The Instigator
WilliamsP
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

All humans are created equal.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,212 times Debate No: 51675
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

WilliamsP

Pro

I firmly believe in egalitarianism and liberty. I wish to debate somebody who believes that some people are inferior or superior. I will debate the opposite.
Wylted

Con

I think the odds of all people being born equal are ridiculously absurd. When America's founders say "all men are created equal", they weren't being literal.
Debate Round No. 1
WilliamsP

Pro

Main Argument
The Declaration of Independence begins with the phrase, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." All humans are born with the capacity to become great. Therefore, all of humanity is created equal. Now, when it comes to what you achieve in your life, you may be superior or inferior in some respects, but as a person - a human, a member of humankind - you are equal to all others. Even though I am an Atheist, the metaphor, "created equal" is to my liking. There is no Creator, God, Lord, or Father, but truly all of us are equal. If all men weren't equal, then why would Abraham Lincoln issue the Emancipation Proclamation, saying,"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free." I cannot think of any argument that supports the notion that all men weren't created equal. I look forward to my opponent's argument.
Wylted

Con

My opponent seems to be arguing that America's founding forefathers believed all men were created equal, so they are. I would like to point out to my opponent, that just because some famous people in the past believe something to be true. It doesn't make it true.

I have no ideal what I'm arguing against here. What form of egalitarianism do you support, pro?

There are several different forms.

My opponent concedes that people are born with certain genetic advantages. I agree with this.

Then he states that when you factor in all genetic advantages and disadvantages it all equals out.

This goes against Occam's Razor. The chances of genetic advantages and disadvantages being exactly equal across the board, seems absurd. I urge pro to argue some form of egalitarianism, so that I know what I'm arguing against in the final round.
Debate Round No. 2
WilliamsP

Pro

I believe that all of us are equal in our humanity. We may be inferior or superior in some respects, such as the ability to do something. However, we all have capactiy for greatness. We all are part of the human race and it is idiotic to think of one as inferior or inferior. Even if inferiority or superiority were true matters, one would not acknowledge that. One would treat his or her fellow human with respect and love. Everybody deserves an economic opportunity and social justice. That is the kind of egalitarianism I support. That is the movement I advocate.
Wylted

Con

The burden of proof was on my opponent to show all humans are created equal. He has failed to do so.

Pro has pretty much conceded. His arguments which are completely unsupported by any premises can be summed up like this.

1. Some of America's founding forefathers, and Abe Lincoln think all men were created equal so they are.

One problem with this is that people like Thomas Jefferson thought this was good public policy, not that it was in fact true. Obviously a brain dead child doesn't have the same chances at life and capacity for greatness as the child that was born not being brain dead.

2. All people should be treated as if they were born equal.

This actually has nothing to do with the resolution but.....

Treating a baby born with collapsed lung as equal to one born with a fully functioning lung could kill the child. Treating people as if the were all created equal has deadly ramifications.

Conclusion- my opponent had the BOP here and he has failed to fulfill it. Egalitarianism is such an abstract concept, that I had no ideal what I was arguing against.

Did my opponent mean, outcome based or opportunity based egalitarianism?

Did my opponent mean, that individuals be treated as equals or that groups be treated as equals?

Egalitarian philosophy is really hard to pin down. Here is things that opportunity and outcome based egalitarians disagree on.

1. Affirmative action- outcome based=pro opportunity based=con
2. Welfare- outcome based=pro opportunity based=con
3. Voter registration- outcome based=con opportunity based=pro

Outcome and opportunity based is just one way to divide egalitarians. There are numerous other ways to divide and subdivide them. Pro never made it clear, what he was arguing for and didn't meet his BOP.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Mike_10-4 3 years ago
Mike_10-4
The answer to this debate is in the following book: "Scientific Proof of Our Unalienable Rights," by Takac:

http://www.bookdaily.com...

In general, all life has the same creation process relative to that species. For us humans, the process is the sperm fertilizing the egg. After creation, no two life forms are "equal."

Equality is an abstract concept not yet found in the physical domain.
Posted by Conservative101 3 years ago
Conservative101
Define "equal". People have different heights, weights, genders, interests, occupations, etc. So in that sense, they are not equal.
Posted by macaztec 3 years ago
macaztec
Not only did Pro not meet the BoP, neither did he offer an argument. To say, "it is idiotic to think of one as inferior or inferior" and offer no argument is the most damning thing for me. If it is so clear then it should have been easy to offer an argument. Pro wasted Con's time.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Fair enough. Work on your argument. I disagree that everyone should be treated with love and respect. If somebody kicks me in the nuts, they deserve to be treated to an a$$ whipping, not with love and respect.
Posted by WilliamsP 3 years ago
WilliamsP
I acknowledge that my argument was weak. I apologize. However, I believe my stance is the right stance.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
You don't have to be an egalitarian to think everyone deserves to be treated with love and respect. If you wanted to argue that, than you should have issued that challenge.

As a matter of fact you can also be egalitarian and think that, not all people should be treated with love and respect.
Posted by WilliamsP 3 years ago
WilliamsP
"Treating a baby born with collapsed lung as equal to one born with a fully functioning lung could kill the child. Treating people as if the were all created equal has deadly ramifications."

Are you serious? "Treating equal" does not mean abandoning the child and leaving it do die. By "treating equal", I meant treating everyone with love and respect, not treating any as inferior or superior, but still prepared to aid those in need. That is what I was arguing for.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
How so? If I've misinterpreted you it's likely voters will also. It's your responsibility to make yourself clear.

I'm actually really angry at you right now for not arguing a single point.
Posted by WilliamsP 3 years ago
WilliamsP
My opponent has misinterpreted me. That is unfortunate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
WilliamsPWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: People have equal legal and social status in regards to the function of state and society in egalitarian systems, but no individual could possibly be identical to all others by birth, and thus are not created equal.
Vote Placed by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
WilliamsPWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's points were not valid because they were used to commit a straw man fallacy. He has clearly not met his burden of proof. His post in round 3 was simply an opinion with nothing to back it up. I am reluctant to give sources to Pro, because The Declaration of Independence did not support his case nor was it valid, but I'll give it to him anyway as a point for trying.
Vote Placed by WilliamofOckham 3 years ago
WilliamofOckham
WilliamsPWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case was full of strawmans and red herrings. One of the problems that arose was the vagueness of the meaning of "equal". Pro should have defined that in the first round when he made the debate. Con manipulated this to his advantage, showing the irrelevance and ambiguity of pro's arguments. A strong con win.
Vote Placed by jamccartney 3 years ago
jamccartney
WilliamsPWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was very short and did not have very much arguing. Whether or not people are created equal is actually very relative. One could take the moral side and say that they are. However, one could also argue that people have certain disorders, which makes them unequal to other people. Pro was arguing the moral standpoint, while Con was arguing the factual standpoint. Therefore, this debate is hard to vote on. I want to give Con the convincing arguments vote because he wrote more, but Pro did not need to write more because he was arguing morals instead of facts. Because of this, they are tied.