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

Fiasco of Universal Declaration of Human 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Nuevo has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 506 times Debate No: 101832
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Nowadays, people face numerous violations of their human rights all over the world whether it be the right to life or the right to an effective remedy. Moreover, there will always be underprivileged people, because inequality is hard to fight. What I truly believe is that UDHR is a totally useless document, as it doesn't secure the rights it embraces.


I am for the contention that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is not a useless document.

The UDHR plays an essential part in making peace and order in the society. Although many countries have subsections that vary among themselves, the UDHR is a firm basis of virtually every law that is written in different law books. Without the UDHR, there wouldn't be any strong basis of order and justice to start with.

Also, the UDHR, as every law purports to do, is a legitimate source of human protection. Without the declaration of rights, people would be oppressing each other, killing and abusing one another, wreaking havoc to society and total chaos will emerge. The UDHR eliminates this type of phenomenon, although it cannot utterly suppress the potential chaos that is bound to befall, the declaration of rights could, in the uttermost, lessen it.

The UDHR is not useless. By that, I affirm the resolution.
Debate Round No. 1


In fact, the UDHR is not a legally binding document. It therfore may not impose either positive or negative obligations to members states and individuals. Although it may exercise pressure on governments that violate them, it may not sanction them, since there is no Court for Human Rights, which could control human rights implementation. Furthermore, there often appear conflicts of law when some provisions of the national law contradict the UDHR. For instance, death penalty is still legal in some US states as well as in some Muslim countries, though the UDHR declares every human is endowed with the right to life.

Thus, I'm firmly convinced that there is a limit to human rights implementation.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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