The Science of Rights

Thank you. In Round 4, as previously stated, I will rebut my opponent's Round 3 arguments and conclude. I will not raise new argument in this round. I ask the voters to consider when voting whether my opponent advanced new lines of argument in his concluding statement. I. My opponent does not contest the video's poor quality. My opponent does not offer any useful response to my criticism of the video's form, instead weakly offering that the video is "home brew" and that the venue is "YouTube, not MGM. " My opponent seems to be unaware of the many polished homemade video presentations that can be found on YouTube. In any event, my opponent has provided excuses, not rebuttals. He does not contest the relevant point, which is that the video is of very poor quality. Again, my opponent did not ask me to debate concerning a written summary of his ideas about rights - he very specifically directed the debate to argue in favor of a video presentation. On that level, the video completely fails. Even the best ideas can be poorly served by bad presentation, and this video is a bad presentation. On that point alone, Con should prevail in this debate. II. A theory of rights that applies to single-celled organisms and humans equally is useless. My opponent's argument extends expressly "down to the single cell level" and to "all living things. " I would ask the reader to consider, what use is an understanding of rights that applies both to human persons and bacteria? My opponent seems to think that because pursuit of survival is an inherent property of life, that this is somehow synonymous with "inalienable rights. " To answer the question, though, we need to get to the root of what a "right" - particularly an "inalienable right" - actually is. Of course, bacteria live; and as a biological system, bacteria pursue survival. But what "inalienable rights" do they have? Every time we use antibacterial soap, or use a cleaning spray, or take an antibiotic, we are intentionally depriving countless bacteria of life. So what does it mean to say that they have a right to life? Only that they may pursue survival - not that we may not kill them with impunity. What does it mean to say, now, that a human being has a right to life? It means, at a minimum, that a person cannot be arbitrarily killed by an action of the state - which is to say, the human right to life is a matter of a social arrangement between people. Not just that we may all pursue survival (war of all against all), but that we mutually assent to respect the lives of others in a quid pro quo for having our own lives respected. Rights are political constructs. They exist in the realm of the social, and they are about how people and communities relate to one another. What are the boundaries of what the community can force the individual to do? What are the boundaries of what an individual may do before being restrained by their community? If, as my opponent suggests, rights arise from a "constructal law" that applies to all systems, living or otherwise, then the only thing we have achieved is the bare pursuit of survival. It says nothing of speech, or conscience, or religion, or voting, or marriage, or self-defense, or assembly, or due process - nothing of substance whatsoever concerning the political rights that are inherently human and inherently social. The science of rights outlined by the video is, bluntly, plainly absurd. But even if it were not - even if there were merit to my opponent's ideas - the only thing he has justified is pursuit of survival at any cost. As a guide to human rights as we understand them, these ideas are useless. III. Response concerning WIlson quotes I will leave it to the reading comprehension of the audience as to which one of us has correctly understood Mr. Wilson's text. I suggest only that what Mr. Wilson correctly understood is precisely what my opponent foolishly rejects - that political liberty cannot be understood without reference to the proper relationship between the government and the individual. My opponent's "science of rights" speaks nothing to this proper balance. CONCLUSION After viewing the video several times, and considering my opponent's ideas more seriously than I suspect anyone else ever has outside perhaps immediate family members, I stand by my initial assessment of the video. It's bad. I can't recommend that anyone watch it. It's a poorly executed presentation of one man's highly idiosyncratic approach to rights. You won't understand rights, or science, any better after watching this video than you did before.