YouDebateIt.com Return To Home Page

YouDebateIt.com -- Is It Better To Be A Divided Nation?
Topic: Is It Better To Be A Divided Nation?

Which do you prefer #1 or #2?
Vote below for the better argument.
Opinion #1
Debater: The Wild Goose
Law should be based on truth, not mere convention.
The Helsinki Accords date from 1975. Are we to assume that human rights also stem from 1975? Was there some magical alteration in human nature made in 1975? If the conquest of the Cornish would be illegal today, does this imply that it was legal when it happened? If the kidnapping of slaves from Africa was not legitimate when it occurred, how can it make them part of one "people" now? What if I file the needed paperwork to get dual citizenship- am I mystically transformed into a member of a different "people"? Essentially, in dividing the world into inherently different "peoples", we appeal to pure convention- if a nation exists, this view holds, then its citizens are a "people", and it is therefore indivisible. This view implies that justice is whatever currently existing nation-states say it is. Let me be clear, and say that my rights and responsibilities do not stem from my nationality, but from my humanity. The government does not GIVE me my rights, they are mine by nature.
Supporting URL[s]:
http://www.lewrockwell.com
http://www.lewrockwell.com
http://libertariannation.org
Opinion #2
Debater: interested
Peoples
Assume what you will but the Accords are about the agreed definitions of a "people" not rights. Rights date from whenever humans asserted their rights and were whatever they could reasonably defend. The Rights you can exercise do stem from your nationality not from your humanity. Assert what you will but if your society does not accept, then you do not have them. Rights are granted by authority. You elect the authority that does so.

Law is backed by coercive capacity. There was no concept of illegality in war in older times. Slavery was legitimate and slaves became integrated into their societies - they were not peoples.

Conventions are laws until nullified. International law now supports the "convention" of different peoples. The citizens of a nation are a people - though "people" can be broader than that.

If you take dual citizenship, there is a schizophrenic characteristic to your citizenship though, in reality you are a citizen of one country with acquired rights to the other.
Which argument do you agree with more? #1   #2
Which argument is more persuasive? #1   #2
READ ALL ARGUMENTS ON THIS TOPIC
POST YOUR COUNTERARGUMENT TO THE MOST RECENT ARGUMENT ON THIS TOPIC
START A NEW OR SEPARATE ARGUMENT ON THIS TOPIC
READ & JUDGE OTHER COMPLETED DEBATES
PROPOSE ANOTHER DEBATE TOPIC
Share your view. Whose argument did you like better? I strongly prefer the argument of debater #1
I strongly prefer the argument of debater #2
I slightly prefer the argument of debater #1
I slightly prefer the argument of debater #2
I prefer the argument of debater #1, but I could do better!
I prefer the argument of debater #2, but I could do better!

  
Your comments will appear on SelectSmart.com. Look for ''Visitor Reviews''.

Welcome to YouDebateIt.com
This is the place for debate with an added element of friendly competition. This is a debating and essay resource and practice tool, not a debating society or club. There are no complicated rules, but these debates have structure. Each debate consists of a topic with two opposing views.

These are short essays limited to about 150-165 words. Present your strongest argument the first time, since you can't go back to change it--as with the National Forensic League and other speech and debate formats. Read these debates, then vote for your favorite arguments.

These debates are fun, informative and give exposure to all sides of the issues. Most debates will be archived (arguments that are obscene or offensive may be deleted). The better and more interesting debates will be featured.