I wish to debate anyone who likes to lose (and not on my Ignore list) on the topic of Human Rights. In my opinion it is nothing but a feel good PR document what was accepted by most countries leaders for political reasons, not necesserily because the document actually makes sense. In the debate I will argue that the document is self-contradictory, illogical, too general, it has no jurisdiction over the "universe" and it is more like a guideline than an international law. It also gives lots of so called innate rights to every individuals, when there is no such a thing in real life. It doesn't address penalties for not following the "rights", and it doesn't deal with responsibilities/obligations of the individual.(as any real lawbook actually would do) I will also criticize the fact that more powerful countries use this document to blackmail smaller ones when entering treaties or organizations, although it can be pointed out that pretty much NONE of the countries follow it to the letter, and I can find examples for most countries breaking at least one of the Rights. In short, it is bullcrap that was written after the WW2 so humankind would feel a little better about itself for the horrors what they did. So if anybody wants to learn history and logic, let's get it on and start the whipping.... Conditions: You must be able to construct a logical argument and when beaten, able to acknowledge when your opponent has a good point.