I haven’t watched the video, so I’m only responding to what people have written in this thread.
Suppose some unpleasant person on a bus insults a visible minority passenger, “go back to your country” etc. Most people agree that it’s wrong. Why?
A: People have rights, including the right to be treated with respect, the right to be free from discrimination, and so on.
B: People have responsibilities, including the responsibility to treat others with respect, the responsibility not to discriminate, and so on.
You could say one person’s right is another’s responsibility. 
So what’s the problem?
A: The potential victim’s rights trump the potential offender’s rights.
B: The potential offender’s responsibilities trump the potential victim’s responsibilities.
According to Comrade Finsky, A leads to the collapse of civilization, but B just might save the world. Qualifiedly optimistic there. 
Why? You tell us responsibilities are “easier to arrive at by a process of debate and logical inference”.
If you have a certain outlook, then yes.
If you have a certain other outlook, exactly the opposite.
In your German example, were people not already educated about responsibility? We’ve all heard the line: “I was only following orders.” 
Decades later, they were still using that line in one form or another – essentially “my actions were correct because I had certain responsibilities” – and not any lines about rights, because they wouldn’t get anywhere claiming “my actions were correct because the victims had no rights”.
In the words of a certain UN Secretary General and Austrian president:
And you know perfectly well that that document is from the 1940’s, before most members here (or Justin, or most people who are alive today) were even born.
Oh and btw, if we’re keeping score (Mr. Venezuela), you basically Godwinned yourself. 
