Instigator / Pro
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#6127
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is Invalid
Status
Debating
Waiting for the next argument from the instigator.
Round will be automatically forfeited in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1382
rating
441
debates
45.69%
won
Description
In this argument you will be defending The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You will argue that the rights presented there are valid and should be respected
Round 1
In this debate I will explain why the UDHR is invalid
Reason 1:
The document does not follow consistent moral principles
Reason 2:
The document goes against everything classic natural law theory stood for
Reason 3:
The document makes no distinction between human rights and rights of the citizen
Reason 4:
Attempting to affirm the rights in the UDHR would infringe on even more basic natural rights
I will be referencing Frank Van Duns article, "HUMAN DIGNITY: REASON OR DESIRE?"for my arguments
This was taken from https://www.amnesty.org
The title of the writings:
It explains the following in regards to this .
"WHAT IS THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND WHY WAS IT CREATED?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a document that acts like a global road map for freedom and equality – protecting the rights of every individual, everywhere. It was the first time countries agreed on the freedoms and rights that deserve universal protection in order for every individual to live their lives freely, equally and in dignity.
The UDHR was adopted by the newly established United Nations on 10 December 1948, in response to the “barbarous acts which […] outraged the conscience of mankind” during the Second World War. Its adoption recognized human rights to be the foundation for freedom, justice and peace.
Work on the UDHR began in 1946, with a drafting committee composed of representatives of a wide variety of countries, including the USA, Lebanon and China. The drafting committee was later enlarged to include representatives of Australia, Chile, France, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom, allowing the document to benefit from contributions of states from all regions, and their diverse religious, political and cultural contexts. The UDHR was then discussed by all members of the UN Commission on Human Rights and finally adopted by the General Assembly in 1948.
The Declaration outlines 30 rights and freedoms that belong to all of us and that nobody can take away from us. The rights that were included continue to form the basis for international human rights law. Today, the Declaration remains a living document. It is the most translated document in the world."
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a document that acts like a global road map for freedom and equality – protecting the rights of every individual, everywhere. It was the first time countries agreed on the freedoms and rights that deserve universal protection in order for every individual to live their lives freely, equally and in dignity.
The UDHR was adopted by the newly established United Nations on 10 December 1948, in response to the “barbarous acts which […] outraged the conscience of mankind” during the Second World War. Its adoption recognized human rights to be the foundation for freedom, justice and peace.
Work on the UDHR began in 1946, with a drafting committee composed of representatives of a wide variety of countries, including the USA, Lebanon and China. The drafting committee was later enlarged to include representatives of Australia, Chile, France, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom, allowing the document to benefit from contributions of states from all regions, and their diverse religious, political and cultural contexts. The UDHR was then discussed by all members of the UN Commission on Human Rights and finally adopted by the General Assembly in 1948.
The Declaration outlines 30 rights and freedoms that belong to all of us and that nobody can take away from us. The rights that were included continue to form the basis for international human rights law. Today, the Declaration remains a living document. It is the most translated document in the world."
Now what is incorrect or invalid about this?
The term universal reminds me of Neely Fuller Jr. and in his book he explains about being universal man and universal woman. There is equality, persons are equals and there's no mistreatment.
Now that's what these rights are geared towards right, justice and no mistreatment.
You can check out the tribute to Mr. Fuller at website address
A recent video conversation of Mr.Fuller and myself can be heard .
As universal man, you're not a "white" man. You're not an "Asian" man. You're not an "African" man. You're not an "American" man. You're not a "Brazilian" man. You're not an " Indian " man.
You are not in these divisions that breed and enable "us" versus "them" , "better"/"less than", "superior"/"inferior". That's all been stripped out. Everyone is of the universe in which we dwell so we're classified as universal.
More taken from the site is the following:
"WHAT IS IT DESIGNED TO DO?
The UDHR is a milestone document. For the first time, the world had a globally agreed document that marked out all humans as being free and equal, regardless of sex, colour, creed, religion or other characteristics.
The 30 rights and freedoms set out in the UDHR include the right to be free from torture, the right to freedom of expression, the right to education and the right to seek asylum. It includes civil and political rights, such as the rights to life, liberty and privacy. It also includes economic, social and cultural rights, such as the rights to social security, health and adequate housing."
This latter portion here on social security, health and housing is also mirroring what Mr. Fuller has talked about. He called it social security corp I believe.
Health, housing and transportation. I may be missing another facet to this. But it is to ensure the major elements are secure and the essentials are provided most of all.
The site lays out 30 rights . In comparison of Mr. Fuller there is just an existing definition of justice consisting of two parts to achieve most likely the same result.
-Guarantee that no person is mistreated and guaranteeing that the person that needs the help the most gets the most constructive help.
But the rights are as follows according to UDHR :
"All human beings are born free and equal.
Everyone is equal regardless of race, colour, sex, language, religion, politics, or where they were born.
Everyone has the right to life (and to live in freedom and safety).
Everyone has the right to be free from slavery.
Everyone has the right to be free from torture.
Everyone has the right to be recongnised before the law.
We are all are equal before the law.
Everyone has the right to seek justice if their rights are violated.
Everyone has the right to freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Everyone has the right to a fair trial.
Everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Everyone has the right to privacy and freedom from attacks on their reputation.
Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and to be free to leave and return to their own country.
Everyone has the right to seek asylum from persecution.
Everyone has the right to a nationality.
Everyone has the right to marry and to have a family.
Everyone has the right to own property.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
Everyone has the right to take part in government and to have equal access to public service.
Everyone has the right to social security.
Everyone has the right to work, to equal pay, to protection against unemployment and the right to form and join trade unions.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure.
Everyone has the right to a decent standard of living, including food, clothing, housing, medical care and social services.
Everyone has the right to education.
Everyone has the right to participate in and enjoy culture, art and science.
Everyone has the right to a social and international order where the rights in this Declaration can be fully realized.
We have a duty to other people and we should protect their rights and freedoms.
Nobody can take away these rights and freedoms from us."
All of these rights exist separate from the laws of the land as we are of the universe within the laws of the universe that has it so we are able to inhabit and function. As Mr. Fuller has put it, function anywhere in the world , anywhere in the universe.
Not limited by a collective elite, echelon, illuminati, master "race", supremacists,the affluent rich, land government/regional legislature.
Some final excerpts:
"HUMAN RIGHTS ARE UNIVERSAL, INDIVISIBLE AND INTERDEPENDENT
All human rights are equally important, and all governments must treat human rights in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same emphasis. All states have a duty, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights for everyone without discrimination.
So no matter what distinctions people have, there is one basic principle that underlies all the rights outlined in the UDHR: that every human being has the same inalienable rights. This means human rights are the same for every man, woman and child across the world, no matter what their circumstances.
There can be no distinction of any kind: including race, colour, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national or social origin, of fortune, of birth or any other situation. Universal means everyone, everywhere.
The UDHR also shows us that human rights are interdependent and indivisible. All of the 30 articles in the Declaration are equally important. Nobody can decide that some are more important than others. Taking away one right has a negative impact on all the other rights."
Again, what is incorrect or invalid about all this?
To function to the max without limitation, without restriction on human rights to hamper our function as mobile creatures is universal, universal law, compensatory and ultimately constructive.
That would be correct, valid and true.
Round 2
Forfeited
I rest my case.
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet