The Instigator
AnonymousUser0143
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
kingkd
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Should Human Rights be a right to those who have committed a crime against another human?

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...
kingkd
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 364 times Debate No: 75000
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

AnonymousUser0143

Con

In the UK, people such as murderers, pedophiles, terrorists and so on regularly dodge punishments such as prison terms, deportation or simple being held in a prison that isn't at a higher standard than care homes. These people have committed crimes against other humans, breaking the victims' human rights. My question to you is; should these people still have the Human Rights extended to them, or should they face a punishment for removing the rights of their victims?
kingkd

Pro

http://www.ohchr.org...

According to the United Nations, human rights are " rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.

Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, customary international law , general principles and other sources of international law. International human rights law lays down obligations of Governments to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups."

I argue that even if someone committed a crime, they deserve rights. It is the BOP of Pro to show otherwise
Debate Round No. 1
AnonymousUser0143

Con

AnonymousUser0143 forfeited this round.
kingkd

Pro

FF con win
Debate Round No. 2
AnonymousUser0143

Con

AnonymousUser0143 forfeited this round.
kingkd

Pro

Pro win. Humans still have certain rights, such as right to not be tortured even if they rob someone.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
AnonymousUser0143kingkdTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
AnonymousUser0143kingkdTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con simply begins with an opening statement, and asks a question to their opponent, to explain their stance. Con never provides any real argument, except that criminals have violated their victims human rights. Pro refutes this argument by showing that the UN, and most treaties and laws put emphasis on universal human rights, for everyone. The BOP was always on Con, because Con was the one who proposed a change to the norm, which is universal human rights for everyone. But Con never fulfills this, or refutes Pro's arguments, due to their forfeiting the rest of the debate. So conduct and arguments to Pro. Sources were only used by Pro, so sources to Pro as well.