CreateDebate


Debate Info

13
7
Yes, we have inherent rights No, they do not exist
Debate Score:20
Arguments:23
Total Votes:21
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, we have inherent rights (11)
 
 No, they do not exist (6)

Debate Creator

Kitk34(185) pic



Independence Day

This is the 4th of July.  The celebration of the Declaration of Independence in the united States of America.  There has been much debate on what rights are and if they actually exist.  I hold that there is a difference between privileges and rights.  In the Bill of Rights, these were simply laid out as restrictions against what the 'government' was not to infringe upon. 

If the 'rights' laid out in the Declaration of Independence and The Bill of Rights that followed some years later, do not exist, then, everything that anyone claims to have a right to do, even claim to protect themselves or speak there mind, are only privileges given by the 'government'.  "The 'lordgovernment giveth and the lordgovernment taketh away'."

So, which is it? 

Yes, we have inherent rights

Side Score: 13
VS.

No, they do not exist

Side Score: 7

I hold natural rights to be inherent to a rational human being. By which I mean that a human being properly using the faculties of his mind to assess his well-being naturally comes to conclusions about means to promote that well-being when in contact with other human beings. If we are not dealing with a rational individual who isn't concerned with his well-being, than no, natural rights are not an inherent part of how we interact with him.

Side: Yes, we have inherent rights
Sitara(11082) Clarified
1 point

I'll take it. I 100% agree with and applaud your statement. :)

Side: Yes, we have inherent rights
Libertarian1(1080) Clarified
1 point

Glad you agree. .

Side: Yes, we have inherent rights
xBetzy(123) Disputed
1 point

I hold natural rights to be inherent to a rational human being.

Human beings are not rational in the slightest, I site a book that are key in understanding this Denial by Ajit Varki & Danny Brower. It has several passages providing our tendencies to accept "realities" that are comfortable, however not real. Money and rights are among these categories.

Side: No, they do not exist
1 point

I site books by Sam Harris, Ayn Rand, and Leonard Piekoff(basically all three's bookography) arguing that mankind's survival and the capacity to thrive are contingent upon the usage of our faculties of reason. I would also argue that flaws in a particular system do not constitute the dismissal of the entire system. You don't stop calling a school bus yellow just because it has other colors of lesser distinction.

Side: Yes, we have inherent rights
1 point

Every human is endowed by their Creator with fundamental moral rights.

Side: Yes, we have inherent rights
xBetzy(123) Disputed
0 points

But rights are an abstract concept they can never be proven to exist, and they seem to change depending on geographical location and time period. So in my estimation, no, rights don't exist.

Side: No, they do not exist
2 points

You are right regarding legal rights, but natural rights are pretty much universal due to their very nature(no pun intended). When individuals are concerned with their own well-being you see a consistent trend towards the acceptance of values such as life, property, and personal pleasure. Rights are societies' way of implementing these values in a social context.

Side: Yes, we have inherent rights
Sitara(11082) Disputed
1 point

You don't have the right to say that. ;)

Side: Yes, we have inherent rights
1 point

I apologize for posting this a week+ after the 4th. I know others have posted already and I appreciate it. Here is my position in full:

A ‘privilege’ is permission given to do something, and as that is given, it can be taken away. An inherent ‘right’ is something that can be violated, but cannot be taken away from you. To illustrate an example of a ‘right’, if Joe attacks Bob, as in physical assault, and Bob stops this attack from continuing, as in stopping Joe physically with like action, then, Bob would be right to do so. That is recognized as “the right of self-defense”. This of course assumes that Joe had no valid reason to assault Bob.

Perhaps a more concise definition of a ‘Right’ is as follows: “a claim derived from the first claim by an Individual to a physical thing to achieve a value.” Following that definition, after assuming that Joe had no valid claim or reason for attacking Bob; Bob validates his claim of self-preservation and protection through his action of self-defense. For this to take place Bob does not need permission from any external source and it is even necessary for him to take immediate action in order for him to survive.

Here is an example of what is generally meant by a ‘privilege’ in contrast to a ‘right’; say Joe asks Bob for permission to the temporary use of Bob’s property for the purpose (reason) of hunting and Bob agrees. Bob has permitted Joe that use however temporary, and Joe agrees to conduct himself in such a manner consistent with Bob’s conditions that he may place on the privilege he has extended. This applies to any situation that involves mutual consent, whether verbal or otherwise, between two or more Individuals.

Here is where it seems to get convoluted and the line between an inherent ‘right’ and permission granted or ‘privilege’ becomes blurred and misidentified. All too often people talk or argue over what they have a right to do or have without clearly stating what they mean. Also, it is rare that anyone points out what they, or anyone for that matter, do not have a ‘right’ to do or have. With the definition given above, no person has a valid claim to coerce/threaten the abuse of force, otherwise known as violence, nor be right in supporting/initiating that wrongful act; in other words, violence can be defined as violation of a right-holder. So, as demonstrated by the self-defense illustration, Joe was attempting, by his actions of physical attack, to violate Bob’s valid or first claim of the use of his body to continue his life.

Furthermore, if we add to that example and say Joe, instead of flat-out attacking Bob, simply demands that Bob give him money to pay for his child’s education, using threats of bodily harm to Bob if he refuses. The fact that Joe is extorting and robbing Bob of his property, i.e. his money or his life and hence a wrongful right-violating act, negates Joe’s belief that everyone is entitled to a “free-education”. It would not count even if Joe took Bob’s money in this way and gave it to the person begging for money just down the street; it is still a wrongful act and what someone calls it does not change what it is. Many claim that they have a ‘right’ to a house, food, shelter, clothes, education, car, t.v., etc. and that they should get these things given to them for free, often ignoring the fact that someone must pay for such things, through what is called “taxation” officially; in reality is extortion. This is not to say that they can’t go and purchase, make, or ask for such things and they may be given as a gift.

To conclude: Many people claim that inherent ‘rights’ also called Natural Rights, do not exist; yet, it seems to be an axiomatic concept, or self-evident. All too often men and women want to control what they fear will happen, but they are always looking externally and not at what they are doing themselves. Discussing abstract concepts like ‘right(s)’ is important. And so is accepting that we each have to co-exist amongst one another; whether it is peaceful or constant conflict is up to us.

Side: Yes, we have inherent rights

Everyone has unalienable rights. Each individual is unique and must be protected by the Government.

Side: Yes, we have inherent rights
2 points

I havw to say no you didnt really fought for you independence france fought it for you so thats my thoughts

Side: No, they do not exist
Scout143(652) Disputed
1 point

Where were the French at Saratoga, Bunker Hill, Boston, Crossing the Delaware, Trenton, Detroit, and The Carolina Campaign? Nowhere in sight. They were out in the Atlantic scoodally-pooping with the British navy.

Side: Yes, we have inherent rights
1 point

Besides a few battles, the French just used the war as an opportunity to raid the British navy (mainly its merchant fleet) while the British Empire tried to put down a revolution in America and take over Dutch colonies in West Africa.

Side: Yes, we have inherent rights
1 point

You

bet!

Allons enfants de la patrie..!

Side: Yes, we have inherent rights
1 point

Maybe so, but they were still vital in our victory. Many cities have a Lafayette street for a good reason. For that matter, they don't deserve their rep from WW2 either- given the difficulty the Allies had in WW2, The level of resistance France put up by itself is rather astonishing, not pathetic. And the fact that the French Resistance provided vital support and intelligence throughout the war is often overlooked too. We Americans owe France a far greater debt than we do China. We haven't all forgotten.

Side: No, they do not exist