"Human Rights" - You Keep Using That Word...

I am not above arguing with liberals, but lately, I've sort of given up hope of ever winning an argument again. How do you win an argument with someone whp proudly proclaims their ignorance upfront as a starting point? My example is the debate over "human rights.

Adequate housing for everyone is an admirable goal, but is it a "human right"? What about health care? Is that a "human right"?

When your opponenet is arguing for "human rights", who could be so crass as to oppose THAT? The UN definition starts out in reality and then spins off into science fiction:

Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings - they are not granted by any state. These universal rights are inherent to us all, regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. They range from the most fundamental - the right to life - to those that make life worth living, such as the rights to food, education, work, health, and liberty.

Interesting that they put "liberty" so far down the list!
Because you exist as human being, are you entitled to a place to live, grocercies, health care and a job "not granted by any state"? How does that work exactly?
The American view has been that folk were "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights": life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The government didn't give you life. That was provided you by your Creator. The goverjment was expected to help you protect your liberty, also granted to you by the Creator, and to protect your right to "pursue happiness".
That entailed working with your hands or your mind or both, to earn a living whereby you could purchase for yourself food, shelter, healthcare, etc.
Too many politicians are of the Beach Boy variety, specifically, "Wouldn't it be Nice". Wouldn't it be Nice if no one had to pay for their own healthcare? Wouldn't it be Nice if everyone had their own house? Wouldn't it be Nice if everyone had a guaranteed income? But, our economy doesn't work that way. One of the cornerstones of the human right of liberty, is the right to own private property. If I have to take away what you own, to pay for someone else's "right", then it isn't a right.
At this point, most liberals try to shift the argument to charitable cases, but there's a vast difference between thoise who can't work and those who simply choose not to. Besides, Americans are historically very generous to charity and would give more if they were not taxed as much. So, how do we bring liberals to a baseline reality from which we can begin to debate what policy should be? Or do we just stand there with our "Bigfoot is a libertarian" signs and talk past each other?
Like Inigo Montoya in the Princess Bride, liberals who speak of human "rights", that aren't... keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means!