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

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
Pill_Junkie_Monkey has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 287 times Debate No: 107013
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Pill_Junkie_Monkey

Con

I dispute the concept of human rights. However, I do believe in property rights, as they can be logically proven.

Pro goes first as they have the burden of proof.
somerandomvideocreator

Pro

One human right is the right to be free from enprisonment and execution when you did not violate a law and there is no evidence that you did. This makes sense because imprisonment is a punishment, so people should logically be able to avoid punishment if they did not do anything wrong and there is no evidence that they did.
Debate Round No. 1
Pill_Junkie_Monkey

Con

"One human right is the right to be free from enprisonment and execution when you did not violate a law and there is no evidence that you did." - This is an extension of property rights (NAP)

@RustedBeef, I was very unclear. I apologize. When I refer to human rights I refer rights such as... (Positive rights)
>Right to healthcare
>Right to shelter
>Right to food

Unlike right to self-ownership, which can be logically proven as well as it is a negative right.
somerandomvideocreator

Pro

One positive right is the right to a lawyer. Everybody needs to have a lawyer in order to prevent being imprisoned with little charges and not having a lawyer as defense. The point is that positive and negative rights are closely correlated. A fair trial (a negative right) requires the ability to have a lawyer (a positive right).
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by canis 9 months ago
canis
We have wars because of human rights. We have rich and poor because og rights. We have coruption and minimal pay because of our rights. We have immigration and contries falling apart because of human rights. The US has 20.000.000.000.000 $ gross debt because it has the right to....And the poor/middelclass will have to pay...Thats the right of the rich......And the list could go on and on and on.
Posted by RustedBeef 9 months ago
RustedBeef
Few things...

What is your resolution? The title is not clear and neither is your challenge statement. Also, I disagree with your claim that Con has the burden of proof because, and this is just a guess since you were not clear, you're against the notion that human rights exist, which is a challenge to the status quo. Usually the person who challenges the status quo is the one who bears the BOP.

Are you saying human rights don't exist?
Are you saying certain aspects of human rights don't exist?
Are you saying something ought to be considered a human right?
You can't expect me to read your mind and then post an opening case.
This debate has 4 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.