The Instigator
Shrek_sDrecKid
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
MFischer
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Rights and Freedoms Are Officially Unalienable

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 456 times Debate No: 64511
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Shrek_sDrecKid

Con

Rules For This Debate:
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).
MFischer

Pro

Okay, so I think that freedoms and rights are guaranteed to the common citizen. As you stated, it cannot be taken away or violated by the government. I think that freedoms and rights can't be taken away by governments in any way as you can always have freedom...but I'll elaborate next round. Of course, I want this to be true so much of my reasoning for accepting this debate is because I genuinely think so. Also, can I re-tell past events?
Debate Round No. 1
Shrek_sDrecKid

Con

Freedoms and rights are all superficial and fake. I find it odd how people constantly try to fight for theirs and other peoples' rights and freedoms, or when (no offense, I do mean it) people in less fortunate countries attempt to stand up against injustice by protesting for freedoms and rights. There are no such thing as complete freedoms and rights where we are all completely free and have rights at once; not only is it illogical, it also is impossible for freedoms and rights to exist and not be able to be violated and/or taken away. Such rules would actually destroy a society if all have unlimited freedoms and rights that cannot be taken away and are just as precious of that of being a king.

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

Pro

You have convinced me otherwise. I have no reason to keep debating as most of my better points have been countered. Good debate!
Debate Round No. 2
Shrek_sDrecKid

Con

LOL, then since you are convinced, this debate is no longer useful. Opponent is not supposed to accept, but I guess you shouldn't be debating with those younger than you (no offense) so I won! Vote for con, but if you want to or have sympathy, then vote for pro as well.
MFischer

Pro

MFischer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Shrek_sDrecKid

Con

I forfeit this round; vote for con.
MFischer

Pro

MFischer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Shrek_sDrecKid

Con

I have already won this debate since the second round. Please vote for me instead of opponent. Opponent has failed to refute any of my arguments and has even been successfully convinced to join my side. The purpose of a debate is to determine which side of a topic is better; as both myself and the opponent has agreed that rights and freedoms are indeed alienable by the government, there is no use in debating any further. Opponent was supposed to do their best to make strong arguments to refute min in order to convince their opponent that the arguments are invalid. However, that is not the case- without a further ado, please vote for me and good luck in future debates.
MFischer

Pro

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!!
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Shrek_sDrecKid 2 years ago
Shrek_sDrecKid
Are you ignoring me or are you actually not there?
Posted by Shrek_sDrecKid 2 years ago
Shrek_sDrecKid
Yes, I won this debate!
Posted by Shrek_sDrecKid 2 years ago
Shrek_sDrecKid
Yes opponent, you may re-tell past events as long as they are not made up or biased.
Posted by Shrek_sDrecKid 2 years ago
Shrek_sDrecKid
@KeytarHero: I will not be dropping those rules but instead be explaining them in detail:

"'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."'

In other words, argument by plagiarism? Sources are used in philosophical debates because it is unethical to take someone else's idea and claim it as your own."

5. When I said no sources allowed, I actually meant to use sources, but do not cite them in your debate and/or do not make it obvious that you are using them.
6. I meant here that you may reference it in a way that it does not look or seem like it is referenced; it's a paradox, but it will make sense for you soon...

I never said argument by plagiarism; besides, those sources would never know, or if they did, they wouldn't care because too many internet users do that all the time, whether intentionally in debates or unintentionally through informal conversations (i.e., social media and forums).
Posted by KeytarHero 2 years ago
KeytarHero
I might actually be interested in taking this debate if rules five and six were dropped.
Posted by KeytarHero 2 years ago
KeytarHero
"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."

In other words, argument by plagiarism? Sources are used in philosophical debates because it is unethical to take someone else's idea and claim it as your own.
No votes have been placed for this debate.