How to Analyse Rights in a

Debate

Mai Mokhsein
Asian Debate Institute 2013
South Korea
 Overview
Common Mistakes in Rights Analysis
How to Approach a Rights Debate
Angles of Rights Analysis
o Genesis of Rights
o Reshaping of Rights
o Reciprocal Duty of Rights
o Equality of Rights
o Accessibility of Rights

General Analysis of Rights that You Must

Attempt
 Common Mistakes
1. Not discussing the actual right itself
- Most rights analysis are not focused on the right itself
but on circumstances surrounding it within the motion.
- The point of a rights analysis is that rights are an
entitlement to certain individuals or groups that are
independent of any set of circumstances. Focusing on
things surrounding it does nothing to establish that the
right exists.
- Eg. THW legalise assisted suicide
Instead of establishing that individuals have the right to
end their life, speakers will typically focus on the pain
and suffering that necessitates the choice of suicide
within the rights analysis. This makes your rights
analysis circumstantial instead of having a principled
 Common Mistakes
2. Being too broad and vague
- The terms that typically accompany rights analysis are
cool sound bytes with very little specific analysis.
- Eg. Equality delivers the justice that everyone
deserves. A society that doesnt appreciate the right to
life does not appreciate rights altogether. The right to
self-actualise is integral to individual fulfillment.
Breaching the right to bodily autonomy is a sacrifice of
bodily integrity.
- Despite how important it is to outline rights in a
debate, it is extremely unpersuasive and brings little
impact to the debate as opposed to more practical
arguments. And being too broad within your analysis is
the final nail in your coffin.
 Common Mistakes
3. Not including the consequential harms/benefits
of breaching/fulfilling certain rights
- A harm is not necessarily a harm until you
explain HOW it is a harm.
- Whilst the adj may still accept your premise in
the debate, he/she may not accept that your
premise has much impact in the debate.
- A breach of the right to privacy, sacrifice of
freedom of choice, a limit on the freedom of
movement etc are not necessarily harmful until
its consequential harms are elaborated.
 Common Mistakes
4. Arguing rights on absolute terms
- Even when speakers dont intend to defend
absolute rights, their actual analysis
suggests that they are arguing on absolute
terms (ie. that the right MUST be fulfilled,
MUST be defended at all costs because
sacrificing it is so harmful, etc.)
- It is intuitive that no rights are absolute and
the state has the prerogative to create limits.
Thus, arguing on absolute terms discredits
you as the unreasonable party of the debate.
 Approaching a Rights Debate
Analysis is not about technique. Its about experience and
developing an effective thinking framework. Until then, the best
method in churning out the right analysis is by asking yourself
the right questions.

Rights debates will be about:

1. Creating new rights
2. Limiting existing rights
3. Defending existing rights
4. Eliminating certain rights altogether

Depending on what the context of those rights are, one or more

of the "angles" of rights analysis you'll learn here will be
applicable.
 Angles of Rights Analysis

1. Genesis of rights
2. Reshaping of rights

3. Reciprocal duty of rights

4. Equality of rights

5. Accessibility of rights
 1. Genesis of Rights
This is typically the first level of substantiation in a rights
analysis.

It examines the central purpose of why a particular right

was created and/or the motivation behind why a certain
actor granted a particular right.

The conclusion of this analysis should always be either:

1. The reason why this right was formed still exists and
can only be addressed through the creation of this right.
2. Its genesis is an inherent entitlement and therefore,
confers no right on the government to retract or limit it.
Or the converse of the above.
 1. Genesis of Rights
On examining whether the purpose of why this right
was created, the analysis must include existing
alternatives under SQ in addressing the same
purpose.

Either the alternatives are sufficient and thus, these

rights need not exist OR the alternatives are
immensely insufficient and thus, requires the creation
of these rights.

The question to be asked in prep: Where did this right

come from? Why was it formed?
 1. Genesis of Rights
Eg. The right to bear arms
Purpose:
Factually - Designated during times of American Civil War
between the Confederate & the Union when civilians
have to resort to self-protection.
Principally - As a means of self-protection when the state
is unable to fend for you.

Then ask:
1. Does this purpose still exist? Or can this purpose be
addressed by alternative means?
2. Is this an inherent right or a conferred right?
 1. Genesis of Rights
Answering the questions in defence of the right:
1. Self-protection is still a necessary purpose in modern times. Police
forces are plagued with resource problems and poor time-response
management that leaves members of society vulnerable to aggressive
crimes as reliance to the police is reactive in nature. Individuals will
have suffered from physical/financial harms that may not be recoverable
in the meantime.
2. The right to bear arms is an extension of the right to security which is an
inherent right of individuals.
Answering the questions in negation of the right:
1. The purpose may still exist, but its fulfillment should not extend to
unnecessary & harmful means. The state has the obligation to provide
effective policing. Even if theyre not effective, self-protection is still
made possible by alternative methods of self-defence that does not
include bearing arms.
2. To bear arms is a conferred right by the state which values are not even
shared globally. One has a right to their autonomy and to their security
that is inherent and we do not negate that.
 2. Reshaping of Rights
This angle of analysis is applicable in all rights debates where the
government is attempting to alter the conception of existing rights
by either introducing a new right or eliminating rights altogether.
This analysis must be introduced as a concept: that rights are
defined by their context. It is made by humans, for humans. And
the society where the right applies to are the ones who define what
those rights are.
It examines:
o what kind of rights are appreciated and are given importance to
by this particular community OR
o that society would be better off to be in appreciation of this
right.
The conclusion of this analysis should be:
o that this social conception grants the government an
imperative to act upon it OR
o that this right improves upon the set of social values currently
 2. Reshaping of Rights
Common analysis that accompany the examination of this right are
usually:
o Cultural relativism analysis: That different societies have
different conception of values. Social values dictate what are
the legal obligations imposed unto them. As a legal structure is
meant to accommodate an effective societal operation, it has to
propagate a value that that particular society shares.
o Legal integrity analysis: Enforcing a conception of values that
are not validated by society will strip the system of its moral
legitimacy. It will be difficult to enforce as the system is
dependent on societal cooperation. The system will be
trivialised. The government will lose societal trust.
o Social conditioning analysis: Its not about what the society
currently believes, but what will be a better set of values for the
society to endorse. The role of the state is to align itself with a
more broadly beneficial definition of rights that minimises
harms to any particular subsets of society.
 2. Reshaping of Rights
This analysis is normally used in three instances:
o Defending a minority right or a community right versus the wants
of the majority.
o Defending the conservative or controversial values of any
particular society that may not be aligned with intuitive human
rights.
o Propagating a more liberal set of values upon a resisting society.
Eg. THW ban the hijab
The appreciation of the right to wear a hijab in Muslim
communities: The protection of a females modesty is integral to the
Muslim communitys societal interaction. The mandate of divine
authorities has conceived a societal perception that females who do
not do this are disgraced or impure or shamed. With no effective
means to address this conception, it would cripple Muslim women
who would be unable to interact with members of society without
their hijab. For those who do, they will be judged harshly by their
community and treated accordingly.
 3. Reciprocal Duty of Rights
The basis of this analysis is that rights operate on a
reciprocal promise that has to be respected by both
parties. If one party breaches his promise, his rights
deserve to be taken away.

The conceptual premise you operate on is the social

contract analysis: Individuals surrender their
autonomies to be decided and governed by the state
in return for their protection. The state then draws a
mutually beneficial framework of rights for all
members in society. If an individual within society
does not respect the framework of rights and
contravenes the rights of others, the state governs by
removing the rights of the wrongdoers.
 3. Reciprocal Duty of Rights
This angle of analysis is used in three instances:
o When individuals have crossed a certain line of
acceptable behaviour within society and the state
proposes an action against their rights
o When certain individuals, by nature, do not deserve those
amount of rights as they dont have any positive
contribution towards that mutually beneficial framework of
rights
o (To a lesser extent) When individuals have fulfilled a
certain duty, far and beyond, and deserves a larger
entitlement of rights.
It examines what are the duties that individuals within society
owe to each other or owe to the state and whether they have
fulfilled those duties.
The conclusion of this analysis is that it is justified to
retract/grant these rights on the basis of a reciprocal duty.
 3. Reciprocal Duty of Rights
Eg. THW punish passengers of those convicted of drunk-driving
- Being complicit to a crime that he/she couldve actively
prevented is as good as committing the crime themselves.
This is then also tantamount to a breach of the rights of others
that the drunk driver is liable for. How is the wrongdoing an
unacceptable behaviour in society, the extent of the breach.
Therefore, state is justified in revoking their rights.

Eg. Animal rights debate. Unemployment debate. Criminal rights

debate.
- They do not have a positive contribution in their relationship
with the state or with the society. Any rights conferred to
them is only a matter of privilege and can only be conferred if
we can afford it. When these privileges are accompanied by
harms, we can no longer afford the granting of these rights.
 4. Equality of Rights
This analysis recognises two concepts:
o Rights as a mutually beneficial framework: That rights are not
just about protecting the weak and vulnerable and neutering
the powerful. Rights are also about protecting those holding on
to power. As power is easily changeable, rights are about
helping everyone within the framework. If you have rights that
are only targeted towards certain subsets or arbitrarily
distinguish between people, you threaten that framework.

o Rights do not victimise people by factors that they cannot

control: That you should not benefit through a random birth
lottery and thus, rights should not correspond with your socio-
economic status in life. Rights must operate in a blind fashion
because you have no justifications for then taking away the
rights from those beneath you, as that couldve easily been you
in that position of oppression.
 4. Equality of Rights
This analysis examines that the nature of rights discussed must fall
within a broadly beneficial category and not drawn arbitrarily.

The conclusion of this analysis should be that all of society stands

to benefit from this conferral of rights, not just the subset of society
were granting this right to.

In debates about distinguishing subsets of society who require a

different set of rights; do not approach them as different categories
of people. Either:
o Approach it as a basic human commonality that requires
protection in all subsets of society. Its just that they require that
protection in a different fashion. OR
o Approach it as a recognition of their uniqueness from each
other and how it is worth protecting too. But we are not just
protecting a particular uniqueness, all uniqueness would be
 4. Equality of Rights
Eg. THW ban the hijab
Its not about granting extra rights, its about protecting a religious
freedom that is accessed by all religious communities. We similarly
allow the Sikhs to wear the turban, the Christians to wear their
crosses, the orthodox Jews to don their thick beards. Its a
protection of the same freedom for all sects in society.

Eg. THW allow gay couples to adopt children

It doesnt just stand to benefit the subset of homosexual couples, but
everyone else in society. Orphaned children or those given up to
Child Services stand to benefit from loving families. Respecting
diverse values of different groups is also a general benefit for a
holistic society. Tolerance leads to integration.
 5. Accessibility of Rights
Accessibility of rights are as important as their actual existence.
The inability to practise what is accorded to you is negating the
protection that the right is meant to accord.

This analysis is used when certain subsets are barred from

accessing their rights even though the government recognises that
the right exists (eg. the poor being unable to access their right to
education). It even extends to cases when rights are not people-
friendly (ie. society is not politically-conscious of their own rights).

It examines that since the right is established, does the

government have a duty to ensure that it is accessible to all.

The conclusion of this analysis is that rights have to be designed to

be accessible by nature, not by means.
 Typical Analysis of Rights
Balance of rights

A gateway right must be preserved at all costs

Rights must be defined by those who practice it

Rights as an entitlement

Consequential impact of fulfilling/breaching rights