CreateDebate


Debate Info

20
23
Definetly Not really
Debate Score:43
Arguments:43
Total Votes:43
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Definetly (19)
 
 Not really (22)

Debate Creator

Quocalimar(6469) pic



Rights go to the majority.

Do you believe that rights truly go to the largest group and that if you're that 49.9% or less that you're screwed.

A caption picture about majority rights

I was going to post a silly cartoon like I normally do, when I happened across this. I think it gives away my side.

Definetly

Side Score: 20
VS.

Not really

Side Score: 23

Yea I'm over here.

We vote on them. meaning the side with the most votes wins.

If we could put it to a vote to allow human hunting, and majority agreed on it, it'd be in place.

Side: Definetly
warrior(1854) Disputed
1 point

In a democracy yes. But in a Republic such as we have in America every person has a right to life therefor it wouldn't matter if the majority of people wanted human hunting it still could not be legalized. Then again our government now doesn't really give a shit about the constitution or our rights and are all either just a bunch of power grabbers or vote whores so who knows.

Side: Not really
Quocalimar(6469) Disputed
1 point

That's why i said if we could put it to a vote. A more logical reason would banning of gay marriage. it's illegal even though there's nothing physically wrong with it because the majority are against it.

Side: Definetly
Jace(5220) Disputed
1 point

Actually, not every person does have a right to life. Individuals convicted of first degree murder, treason, or other capital offenses do not have a right to life. Just saying. I would also question whether human hunting really wouldn't be legalized if (somehow) there was strong and particularly partisan support for it.

Side: Not really
1 point

There are problems with defining democracy in the first place. If 51% of people vote so that the remaining 49% have no right to vote, that would qualify as undemocratic, because the very process of measuring the consent of the governed becomes skewed.

Equally, you can't allow human hunting because it would skew further measurement to favor hillbillies and rednecks so to speak. Some other issue could have gone in favor of the now-extinct hipsters for instance. Hypothetical pure democracies are automatically republics.

Some rights, like the right of private property, can't be directly derived from this though. I think those rights serve as the line between a democracy and a republic.

Side: Not really
Quocalimar(6469) Disputed
1 point

Equally, you can't allow human hunting because it would skew further measurement to favor hillbillies and rednecks so to speak

If we could (somehow) vote on the right to allow human hunting, and the majority voted on it, I think it'd be put into place like women's rights were.

If 51% of people vote so that the remaining 49% have no right to vote, that would qualify as undemocratic

That vote would never be aloud to take place, but if it were, I also think that vote would come to pass.

I think my analogy to begin with was poor. It was too extreme, and taken to literally.

Side: Definetly
1 point

Rights go to the right, and my party; The Republican Party!

Side: Definetly
1 point

No such thing as human rights.

Only anarchy and whatever 'rights' one can earn themselves.

Side: Not really
Quocalimar(6469) Disputed
1 point

Well how about human ideas of what's right and wrong. We can call those rights. Do you believe that the majority has all say in what humans say is right?

Side: Definetly
Del1176(4967) Disputed
2 points

Gandhi was one against millions if not billions. In the end his idea of rights won.

Side: Not really
youngnat(56) Disputed
1 point

how are there no such thing as human rights, you yourself said that it isn't freedom, it's a privilege named 'human rights'. besides if there were no such thing as human rights then there would be no freedom of speech, now even tho the government now limits our freedom of speech we can still have debates on here, therefore we have human rights

Side: Definetly
Del1176(4967) Disputed
1 point

What the hell are you actually arguing?

Side: Not really
Quocalimar(6469) Disputed
1 point

That's a different argument, I'd happily debate you on it about what I think are rights and privileges, but in regard to what you are saying... if I understood you that is, the privileges that we call our rights, go to the majority. Is my argument. I believe this to be so because the greatest event in history where all the rights have been changed they ere changed base don votes, votes won by the majority.

The reason I said rights, instead of privileges is because it'd be another argument within this argument, I know what my views on rights are, but I left them on the other debate and conformed.

Side: Definetly
1 point

No in democracy this is true but that's why democracy is horrible. In America we have a Republic. In a Republic the individual is ensured certain rights ie the bill of rights that cannot be taken away regardless of how the majority feels.

Side: Not really
Jace(5220) Disputed
2 points

Please, minority rights have been and continue to be consistently denied and violated simply because the majority does not want to extend or protect those rights. From slavery to segregation to anti-queer sentiment and so forth. There is no society that I am aware of which has ever existed that has afforded its minorities with equal rights.

Side: Definetly
warrior(1854) Disputed
1 point

I mean political minority's. in a democracy the majority can say "oh you support so and so your crazy your delusional your too crazy to vote therefor we all vote to take your voteing rights away" not here though.

Side: Not really
Quocalimar(6469) Disputed
1 point

What about slavery? Suffrage?

These were examples of when the majority was in favor of something that was not ensured constitutionally but as majority rule changed so did the laws and thus the rights given.

Side: Definetly
warrior(1854) Disputed
1 point

I was referring mainly to political freedom. In this country today you can support whom ever you want and what ever position you want and no one can take away your right to vote.

Side: Not really

If that was the case, why would establishing more authority help? How would people of who have this in their nature be able to establish a republic?

Side: Not really
Quocalimar(6469) Clarified
1 point

I'm sorry I don't quite get this.

Side: Definetly
x420xHustler(228) Clarified
1 point

If human nature doesn't allow for people to have power, then distributing the power undemocratically should be expected to yield the same or worse result.

Side: Definetly
1 point

Typically, rights go to whomever the powers that be decide they should go to. Consider me a cynic, but I consider the majority to generally be nothing but a herd. Their views are important to varying degrees depending upon the system of government, however they are easily manipulated. Who has what rights comes down to who has the power and influence to enforce their views of rights. Sometimes that means minority rights are not protected but other times that means minority rights triumph over majority rights.

Side: Not really

Democracy is never justice. And we can easily prove this in history

Side: Not really

The majority can't take the rights away from a minority. For instance, with Proposition 8 that took the rights away from a minority.

Side: Not really