The Instigator
logicalcat181
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
asta
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

We Should All Have Rights, Ethnic or Not

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 5 votes the winner is...
asta
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,426 times Debate No: 116796
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (5)

 

logicalcat181

Pro

To a good Debate! Con may start.
asta

Con

I believe the following groups of people shouldn't get rights:

1. Murderers
2. People who willingly spread HIV
3. People who escape jail
4. Dead people

#1, 2, 3 should get killed for their crime, #4 shouldn't have any rights at all. My opponent has to prove all these groups do deserve rights. I wish him good luck in this endeavor.
Debate Round No. 1
logicalcat181

Pro

1. Murderers. Yes, Murderers do deserve rights. The should be allowed to reserve the right to a quick and speedy trial, And to help himself get out of jail, No matter what he did, He can reserve this right. Once he gets out of jail, He should be allowed to have his previous rights, Despite what he did. It's giving them a second chance. If he didn't have rights, The person wouldn't be allowed to justify themselves at all, Which isn't fair.
2. People who willingly spread HIV. People should still have right if they do that. I'm not saying it's good to do it, But you're still a person who should be able to vote, Speak publicly, Gather, And more. As I said before, He would need his rights to justify himself, It's not fair if he couldn't.
3. People who escape jail. Yes, Should still have rights as if that person were caught again he should still be able to reserve his rights, Whether or not he committed crime or not. Still. They would need rights for trial.
4. Dead people. They still deserve rights. They wouldn't really use them, But yes they do.
asta

Con

Dead people do not deserve rights since these rights infringe on the rights of the living. If someone needs an organ, And no organ donors are available, Then the non organ donor's organs should be harvested because the right to life exceeds the right to bodily autonomy, Especially since 1 human can save 8 lives. The right to life is a fundamental right, The right to have a whole dead body is merely a supplemental right.

Even if you disagree with what I typed above, Assuming they deserve the right to bodily autonomy, That is only 1 right. Your question is, "We Should All Have Rights, Ethnic or Not", Not "We Should All Have a Right, Ethnic or Not". Therefore, Multiple rights are needed for this group in order to win on this.

The only right dead people might have is the right to bodily autonomy, Which is just one right, And not multiple rights.
Debate Round No. 2
logicalcat181

Pro

Yes, In fact they do have a right to reserve their body for other uses, If it didn't want to donate its organs it shouldn't happen.
All of my points still stand.
asta

Con

"Yes, In fact they do have a right to reserve their body for other uses, If it didn't want to donate its organs it shouldn't happen.
All of my points still stand. "

A dead person"s organs should used as a last resort in order to save more lives while retaining consent rights to an extent, Since organ donors organs would be more likely to be used in saving lives. One organ donor saves 8 lives(https://www. Organdonor. Gov/statistics-stories/statistics. Html). The rights of 8 people"s lives matter more than the rights of one dead corpse.

Even if you disagree, Bodily autonomy is only one right, And you said everyone should have rights, Meaning multiple of them. You have yet to state any additional rights that dead people should have.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by logicalcat181 3 years ago
logicalcat181
Oh ok.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
asta
I did. It happened 5 days before this comment.
Posted by logicalcat181 3 years ago
logicalcat181
Asta didn't you ask the reader to vote you?
Posted by asta 3 years ago
asta
Jim Shady told me too on my profile (http://www. Debate. Org/asta/).
Posted by Mister_Man 3 years ago
Mister_Man
Who told you to do it? I know people on this site (and other debating sites) that do, And I can't stand it. I'll vote for who I feel won the debate, When you tell people to vote for you at the end of your argument it just looks desperate. I can understand where you're coming from though.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
asta
"I f****** hate it when people tell the reader to vote for them at the end of the debate - it's unprofessional. " There was someone who told me to do it and it's been working out pretty well for me.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
asta
Vote Con.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
asta
They have the right to be alive.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
rights based upon citizenship. Illegal aliens and stateless refugees have no rights.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
asta
Your welcome.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by JimShady 3 years ago
JimShady
logicalcat181astaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I agree with Pro for the most part, Con wins this debate in two areas. First off, he used a website to help explain his argument. Although it's not much, it's still something, and better then nothing from logicalcat181. So 2 points to asta. For convincing arguments, asta wins. logicalcat181 has some fair points in that criminals should be given second chances, and Con never tries to fight back on the first three. However, he wins on the final point, the fact that dead people should not have rights. He cites that 1 dead corpse can save 8 lives, and that's a clear positive. Pro's only refutation to this is that dead people shouldn't have to donate if they don't want too, but Con gives really good reasons as to why they should. Although this is the only exception to "We should ALL have rights", it's still an exception nonetheless, and thus Con wins this debate by a small margin.
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 3 years ago
Mister_Man
logicalcat181astaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Well that was shit. After thinking about it and retyping it, I'll award arguments to Pro as Con dropped 3/4 of Pro's rebuttals. Although Pro basically referred back to his second round argument in his third round, his argument was basically about the right to a fair trial, something Con didn't even argue against. I'd give one point for arguments if I could, but very slight edge to Pro in that one. Asta was the only one to use sources, so obvious point to him. And Conduct to Pro as I fucking hate it when people tell the reader to vote for them at the end of the debate - it's unprofessional. Shut up, I'll vote for who I want.
Vote Placed by ThoughtsandThoughts 3 years ago
ThoughtsandThoughts
logicalcat181astaTied
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: While I don't think con's arguments about dead people infringing on the rights of the living hold up since their organs do not originally belong to random living people, con is right that the argument is about multiple rights. Futhermore, pro's arguments in round 2 weren't very strong. Like with saying, "Yes, Murderers do deserve rights. The should be allowed to reserve the right to a quick and speedy trial"... Technically accused people get the right a quick and speedy trial, not murderers. "It's giving them a second chance," was largely speculation that murderers might become better people if given rights.
Vote Placed by factandevidence1234 3 years ago
factandevidence1234
logicalcat181astaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Asta provided a good argument, however, it wasn't necessary to bring up some of the factors in cons argument.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
logicalcat181astaTied
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: Con, you dropped that murderers do not have rights (which honestly was not a great argument, but you shouldn't have dropped it) and focused only on dead people. Then you conceded that dead bodies have at least one right. A supplemental right is still a right. If your claim is that dead bodies have no rights--Con, you should have stopped saying that "a dead body's right is less important," because that implies they have right. But then you said that there needs to be multiple rights. That semantic point doesn't seem to be in accordance with the Con, you scraped by. spirit of the debate, but Pro didn't respond to it at all--so there really is very little I can do.

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