be a false assumption. That doesn't really matter though, as it doesn't affect this debate. The argument he makes after this assumption is one I have already refuted. If I had all of my limbs amputated, I wouldn't want to have the right to participate in manual labor.

Rebuttal 2:


"If a disabled person has poor vision or even no vision at all, their other senses are sometimes harnessed so that their hearing is better and their sense of smell is better. This is so that they can tell what objects are. With a better sense of smell, they can tell what food they are eating. With better hearing, they can tell when something is coming towards them - e.g whilst a person with good vision would see a car coming towards them, a blind person would be able to hear the car and sometimes they can react quicker than the person with perfect vision! The same concept applies towards deaf people although, their eye sight is improved so that they can lip read more easily."

Is Pro seriously suggesting that blind people should be able to drive? Excuse the colloquial language but: wtf?

Note: As the rules state, I will be leaving the next round blank. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
Balacafa

Pro

To keep this fair I am not allowed to respond to my opponents rebuttals - although it is tempting. I would also like to point out that my opponent used "wtf" in their rebuttals. This is a lack of conduct and as a result conduct should be awarded to Pro.

Rebuttals

I apologise for the short rebuttals round. This is due to the fact that my opponent provided 1 very short contention in his arguments round. This gives me very little to refute. I will respond to the 3 bullet points raised by Con.

Deaf Musicians - Beethoven is commonly referred to as one of the greatest musicians in history and his best pieces of music was written after he became deaf. Although due to this problem he had to give up conducting this didn't limit his abilities on the piano. In fact it made him more passionate and as a result his work most famous pieces of work come from this period of his life.

Blind People in control of a car - My opponent has not stated which right that this would prevent them from having and even if it did prevent them from having a right there is actually a way that blind people can drive - of course it is recommended that they don't for the safety of others but there is nothing preventing them from driving specially designed cars.

Blind driver in adapted car

Mentally insane children in public schools - Making mentally insane children go to special schools isn't depriving them of their rights. Whilst they rae going to a special school they still keep their right an education. I assume that this is the right that my opponent was referring to. It is hard to tell what exactually they were referring to since they did not provide any justification to their arguments and they did not state which right it would be effecting.


Again, I would like to apologise for the short rebuttals round but there isn't much that I can do about it since my opponent decided to write such a brief argument.

Vote Pro!

Sources

http://www.bbc.co.uk...;

https://en.wikipedia.org...

http://dictionary.reference.com...

DATXDUDE

Con

Blank Round.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
I just accepted your global warming debate. Sounds fun!
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
DATXDUDE
Well, you're more reasonable than the people on YouTube. Maybe I shouldn't have been hostile towards you. Oh well :/
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
Maybe you should have researched the topic. Before you debate a topic always make sure you know that you are debating. Otherwise you'll end up losing the debate because you weren't certain about something.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
DATXDUDE
The reason I lost the states of matter debate is because it wasn't a debate. You knew there were more than ten states of mater, and I didn't.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
I'm not begging for conduct points - I am showing you why you do not deserve to win this debate. I do not need to conduct point to win this debate. I have won multiple debates against you and you have not won a single debate. If you use the excuse that one of them was a troll debate then I'll accept that. But it wasn't the case for the states of matter debate.

If you think that I am begging for conduct points then you are very much mistaken. What I'm trying to say is that you will continue to lose debates if you continue to swear at other users and create troll debates.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
DATXDUDE
Lol, I re read what you said! Begging for conduct points? HAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
I know what you said but if that excuse worked I could spend my whole argument swearing at you and just say: excuse the language - and it would be alright.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
DATXDUDE
I said "excuse the colloquial language", you stupid f'uck.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
For the final round I request that my opponent writes: This round is intentionally left blank.

That way it will not only speed up the process of this debate going to the voting period but it will also stop voters from being confused about a forfeit.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
By rights I meant rights that apply to uk citizens too.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by asi14 1 year ago
asi14
BalacafaDATXDUDE
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: While the con did make a fair argument that the resolution inherently was bad, I felt the con didn't sufficiently defend it, whereas the pro sufficiently defended his case, the resolution, and the pro's rebuttals.
Vote Placed by darthebearnc 1 year ago
darthebearnc
BalacafaDATXDUDE
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: While both sides made good arguments, I found that pro (a) successfully defended all of his contentions from Con's rebuttals, (b) successfully rebutted each of Con's contentions, and (c) used more examples and real-life situations to support his cause.