Challenge to Anyone (But Keith In Particular) - Do Humans Have Intrinsic Rights?

[winstonjen]

My suggested format (rough and preliminary):

2 weeks between posts.

5 rounds, starting with the affirmative side.

2500 words per round.

Any sources may be used, with proper acknowledgement.

Any takers?

[xorbie]

I am basically of the opinion that humans have what is commonly referred to as the "right" to do anything they want, and that society does not give humans the right to do anything except for certain actions that can only take place in society (such as vote).

However, I must ask what definition of "right" you are using. The common one is in terms of legality, so speaking of rights outside the context of society is a moot point. I assume you don't speak of moral rights, but some people use it this way as well.

So if you could just clarify your stance and your topic, I would be game to debate as this is something I am interested in, although admitedly not so knowledgeable about. I am also willing to take just about any side in this debate, devil's advocate is often a great way to learn. :D

[winstonjen]

My definition of a 'right' would have to be something that a human being has - for example, people over 18 have the 'right to smoke.'

In the USA there is a 'right to free speech.'

In the debate I would like to discuss moral rights, and obligations that we 'owe' to each other, since that was apparently what Keith like to assert in MF&P.

[xorbie]

Well if Keith doesn't come by and pickup the gauntlet, I will check out what he has been saying in MP&F and just argue that, assuming I have time.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by xorbie
Well if Keith doesn't come by and pickup the gauntlet, I will check out what he has been saying in MP&F and just argue that, assuming I have time.

Are you serious? That should be a good laugh, in any case (no offense)!

:D

[xorbie]

None taken. I honestly haven't delved much into the issue and don't have a definite position on the issue. However, I would be willing to take you on and I think I would be an almost formidable oppononent :D

[Keith]

Originally posted by winstonjen

"My definition of a 'right' would have to be something that a human being has - for example, people over 18 have the 'right to smoke.'

In the USA there is a 'right to free speech.'

In the debate I would like to discuss moral rights, and obligations that we 'owe' to each other, since that was apparently what Keith like to assert in MF&P."

I'd like to debate you on this general topic as long as we keep the idea of basic human rights vague. The bible is not clear about every right that humans were given by God.

In fact, what I would suggest we debate is...Does the concept of "justice" come from the J-C God, or did humans invent the concept?

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Keith
In fact, what I would suggest we debate is...Does the concept of "justice" come from the J-C God, or did humans invent the concept?

Sounds good.

To add another element to the debate, would you like to team up with Xorbie, Keith?

[Keith]

Originally posted by winstonjen

"Sounds good.

To add another element to the debate, would you like to team up with Xorbie, Keith?"

Only if Xorbie is a Christian. I don't want to team up with someone that will be arguing a different position from my own.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Keith
Only if Xorbie is a Christian. I don't want to team up with someone that will be arguing a different position from my own.

He doesn't have to be a Christian to argue on your side.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hi guys,

I just wanted to summarize the suggested parameters thus far. Feel free to suggest any amendments too:

(a) The topic of the debate:

Not clear here -- see (c)

(b) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue: Keith vs. winstonjen (with Keith taking the affirmative)

(c) The scope of the debate:

I'm not too clear about this. Is this debate about whether human rights/justice are derived by theism or by human invention? Or is it a debate about a definition of "rights" in some way? winstonjen, could you please clarify further your position (or what position exactly you want to oppose)? Will the debate be kind of along these lines? ---

Theist: Human rights can only come from God.

Atheist: No, they're a sociological/cultural construct.

Theist: Ha! But if that's true, human rights are meaningless because they're just opinions!

Atheist: No, from human experience and social evolution, blah blah blah...

Is the scope/topic meant to be like this or is it intended to be something different?

(d) The length of the debate: 5 rounds

(e) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first: In turns, and Keith goes first.

(f) The maximum length of each statement: 2500 words.

(g) The maximum duration between statements: 2 weeks.

(h) The extent to which quotes from outside sources will be permitted: Any sources may be used, with proper acknowledgement.

(i) The starting date of the debate:

???

(j) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe:

Standard format, I assume? I'd recommend looking at Suggestions for debate formats (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60770) if you'd care to try an alternative?


- Nightshade, FD Moderator

[xorbie]

I'm no Christian, I'm an atheist agnostic. And if this debate got heavy on the biblical quotes, I would be lost. So I think I shall bow out if that is the case. OTOH, we could have a 3 way debate so long as biblical quoting was kept to a minimum and I wouldn't have to chime in with my own.

[winstonjen]

Nightshade:

(c) The scope of the debate:

I'm not too clear about this. Is this debate about whether human rights/justice are derived by theism or by human invention? Or is it a debate about a definition of "rights" in some way? winstonjen, could you please clarify further your position (or what position exactly you want to oppose)? Will the debate be kind of along these lines? ---

I think it should be along the lines of intrinsic/granted rights as well as the definition of a right.

I would like bible quotes to be down to a minimum to encourage Xorbie to participate.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Originally posted by xorbie
I'm no Christian, I'm an atheist agnostic. And if this debate got heavy on the biblical quotes, I would be lost. So I think I shall bow out if that is the case. OTOH, we could have a 3 way debate so long as biblical quoting was kept to a minimum and I wouldn't have to chime in with my own.

Hi xorbie,

If Keith and winstonjen both agree, we could have a 3 way discussion/debate on the issue. Though I'd like to have all three positions spelled out and made clear, if that ends up being the case.

For example: (and this is only an example --- I don't presume that these are your precise positions):

Keith's position: human rights are objective and can only come from God.

winstonjen's position: human rights are subjective and are merely a cultural/sociological abstraction depending on the situation.

xorbie's position: human rights are objective and are derived from universal but naturalistic/cultural mores and values.


- Nightshade, FD Moderator

[xorbie]

I would definitely be up for that. My position would be that the very concept of a human right is nothing more than legal jargon, and that human rights are constricted, not created in society. The exception to this rule would be things like voting, which are only possible in a society.

[Keith]

Originally posted by xorbie

"I'm no Christian, I'm an atheist agnostic. And if this debate got heavy on the biblical quotes, I would be lost. So I think I shall bow out if that is the case. OTOH, we could have a 3 way debate so long as biblical quoting was kept to a minimum and I wouldn't have to chime in with my own."

I would definitely go heavy on the biblical quotes, and I would prefer to debate the topic "Does the concept of justice come from the J-C God, or is justice a human invention?" Although I like the topic of the origin of human rights, the bible is not absolutely clear on every specific human right. So, that is not a very good debate topic for me.

I will have to bow out for now, since I'm extremely busy, and I would need a month or more to research my thesis (on the topic I want to debate).

[winstonjen]

That's OK. A month's pause would give me time to concentrate on my studies.

[xorbie]

And it would give me precious procastination time.