Am93 (PRO)For this debate the most important thing is to understand that "Humanity comes first" and humanity is greater than the borders that separate us, most of all to remember that we humans are one. We need to stand for one another, because if we do not, then who will? Animals? Trees? NO......NONE.
To kick start this debate i will highlight on the statement "that countries" and then define what a country is. A Country is a nation, a nation being a group of people living in a land,Sovereign, having common values basically, having a Flag being the nation identity. Now what the Argument says is that These group of people ( country) have a moral duty to protect human rights in other countries. Let me continue by pointing out that Moral duty does not mean legal duty because what is moral for you might not be legal for me and what is legal for you might not be legal for me. With that being said my opponent can not argue these debate legally or constitutionally because these is purely a moral debate......
What is Morality? simply morality is what is purely right or wrong or beliefs on what is right or wrong...
Ladies and gentlemen the world has formed an organization called THE UNITED NATIONS and out of 195 countries in planet earth, 193 are members of these organization. "TheUnited Nations (UN) is anintergovernmental organization to promote international co-operation. A replacement for the ineffectiveLeague of Nations, the organization was established on 24 October 1945 afterWorld War II in order to prevent another such conflict. At its founding, the UN had 51member states; there are now 193. Theheadquarters of the UN is inManhattan,New York City, and experiencesextraterritoriality. Further main offices are situated inGeneva,Nairobi, andVienna. The organization is financed by assessed and voluntary contributions from its member states. Its objectives include maintaining international peace and security, promoting human rights, fostering social and economic development, protecting the environment, and providing humanitarian aid in cases of famine, natural disaster, and armed conflict."
Going back to morality these organization was formed for what is morally right and they say that Promoting human rights is one of those, which is subject of our argument and 193 countries agreed to that by joining this organization to promote human rights............i will pause here and let my opponent speak its not like i am writing him a book.
Return To Top | Posted:
2017-03-30 01:17:06
| Speak Roundsidharth sunish (CON)A country is not just a geographical area on a map, but a sum of its history, culture, economics and politics of its people. Because of all these reasons, the moral duty itself becomes an arbitrary term which varies from location to location. In such a case, the interference of a country to "protect" the human rights in other countries, itself is a violation of human rights, where the interfering party may or may not be knowing the reasons for which the so-called "human rights violations" are happening and hence try to impose a view which is not shared by the people who have to live with those views
Let's take a quick example to showcase my point. The so-called "Champion of the Downtrodden", USA has constantly harped on the protection of Human Rights across the world and has waged war upon war trying to "save" people from the atrocities carried out by a few Governments. Be it Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq, the USA has given an explanation, that it was the savior of the people, that the people had whole - heartedly welcomed them, and they were under the moral obligation to do the same. What happened in these long years of war is known to everyone. The rise of extreme fundamentalist groups such as Taliban & ISIS, the rise in terrorism across the world, the loss of countless lives is but a small part of the destruction wrought upon by a misguided Country's moral duty to protect human rights in other countries.
Yes, the human rights violation happening in countries is a matter of grave concern. But, this should be countered via global platforms such as the United Nations, and not be taken up by a specific country which considers it to be a messiah. Establishing blockades on their economic trade routes, creating a situation where they are ostracized from the global community and condemning the very act, would put pressure on the errant country to reform. a leading example of the same is the Country of South Africa, which emerged out of its dark age of apartheid based exclusion and human rights violation due to the pressure of various countries at a global platform
Also, I would like to specify here, that the United Nations, even though it is a group of countries coming together, it is still a global front which is taking action against the errant country. So that point by esteemed opponent becomes moot.
Return To Top | Posted:
2017-03-30 03:18:53
| Speak Roundsidharth sunish: You cannot equate United Nations or any such global platforms to a specific country. The debate arises with the very fact that should countries on a personal level have the morality to stop human rights violation in other countries. Am93: i think my opponent misunderstands what morality means, morality is a belief or principles that defines what is right or wrong.........The united nations is very crucial to this debate, and mind you the topic does not say on a personal level it simple says " countries have a moral duty to protect human rights" so its general..........now the UN is more than a platform its countries agreeing on morality that it is a duty for countries to protect human rights that is why it has a human rights chater....i repeat again by joining countries have admitted to the moral duty.Return To Top | Speak Round
Am93 (PRO)My opponent's task is to prove that countries do not have a Moral Obligation to protect human rights in other countries, NOT to point out violation by the UN which is totally irrelevent to the arguement..........
my opponent did say that countries morality differ and with that i would like to prove him wrong and show him that countries have one morality which is the human rights........you might say i am sticking to one point but it is the base of my arguement..
UNITEDNATIONS| Universal Declaration of Human Rights |ForewordThe Universal
Declaration of Human Rights remains as relevant today as it was on the day
in1948 that it was proclaimed and adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly. The extraordi-nary vision and resolve of the drafters produced a
document that, for the first time, articulated therights and freedoms to
which every human beingis equally and inalienably entitled. Now available
in more than 360 languages, theDeclaration is the most translated document
in the world — a testament to its global nature and reach. *It has become a
yardstick by which we measure right and wrong.* It provides a founda-tion
for a just and decent future for all, and has given people everywhere a
powerful tool in the fight against oppression, impunity and affronts to
human dignity.
UNITEDNATIONS 3| Universal Declaration of Human Rights |Now, therefore,The
General Assembly proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights *as a
common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, *to the end
that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration
constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote
respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressivemeasures, national
and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and
observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among
the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.UniversalDeclaration
ofHuman Rights| Universal Declaration of Human Rights |4ArticleUNITEDN AT
IONSAll human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They
are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another
in aspirit of brotherhood.
What you see is an organisation, but thats countries agreeing on protecting human rights in the other countries....
Tell me again its just an Organisation, Then answer me this what is that organisation made of?
Return To Top | Posted:
2017-04-03 01:54:27
| Speak Roundsidharth sunish (CON)My Esteemed opponent has asked an extremely pertinent question.
"What you see is an organisation, but that countries agreeing on protecting human rights in the other countries....
Tell me again it's just an Organisation, Then answer me this what is that organisation made of?"
Tell me again it's just an Organisation, Then answer me this what is that organisation made of?"
An organisation maybe made up of countries, but each country has its own morality. The UN remains an amalgamation of different opinions and views, which arises from the various aspects a country goes through. A country has a moral duty to protect its citizens and that they are treated with respect and equality, ensure the growth and development of itself and its citizens, ensure that its resources are being utilised in a judicious manner. It is not the responsibility nor the moral duty of one country to look into matters of other countries.
What my opponent has to understand is that, since the UN covers 193 out of 195 countries as its members, human rights violation is brought to the attention of the UN by a country which generally does not look at the moral responsibilities. There are hundreds of hidden agendas, which under the veneer of morality, the countries try to pass through. Be it the human rights violation, in Kashmir or Baluchistan, Syria, Palestine etc. the human rights violation has always been a political tool to be leveraged as and when a country pleases.
A classic example of the same, is the Nayirah Testimony which was orchestrated by the government and the media to gain favour for the US participation in the Gulf War and the case of Malala, which furthered the propaganda of US propogating Afghanistan and Pakistan as a bastion of human rights violation.
The NATO is an organisation which is similar to the UN with its roots of preventing the human rights violation in various parts of the world. But the same NATO which was created on the basis of the morality to protect human rights, itself has been found to have violated human rights. As the dialogue goes in the Enemy of the State " Well, who's gonna monitor the monitors of the monitors". A dialogue, if i may say sums up my view pretty effectively.
All these facts where placed before the UN, and it still remains an open question if the decision was taken on the basis of the morality of the issue, or for political and economical reasons.
Return To Top | Posted:
2017-04-04 18:22:22
| Speak RoundAm93: Everything you are arguing is irrelevent, irrelevent in the manner that, you are arguing that countries violate human rights in thier effort to "protect human rights in other countries"...While you should be proving to us that no country has a moral obligation to protect human rights in other countries, instead you are showing us the implication countries trying to do so.....You say that The UN is a Group of countries that Amalgamated, do you understand that by that statement you undermined your own arguement becuase Amalgamation means two or more entities becoming wholely one. Am93: thus adding to my point that countries that hve joined the un have a moral obligation in other countries to protect human rights.......what happens in secret is no the point of this debate, but the point do they have moral obligation and i say Major YES......THE DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS WHICH 193 COUNTRIES AGREE TOO......lets say this when the un acts, it is the 193 countries acting as one in other countries....DO NOT TELL US THE VIOLATION BUT TELL US THAT NO COUNTRY HAS NO OBLIGATION.......for that to happen you have to dimiss the The African Union, The European Union, e.t.cAm93: in which this are channels where with countries act in countries.Return To Top | Speak Round
Am93 (PRO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2017-04-08 18:23:01
| Speak Round
Well, the concept of morality is universal, but it applies to different people in different situations at different times. The underlying principle of morality is loyal to no single organization but a necessity for existence. Posted 2017-04-02 03:14:38