The Instigator
UNSTABLE
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mike_10-4
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

THBT denial of rights of an individual can be made only if it infringes upon the rights of another.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Mike_10-4
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 564 times Debate No: 59048
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

UNSTABLE

Pro

I think that a person's right should be denied only if it infringes upon the rights of another and not when it causes harm to those who exercise the rights themselves.Like smoking should only be banned if it affects others(like passive smokers). But a person should be allowed to smoke if they want in private without affecting others
Mike_10-4

Con

I accept this debate and looking forward to a learning experience.

Public restrictions on smoking is one thing, but is smoking a right?

Man or government can only give entitlements to others, but “Rights of an individual” comes from nature, not from man. Life's Unalienable Rights follow:

Once alive, “Life” has the freedom (“Liberty”), in the pursuit of survival; otherwise, there is no life. Survival is a form of positive-feedback for all life, and a prerequisite for the human emotion of “Happiness.”

Hence, Thomas Jefferson’s polished version of our Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

http://www.amazon.com...

Therefore, “denial of [Unalienable] rights of an individual” implies death. So is death justified when one “infringes upon the rights of another?”
Debate Round No. 1
UNSTABLE

Pro

thanks for replying to my debate....
I did never mention that smoking is a right...
But after all it is the person's life, they should be allowed to do what they please with their life.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com...

as in the link above you can see that The right to life is the fundamental right, of which all other rights are corollaries. The right to life states that you own your own body. It is your property to do with as you please. No one may force you to do anything, no one may injure you in any way, and above all, no one may take your life (without consent.)

The opposite to the right to life is life as a slave, where someone or some people essentially own you -- they can dictate what you do, when you do it, and take your life if they please.

It should be noted that rights are guarantees to freedom of actions. They do not provide for anything but freedom of action. There is no right to food, for example; only the right to work and keep the proceeds with which you may buy food.

And the right to liberty is a part of the right to life, specifically referring to your freedom of action. You may do what you want, when you want, provided you don't trample on the rights of anyone else. This is a necessity for man's life because man's means of survival is reason. Survival by reason requires that you are able to act upon your reason otherwise your reason is of no avail. You can only act on your reason if you are free from the coercion of others.
Mike_10-4

Con

Good luck on your first debate.

Pro and Con, for the most part, have a similar understanding of Rights.

However, Pro made reference to 18 century philosophy, where Con's reference is based on 21 century science. There is a subtle difference between the 18 and 21 century's understanding of Rights.

Today's science, Rights apply to all living-systems, from a single living cell to social systems, where yesterday's philosophy, Rights apply only to man.

In any event, both Pro and Con agree that survival is dependent on Rights.

Con stated, “Once alive, “Life” has the freedom (“Liberty”), in the pursuit of survival; otherwise, there is no life.”

Pro stated, “Survival by reason requires that you are able to act upon your reason otherwise your reason is of no avail. You can only act on your reason if you are free from the coercion of others.”

The titled of this debate is, “THBT denial of rights of an individual can be made only if it infringes upon the rights of another.”

Denial of rights results in denial of survival, hence, death. Therefore, Pro is advocating death on anyone who “infringes upon the rights of another.”

If this was the case, there is a good chance there would be no life, or relative to philosophy, there will be no humanity.
Debate Round No. 2
UNSTABLE

Pro

UNSTABLE forfeited this round.
Mike_10-4

Con

Con will standby for rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 3
UNSTABLE

Pro

UNSTABLE forfeited this round.
Mike_10-4

Con

Con will standby for rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 4
UNSTABLE

Pro

UNSTABLE forfeited this round.
Mike_10-4

Con

It would seem Pro walked off the debating floor.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by UNSTABLE 2 years ago
UNSTABLE
Thanks for replying....I am new here....I am 14 years old and am aspiring to become a great debater one day.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
UNSTABLEMike_10-4Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF