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.
A cop cannot legally beat up a prisoner for no reason. I'm not saying that cops don't beat up prisoners for no reason, I'm not saying they don't often get away with it; it's just not legal.
The right to liberty is a basic human right, prisoners don't have liberty.
Privacy, is also a basic human right - not so much privacy in prison.
A basic human right is also to be protected from prisoners, as a prisoner, you are a prisoner among dozens of other prisoners, that way you are not being protected from other prisoners.
Also, protection of you human rights, is a basic human right, which is not anything you should expect in prison.
The right to liberty is a limited right. It can be taken away in certain situations. So you're right it can be denied in the situation of prison.
Privacy is a qualified right. It cannot only be limited proportionally in pursuance of other legitimate aims. Security within prisons is a legitimate aim in this case.
So I agree with you on those too. However, prisons do have a responsibility to protect prisoners from other prisoners. If a prisoner dies, at least in the uk, and the prison could have reasonable done something to prevent the death then the prison may be help liable. For example, in the UK sexual offenders must be segregated for their own protection.
Okay, so to continue with my understanding of your thought process... Are you saying that because it's not morally wrong to punish criminals for their crimes... it's not morally wrong to strip NON criminals of their rights either if that's what the majority wants to do?
That is essentially what you are claiming. Isn't it?
Okay,... but you answered true even though the question was not about criminals.
We all agree that there is reasonable justifications for depriving criminals of their rights (though even they are afforded most of their basic human rights)
What about when the majority denies basic human rights to NON criminals?
but you answered true even though the question was not about criminals.
Why ?
The majority denies criminals basic human rights, or else they wouldn't be in prison.
You said yourself that we all agree it is reasonable to take away basic human rights from prisoners - doesn't that make us the majority, and the prisoners the minority?
Yes. Society is the majority and criminals are the minority. However, you have yet to make a case that the denial of criminals rights as punishment for the crimes they have committed is an amoral act.
Beyond that, you continue to dodge the question asked as it pertains to NON-Criminals.
Would it be morally okay for the majority to re-enact slavery for example?
Yes. Society is the majority and criminals are the minority. However, you have yet to make a case that the denial of criminals rights as punishment for the crimes they have committed is an amoral act.
I believe I've said several times I do not think taking basic human rights are immoral if the person who's rights are being taken away committed a crime.
Beyond that, you continue to dodge the question asked as it pertains to NON-Criminals.
Well then put it in your debate. The debate said nothing about it being about non-criminals. The debate asked me if it is morally okay to deny basic human rights, and I answered, yes it is morally okay when for a criminal.
But to answer your question, no it is not morally okay. It is possible, but that doesn't make it morally okay.
I don't actually believe this but for the sake of an arguement, a person be able to do what ever they want as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's rights. In the terms of the rapist if they infringe the victims rights then the rapist then gives up hisown rights in that act because he couldn't respect someone else's right. However deciding what these rights are, and who decides them for us is key to this ientire thing.
You cant say everybody is equal and then say that person is not equal. They need to be treated better in jail. Lots of guys are in there for drug possession. Does that make them any less human than the officer that read him his rights or the judge who sentenced him to time in prison?
So you don't think rapists should be put in jail? You think they should walk free among us, destroying other people's rights?
I think everybody is equal - meaning that everybody should live under the same laws. No laws should apply for one part of the human society, but the others are not. When this law is broken, you have no right to have rights. You've proven that you are unable to live in a society with human rights.
It follows from the definition of human rights that it's wrong to deny them to people. The fact that we feel alright about denying rights is possibly because we have picked the wrong rights, or haven't defined certain restrictions for them; that's not the same as saying that it's alright to deny basic human rights. It just means that our definition of what the human rights are isn't very sophisticated.
Most people don't get what we consider basic human rights. Why start with a foetus? Maybe trafficking, starvation, tribes being driven off their land, poor sanitation and young girls being married off to middle age men are more important issues to attack first. At least the foetus can't understand it is suffering if it is actually suffering.
The USA yes. If the majority wants you to suffer you will suffer. In more civilised countries no - everyone has the right to basic human rights. This includes prisoners. Prisoners, in Europe, cannot be tortured and allowed to be killed in prison for instance.
there deduced from rational argument on the nature of being human. Of they are subjective in part but they are objective as possible. They have no ulterior motives. The rights are listed in the European convention of human rights and the UN declaration.
The Basic Human Rights,such as Freedom of movement,Freedom of speech,Freedom of thoughts,etc.should not be controlled by an outer forces,such as government,unless affected the public rights
