The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Does the collective have rights?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 426 times Debate No: 108131
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




I am an individualist, so you know where I stand. Make the first move.


Of course, the collective has rights. Saying the collective doesn't have rights is insane. Us both being part of some nations collective have the right to sit here and have this debate. I will use two separate examples to prove we have rights as a collective

1.Bill of Rights-The Bill of Rights proves that the collective has rights. They're in a nice handy list and have a lot of different purposes and it's still relevant now. We even have added to it to make a total of 37 separate rights given to the American citizenry.

2.John Locke's Social Contract-John Locke proposed the social contract that said a government existence is an agreement of the people and government to keep the government around as long as it's protecting the rights of all its citizens.
Debate Round No. 1


You have failed to prove that the collective has rights. I have always been an individualist, so I don't understand.


Unless I misunderstand your definition of individualism, you are saying that a group of people can't have rights. I proved that using the Bill of Rights and John Lock's Social Contract, the citizens of the nation of the United States have rights as a collective.

Also, even if you didn't understand what I'm saying, you can't just say I don't understand as an argument. My whole case still stands and I am 100% winning because even if you believed I wasn't on topic, you didn't prove how.
Debate Round No. 2


You never post any evidence, just your subjective opinion. I want to see links.


I want to apologize for not having any evidence. I was using the first speech to base my arguments and get momentum. You then failed to negotiate clash, so this hasn't been a debate, just me putting out ideas and you saying they're not even good enough to be debated. Really, me putting evidence in this speech due to the fact you don't have another speech but I will still do it.

John Locke's Social Contract
The social contract he proposes is an agreement between the citizens and the ruling government. It is a solution to the problems of the state of nature. The government in power must be concerned with the well-being of the citizen. It must preserve his rights and punish the transgressors of the law. Such a government can be described as a legitimate government. An illegitimate government would be the one that would fail to protect the natural rights of its citizens and violate the rights of its subjects. Locke states that "when a civil society is popularly entered into, it cannot become a dictatorship" because "power must come from above but legitimacy must come from below." [iv]

This explains the reason why Locke argues that a society has the right to do away with a government that is not obeying the laws of the land by being involved in negative practices such as cheating, corruption, torture and nepotism. This provides the grounds for a legitimate rebellion. The government can be removed from power through the legitimate processes such as elections. "Locke's arguments for the social contract and for the right of citizens to revolt against their king were enormously influential on the democratic revolutions that followed, especially on Thomas Jefferson, and the founders of the United States" [v] look for more on the tacit consent

Credit to UK essays.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Credit to the Bill of Rights Institute.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by judaism 3 years ago
Con never bothered to refute my arguments on another debate.
Posted by hwp460 3 years ago
This round was a joke because you didn't make a single argument. It was a waste of time for both of us.
Posted by judaism 3 years ago
This sounds interesting, anyone proposing a debate on Socratic values vs sophist?
Posted by Amphia 3 years ago
I am not entirely sure what you mean but I think I have an idea. I would say the collective has rights but when you join a collective, you have to give up some rights so that you can be protected. At least according to Rousseau...
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.