CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is violence acceptable when defending human rights?
Is it okay when the U.S army attacks another country because they don't follow the declaration of human rights they signed? I think that when a whole countries people is being denied their rights to live as a free human being then it is perfectly fine to defend their rights with violence.
How do you fight violence without violence? Everyone talks about how great the great people of the world are, be it the people who talk against slavery, or the people who hold campaigns. But no one seems to realize, behind everyone of them, there are another army full of fighters, ready to free slaves, even if they accidentally shot them while getting in. How do you think Gandhi managed to get india independent again? Mercenaries. Violence is really never acceptable. However, violence is the lesser of 2 evils, and past examples have proven so.
The problem with the problems you post here and then the problem the debate description talks about is that human rights is a global issue, while the other problems you show were national issues.
Of course, they were problems in several nations, although the problem was not solved internationally.
To me, there is a big difference between one country invading another country and then simply the country itself being divided because of problems like slavery.
This is not about fighting violence with violence. It is about fighting against the imposition of another value system over your own with violence, and those are not at odds with each other at all. Why is violence never acceptable, particularly if it's proven effective at accomplishing desired ends?
Human rights narratives are nothing more than values backed by power. If what one values is under threat and violence is an effective means for securing it against that threat, then why not use it? Hard-line pacifism is a value narrative that regularly lacks the ability to back itself with the necessary power precisely because it renders violence ineffective to what it values.
It depends on the type of violence, to whom or what it is applied, which human right was violated, and how egregious the violation of it was.
If someone's privacy is briefly violated it doesn't give them the right to kill the violator.
If someone's family is seriously threatened with death due to race or religion then yes they may indeed need to use violence to keep their family alive.
First of all the US doesn't even follow all the principles in the decleration of Human rights, so I think they should take care of the plank in their own eye before looking at the specks of others.
Second of all even if the US followed all the principles of the decleration, some of them are highly controversial, and I think it is wrong to attack a country that thinks differently in these controversial ethical topics than one's own. I think we need to rewrite the declaration to include basic human rights in order to have a constructive debate about it.
If that country thinks differently then why did they sign the Declaration?
Yes the US doesn't follow ALL of the principles but, they are far less worse then some middle eastern countries. I think that they should attack other countries who HAVE signed it and are breaking the principles. If other countries have not signed it yet are doing things against the Declaration of Human Rights principles I believe that the US has no right to invade.
Okay well the US haven't abolished the death penalty, they treat their inmates worse than they treat discount livestock, they have a sky high murder rate and a sky high criminal rate.
If you look at international statistics concerning health, equality, trust in government, happiness, crime and so forth, you'll see the US is all the way ''down'' the list with third world countries.
So I won't say that you shouldn't attack countries that have signed the declaration and then broke it - but in my opinion USA should be on that invade list.
Does the US put prison inmates into practicality "gas chambers" to numb them then cut of their heads? I don't think so.
The sky high murder is obviously due to population and if you compare to with a country and AVERAGE out the population you'll see that the crime and murder ratio is quite normal. Maybe above average a little.
USA have done horrible things they haven't been prosecuted for such as war crimes during the 2nd World War just because they won doesn't mean they were in the wrong.
The sky high murder is obviously due to population and if you compare to with a country and AVERAGE out the population you'll see that the crime and murder ratio is quite normal. Maybe above average a little.
If you arrange the countries to go from least murder rates to worst Unites States are on shocking 108th place.
And remember this is murder RATE - murders pr capita. I can prove this by pointing out the fact that India, with a population 6-7 times the size, has a lower murder rate than the US. So there is no way population hasn't been taken into account here.
The US is surrounded by third world countries on that list. You need to go up to around number 70 before the rest of the western countries appear.
Does the US put prison inmates into practicality "gas chambers" to numb them then cut of their heads? I don't think so.
Maybe not, but they put people in electric chairs, they deliberately give them poison that kills them. The guards in prison beat the fuck out of inmates often for no reason at all.
Furthermore I think that the ''he is worse, so I'm not that bad'' is an upside down philosophy to live by. There is always someone worse than you, so by that logic you never need to strive to be better.
Good point, well the page says to have gotten its data from UNODC, which is a trusted source. But personally I think it is important to look critically, not completely reject right away, but be critical of all statistics, no matter whether they support or oppose any initial understandings.
If you are interested in this you can always look up how the norwegian prison system works.
You said earlier you aren't concerned with other countries, that's alright, but since it seems to me that you're interested in what I would call a fair and just prison system, I suggest you look it up.
Idk what your view is specifically but I agree that the US torturing or using violence against prisoners taken is unacceptable. It doesn't matter what other countries do, the US shouldn't be basing itself off of other policies.
My view on this debate is that the US doesn't live up to all the principles of the declaration of Human rights ... so why should they go around invading countries that don't either?
Once again the middle east are doing such worse things then America. And I think America should fix worse problems before themselves. Fixing a worse country would be harder then fixing themselves due to invading etc. I'm not saying that what the US does is okay.
Shouldn't you maybe then change your proposal from being based on the declaration of rights? Maybe define the horrors you specifically oppose in such a degree that countries should take military act on the matter?
Well your proposal is to defend the declaration of human rights, right? At least that what the debate descriptions says (Is it okay when the U.S army attacks another country because they don't follow the declaration of human rights they signed)
So when it turns out that the declaration is actually controversial itself, and as whole isn't being obeyed by many countries, isn't that proposal perhaps flawed?
That's why I suggest a different proposal, one that doesn't mention the declaration of human rights.
Maybe you, or someone who agrees with you on this, could write a declaration that can fathom the issues you see in the world, and by those principles you could invade countries that don't follow.
Because a proposal to invade anyone who doesn't follow the DHR is contradictory, in my opinion.
I think that the current declaration is perfectly fine, it isnt flawed. It's the countries who are breaking it, America included. My point is that some middle eastern countries are completely disobeying the declaration that they signed and breaking articles much worse then America is. Yes, America is also torturing people but not in such a huge, open scale as some middle eastern countries. Slavery is one of the first articles in the declaration and it is still happening as I type this around the world.
In my opinion I would say that the Slavery, Privacy, Right to Education, Freedom of Speech are the main and most important rights every human being should have and it is simply not that way. I can actively say that America is following all of these articles. The majority of Americans do have the freedom of speech, aren't enslaved and have a right to education and the right to privacy. America is defending these main rights (and its OKAY) and the minority group who aren't receiving these rights and freedoms is much much tinier then some middle eastern countries peoples not receiving these rights and freedoms.
First of all the US doesn't even follow all the principles in the declaration of Human rights, so I think they should take care of the plank in their own eye before looking at the specks of others.
Is this argument related to the US? Your argument is highly controversial, and has no relation to this argument at all. Human rights aren't decided by the declaration. Human rights were always there.
Second of all even if the US followed all the principles of the decleration, some of them are highly controversial, and I think it is wrong to attack a country that thinks differently in these controversial ethical topics than one's own. I think we need to rewrite the declaration to include basic human rights in order to have a constructive debate about it.
Okay, now you're getting completely off. You are putting this debate away, and I have written a constructive debate. The definition of human rights does not influence how you should argue against it. HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NOT DECIDED BY THE DECLARATION!!!
Is this argument related to the US? Your argument is highly controversial, and has no relation to this argument at all. Human rights aren't decided by the declaration. Human rights were always there.
The Declaration of Human Rights is written by the UN, if I'm not mistaken. It is a document with a bunch of principles of what we consider human rights to be, and a bunch of countries have signed this document, yet they don't follow all the principles. USA is one of these countries.
Okay, now you're getting completely off. You are putting this debate away, and I have written a constructive debate. The definition of human rights does not influence how you should argue against it. HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NOT DECIDED BY THE DECLARATION!!!
This is the debate description: Is it okay when the U.S army attacks another country because they don't follow the declaration of human rights they signed?
It clearly mentions the declaration of human rights, so why shouldn't I talk about exactly that?
In theory a non-violent response is the best approach. Example, the BLM protesters have every right to march and protest, when they turn to rioting they hurt their own cause and people can't take them seriously. Same with pretty much any protester, the moment you turn violent is the moment you aren't seen as a leader, you're only seen as a hooligan.
If someone is attacking another person, like a supporter for a various political candidate is being beaten, then maybe violence against the aggressor is a good thing to get them away from their victim however once they back off you back off. It's hard when human emotion comes into play.
