The Instigator
LlamaMan
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
royalpaladin
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points

Should the U.N. Monitor Civil Rights in Non-Member Nations

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 6 votes the winner is...
royalpaladin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 795 times Debate No: 21446
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (6)

 

LlamaMan

Con

I want a serious debate on this.
Don't accept this debate if you are just going to screw around.
royalpaladin

Pro

I accept this debate and affirm. I eagerly await my opponent's analysis.
Debate Round No. 1
LlamaMan

Con

Personally I don't think the U.N. should monitor civil rights in non-member nations.

Since our potential violator isn't a member of the U.N. the U.N. shouldn't feel obligated to be the human rights police officer of this country. Of course there has to be some some degree of human rights. But who gave the U.N. the divine right to decide what is right or wrong.... No one!!! Individual countries should be able to decide for themselves what their human rights should be based on the countries beliefs and what the people want. But for a group of less than 200 people really be able to decide the future of billions of people, that sounds stupid and it doesn't seem like it will work very well.

I look toward to your rebuttals and new arguments.
royalpaladin

Pro

Human Rights
Human rights are inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone. This means that everyone is entitled to these rights regardless of which nations they belong to. Just societies must respect the fact that rights are inherently valuable because citizens create the state to protect their rights. When the government fails to respect the rights of its people, the people have the right and obligation to overthrow the government and establish a new nation.


Suppose, however, that the people are unable to protect their rights because the government is unjust, and they are physically unable to revolt. They need to have a mechanism with which their rights can be protected against the aggressors. The United Nation serves this function. By keeping watch over the human rights situations in nonmember nations, it ensures that the rights of all are being protected.


Why does this matter?


My opponent makes the claim that nobody gives the United Nation the right to protect our human rights. The problem with this analysis is that in an anarchical region, according to philosopher John Locke, people have the right to enforce natural law and protect the rights of those who are being unjustly harmed. The international arena is in a state of nature because there is no overarching world government that can protect the rights of all people. This specifically means that the UN has a natural right to protect the rights of individuals whose rights are being dismantled in nonmember nations.

He also claims that individual nations should be able to decide to grant human rights based on what people want. If the individual nations actually did that, this would not be problem. The fact of the matter is that the governments in oppressive nations are violating the rights of the people without their consent. The people are not choosing to have their rights harmed by an oppressive regime; rather, the state is arbitrarily deciding to demolish their rights. The UN is monitoring the situation in order to promote the sovereignty of the people, while the actual states care little for that.


His final argument is that 200 people are deciding the future of billions, and this is stupid. The problem with this analysis is that even fewer people are deciding the fates of those billions in nations that violate human rights. In Nazi Germany and the USSR, one dictator was making these ridiculous decisions. Second, this is an unwarranted argument. He has no proof that the 200 people are making a poor decision when they are attempting to protect the rights of all.
Debate Round No. 2
LlamaMan

Con

I agree with the statement that we shouldn't just sit around and do nothing, but I don't see why the U.N. would interfere without the request by the people. My problem with the U.N. is that they seem to feel like they have control of the world even though there was no one who gave them this right. They feel like they know what is right or wrong even though many people throughout the world believe that their God is the only one who truly knows what is right or wrong. So I question why the U.N. police the world.
You also brought up oppressing leaders. Let's remember that whether a leader is oppressive or not is purely a matter of opinion. So therefore leaders that may seem oppressive might be more popular with their people than we think they are and we think that these leaders are oppressive. Then the U.N. takes action on an oppressive leader who is not oppressive if you know what I mean.

P.S. The human rights counsel for the U.N. is actually 47 nations.
royalpaladin

Pro

Natural Law

Rather than attacking the John Locke analysis about how the United Nations has an obligation to protect the human rights of individuals who are being harmed because individuals have an obligation and a right to enforce natural law while in a state of nature, my opponent simply rehashes his argument that the UN has no right. Insofar as he never addresses the natural law argument that states that not only does the UN have a right to demolish dictators, but that it actually has an obligation to do so, you can extend my natural law argument across the flow and vote Pro. The impact is that since the international arena is in a state of nature, other nations, which act through the United Nations, will be interfering in oppressive regimes and protecting the people.


He then tells you that we should not just sit around and do nothing. Turn this immediately because it buttresses my position entirely. He is conceding in this round that we should not just let the events play out, but he is not offering any alternative to the UN's action. I am fulfilling this burden to act through the United Nations; he is not fulfilling the burden at all. Insofar as this is true, there is no compelling reason to negate because we have no mechanism by which to fulfill our natural law obligations in the Con world, while we do have a mechanism in the Pro world.


His next argument is that some oppressive leaders may be popular with the people. The fact of the matter is that this is irrelevant in our obligations to protect the rights of the people. Hitler was certainly popular in Nazi Germany, but that did not mean that the Allies should not have intervened to end the Holocaust (note: I know that that is not why the Allies invaded. I am saying that hypothetically, even if they were not at war with Nazi Germany, they should still have invaded in order to end the Holocaust.) Just because the majority of people may find an malicious leader popular does not mean that the rights of the minority do not matter. As I explained in my last speech, human rights transcend the state, and the state was created to protect human rights, so the rights of all must be protected.


He also claims that the UN should wait for the people to request aid. Since the UN is a body that includes representatives of nations, and not of the general populace, there is no way that this can actually occur. In addition, oppresive regimes are not going to permit any hypothetical representatives to ask the United Nations for aid. All this is doing is preventing the UN from protecting human rights, which is something that he agrees needs to be done.

For all these reasons, I advocate a Pro ballot. Thank you.

Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by LlamaMan 4 years ago
LlamaMan
The history of 'Trolling Debates' is a result of someone getting angry because I accepted their debate in Spanish.
Posted by MikeyMike 4 years ago
MikeyMike
I feel like such a debate deserves more than 3 rounds.
Posted by ahopele 4 years ago
ahopele
How ironic. I clicked on your profile and it appears you have a history of trolling debates. I'm guessing that the whole "I want a serious debate" means the opposite of what you're saying?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Yep 4 years ago
Yep
LlamaManroyalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con this was a bad debate for you.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
LlamaManroyalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Same as below. IKE IF YOU VOTEBOMB ME OR 16ADAMS AGAIN I WILL COUNTER!
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
LlamaManroyalpaladinTied
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 really do not need and RFD for this..... She had multiple compelling reasons that the UN should do this, whereas he did not and he dropped much of her case. She said that human rights, like the title, is a right. So as she pointed out it may be beneficial if they helped. Hey Ike is this a VB? Or us it not because it's to the "correct side"..... God I'm mean.
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
LlamaManroyalpaladinTied
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 presented a more compelling case and fulfilled the burden of proof of the resolution.
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 4 years ago
Doulos1202
LlamaManroyalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark-1 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 made no strong arguments.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
LlamaManroyalpaladinTied
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 was far more convincing and used a lot more reasoning in her arguments whereas con focused entirely on his own perceptions of the UN... No spelling errors to my knowledge, no sources, conduct was fine. Good debate