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
Natural rights do exist, or else I have no right not to be killed.
The suggestion that "rights are granted by the government" has some dangerous implications. If my rights stem from my nationality, not my humanity, then there is no moral objection I can make to anything the government chooses to do to me. What if, for example, the government decides that I am not fully a citizen, nor even fully human? The concentration camps of Nazi Germany answer THIS question. The authorities can kill me, they can torture me, and they can enslave me, but unless I have fundamental human rights that stem NOT from my citizenship, but from my nature, then none of this is fundamentally wrong. Under the "rights come from the government" model, rights do not really exist in any metaphysical sense, they are merely things to be secured- or destroyed- through violence and coercion. This model, ultimately, is the preferred one of tyrants, because it gives all of their edicts "moral" force. One is NEVER required to obey a fundamentally unjust law.
Supporting URL[s]:
http://members.aol.com
http://www.newadvent.org
http://www.lewrockwell.com
Opinion #2
Debater: interested
Rights
Rights are what are granted by government in any organized structure. But government is you and your rights are what you, the people, say they will be. Fundamental Rights are what peoples have come to agreement as those that stem from being human and necessary to fully enjoy life in society.
Your examples are simply examples of authority out of control and that is the fault of its peoples.
How do you have a "natural" Right not to be killed? In nature, your right is to protect yourself from being killed and government is the means to accord that protection to all and establish it as a right within society. Alone and unarmed, you are what an anthropoligist described Australopithecus as ,cat meat. You have no rights except the Right to fight for your survival.
One is required to obey a "fundamentally" unjust law or to oppose it and risk consequences. Morality should not be confused with rights. To oppose is a "Right", accorded by human reason. But you would not always be right to do so.
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.