The Universal Declaration of Human Rights must be taken more seriously.

Thank you, Con. First off, let me state that the first part of Con's argument is simply scientific proof of life's Unalienable Rights. This is entirely irrelevant to this debate as we are debating which must be taken more seriously. Not whether or not there is scientific proof to justify one or the other. I do not think that people will argue that scientifically, there are factors within us that create our happiness. Nor, that people do not try to better their lives. Also, much of Jefferson's Unalienable Rights are "endowed by their Creator." "Creator" referring to both natural occurrences and God. Religious justifications regarding human rights must be ignored when dealing with the aspect of human rights. Simply because people have many different belief systems and using one system to justify a view on human rights does not include the vast majority. Life's Unalienable Rights occurs only in American documents. While the UN's UDHR encompasses an international spectrum. Also, it is simply reminded that Jefferson's Unalienable Rights really took no true meaning as slavery existed and to the gay marriage debate today. Aren't these rights, as Jefferson stated, "self-evident" and not man-made? Being man-made allows man to shift and manipulate the meaning of this phrase. While self-evident takes on the meaning that these rights are fixed, everyone possesses them. Even the United States did not recognize Jefferson's Unalienable Rights and the country still does not recognize them. At least, does not abide by them. Onto another point. The UDHR deals with individual's rights as they are the ones suffering, not large entities such as governments and companies. Con states that government and the individual share the same Unalienable Rights and that will always lead to conflict. Isn't that what we're trying to avoid? Humanity is still in the process of finding a "happy medium" to which individuals can lead their lives according to how they want and not be burdened with over-control from the government. Giving these two the same rights causes much confusion and once again, supports my claim that the Unalienable Rights are too vague to be taken more seriously over the UDHR. Wilson seems to have the same views as I do when it comes to the Unalienable Rights being too vague. And to Con, he is not rejecting Jefferson's view, Wilson was simply implying that they are too vague. Also, as to the terms "Unalienable" and "Inalienable," they are the exact same thing. Inalienable is just use of proper grammar. And to Con's comparison of the UDHR to the USSR's Constitution of 1936; I do not find this to be a strong argument at all. Let alone even relevant. One cannot compare the UDHR's articles to only 10 articles of the USSR's Constitution. And, for Con's claim that if the UDHR was taken more seriously, it would result in "misery and bloodshed," is outright foolish. Really, I saw not much to refute here. Many of Con's arguments were irrelevant and extremely misguided. I really had a hard time coming up with my rebuttal as I saw really nothing to refute. And, if there was something to refute, it was fairly easy to point out flaws in Con's thinking.