Rights and Freedoms Are Officially Unalienable
Debate Rounds (5)
1. First round is for acceptance, stance, position, and thesis only.
2. Cannot exceed small paragraph for first round.
3. All other rounds are for debating, rebuttals, and so on.
4. Informal language (i.e., slang, personal pronouns, contractions) are allowed.
5. No sources allowed - only logic and reasoning, as this is philosophical.
6. Direct quotes isn't allowed but paraphrasing is but do not reference it.
7. Only a small amount of "finger pointing" is allowed; do not abuse it.
8. Failure to follow the above rules will result in the discontinuation of this debate.
I challenge anybody that thinks freedoms and rights are guaranteed to the common citizen, and that it cannot be taken away and/or violated by the government, to debate with me on this issue. I believe that freedoms and rights are all superficial because they were completely made up and given to us by the government; they are being violated daily by other people whether we know it or not; satisfying certain conditions can alienate us from our freedoms and rights; and there are laws to protect such rights even though they are guaranteed to be not taken away by anyone. I, of course, am against the belief that rights and freedoms are guaranteed to the common person and that they cannot be taken away by anybody else; I am going for con (against) and my opponent will obviously choose pro (for).
Rights are all made up by humans and are not natural, as some people claim it to be. Do we see animals having rights and freedoms (that weren't made up by humans)? Do we see insects and micro-organisms having their own freedoms and rights? I think not. They were all made up by those of power and authority, mainly the government, and is only granted to us as long as we follow certain conditions and vary from place to place. As said before, what the government can give, they can also equally take away and we cannot do anything about it except for complaining (or how many people like to call it: protesting.)
Even if they were, then why do they have to create laws so that they do not get violated? If those rights and freedoms were guaranteed to be not being violated, then why did the government have to make rules just so that they couldn't. You clearly don't need to protect something if it can already protect itself right (pun not intended)? Wrong! People around us will violate our rights and freedoms all the time, whether they want to or not, whether they know it or not. I don't know about you, but I am 100% certain that your rights are being violated all the time, like when people make fun of you, or when random strangers discriminate you, or when you get trolled online. Because if people like you and me actually notice and count the violations, it would actually quickly rise to a high number.
We are not free to do as we please, because if we do, then we are violating other peoples' rights. But if they are our rights, then how can it be violation of others' rights? It's a complex paradox that is illogical, irrational, and just impossible. For example, I am free to say what I please, but I cannot discriminate, threaten, bully, or berate other people; if I do, then I just violated your rights and freedoms. But wait, didn't the government allow me to say what I please, no matter what circumstances it is? Clearly, they are exceptions to this; clearly, there are limitations that make them draw the line; and clearly, this ultimately means that freedoms and rights are given to a certain extent before they become wrongs and criminal activity.
Going back to rights and freedoms protection laws, why are they even there in the first place? To protect us...protect us from what? Those so-called unalienable freedoms and rights are clearly able to be violated and stripped from us if they can, so why are there laws to prevent that? It's just like if scientists developed a cure for the cure because the cure can cure a certain disease or illness, but only to a certain extent such as if the illness gets too powerful. It's the cure, so it's impossible for the disease to stop that cure because it was purposely designed to naturally or artificially hunt it down as nothing else can, right? And do not argue that it is to protect us from criminals and other citizens, as we are discussing about how the government isn't authorized to violate them, not the common person.
To finish off this argument, rights and freedoms also vary from place to place. If you go to a different country, then you automatically have different rights and freedoms. If they violate your rights and freedoms that you had in other countries, then they technically didn't, as they never violated it in that country which you had those rights and freedoms in. Another great example, you cannot discriminate against gays here but you can in the Middle East; does that mean I violated the gays' rights and freedoms because I discriminated against them? If in North America, Europe, and Australia, then yes; elsewhere, most likely no. If I protest against the Taliban there and they shoot me, they never violated my freedom of speech because they shot me there and not in places where you do have freedom of speech.
MFischer forfeited this round.
MFischer forfeited this round.
Really sorry for froefiting. I am very new to this and I found that there was no point debating sine ALL of my points were countered already. You did a fabulos job displaying your debate and you 100% deserve to win this debate. I wish that I had at least tried to debate, but I really had no real argument for it. Vote for con everyone!!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.