The Instigator
Colelogicaly
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
yay842
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Equal ism

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...
yay842
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 705 times Debate No: 48709
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

Colelogicaly

Con

There is never going to be equal ism no matter what anybody does. No matter how hard the president or anybody tries, people are always going to complain.
yay842

Pro

There is never going to be equal ism no matter what anybody does. No matter how hard the president or anybody tries, people are always going to complain.

Never say never. :)
And then there are people who don't complain...

Here's the definition of equal ism:
Equal: as great as; the same as
ism: a suffix appearing in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form action nouns from verbs ( baptism ); on this model, used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com...=/
http://dictionary.reference.com...

There is an equal and there is an ism. For example, this debate you see here; you can see the words equal and ism; therefore, there is an equal ism. And look, we're not even trying that hard.

Well, that's all I got for now, back to you!
Debate Round No. 1
Colelogicaly

Con

You can say the definition all you want, it's not going to prove that everybody is equal. Everybody is different, therefor, everybody is going to have an opinion and/or going to want something other than someone else. So if something went the right way for one person, then another person that doesn't think that will try to get it to go back to that persons way which would make that person feel unequal. (Proving my point)
yay842

Pro

You can say the definition all you want
I can.

it's not going to prove that everybody is equal
Wait for it...

You can say the definition all you want, it's not going to prove that everybody is equal.
Well, I was under the influence that this debate was about the argument that you stated in R1 where you said, "There is never going to be equal ism no matter what anybody does."
But since you want to toss this argument into this debate, I guess I'll have to refute this one too.

Everybody is different, therefor, everybody is going to have an opinion and/or going to want something other than someone else.
Yes, but everyone is also the same as we are all Homo sapiens, yet we have different opinions and want something other than someone else. It also holds true that we are all the same, but some of us have similar opinions and wants the same things as each other. But to fully counterclaim your statement, I will show you that although many people are different, some have the same opinions.
http://www.debate.org...
Ignoring trolls and anonymity, we have a diverse set of people here of different races; there is also many people who have the same opinions on things based on their ideologies.

So if something went the right way for one person, then another person that doesn't think that will try to get it to go back to that persons way which would make that person feel unequal. (Proving my point)
Well, I disagree. I, for example, when I am in disagreement with somebody, I don't have the need to prove that person and convince that person that my opinion holds true and their opinion is false. That does not necessarily prove that I am superior and that person is inferior to me.

So now, Con has added a new argument that I must disprove, that not everyone is equal. Well, here goes.

Equality means: as great as; as same as
Well, I already proved that actually. Con did not specify in what trait or quality in which everybody is not equal as or as same as. We are all equal in being Homo sapiens. If you have no idea what that is:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
We are, technically, equal in which we are as same as each other in being human; therefore, we are equal. Here is a list of things that we are as great as / as same as each other:
1. being humans
2. having a brain
3. having a heart
4. having blood
5. having a skeletal system
6. having a muscular system
7. having knowledge
8. having vision
9. having hearing
10. having taste
11. having communication
This is but a short list of how everyone is equal to each other. This may exclude those with impairments of some sorts; nevertheless, this list consists of 99.99% of our population that we are and are equal to each other in these aspects. So yes, we are equal to each other in some way, other ways than not. Maybe not everyone in the entirety of the Earth population do not exactly have all these characteristics, but at least the fact that we are as same as each other in being humans, for that is already a trait that we all possess and are equal to each other in that respect.

LEGENDARY!!
So, yes, I have proven that we are all equal in an aspect that we are the same species as each other. Con simply stated that not everybody is equal, although did not specify on what since everybody can be equal in some traits rather than others.

I pass the Sharing Stick of Speaking back to Con.
*gives Con the Sharing Stick of Speaking*
Debate Round No. 2
Colelogicaly

Con

Well here it is in a nutshell..... (It's in the comments part of it). So if you go to comments you shall read what my other argument says. I'm pretty sure I just wasn't specific enough for the argument you're trying to make.
yay842

Pro

Well, I challenge what you said in the comments.

True, you got me there. I guess I should have been more specific.
1. I don't got you for I don't know where you are and cannot get you.
2. Yes, you should have been more specific.

... but we are not equal as in the way I mean to debate.
Well, that was not specified.

In the USA, for example, we strive to make everyone equal to another.
I'm assuming by "we" you mean all Americans. Not everyone wants to make everyone equal to another. Rich people, for example, want the poor people to stay in the dirt because they don't want other rich noobs stepping on their turf.

My argument is that, that is never going to happen because of our brains being different.
You still didn't specify on what we are trying to be equal at.

One person is going to get what they want, then the next person is going to want something different or better because we are humans.
Just because we are humans (like I said before) does not mean we will not want different things as some of us will have similar opinions and still get the same things.

So all in all, I agree with what you say...
Vote Pro

An example of what I'm trying to say is- a homosexual person will always fight for the same rights as a heterosexual person but if a Christian feels that is unnecessary, then that Christian will fight to keep the homosexual person from getting those rights because the Christians feels that it is wrong.
Now, this is a fine example that would actually be an example to support your arguments (but not really) in which I will counter claim.
1. Not all homosexual "people" will always fight for the same rights as heterosexual "people." Homosexual people simply want to be happy with their partner.
https://www.hrc.org...
This is a list of rights that heterosexual couples have. Homosexual people don't necessarily garner these rights, depending on state laws, but that is no matter. All couples simply want the same thing: to be satisfied with the partner that they have chosen to be with. It's not about the rights, its about spending time with the ones that you love and the one that you love and care about. Homosexuals don't want to fight for equal rights as heterosexual couples. Heterosexual couples gets rights that won't have no matter much to homosexual couples. Homosexual couples just want to be happy.
2. Even if homosexual couples wants the same rights as heterosexual people such as, well all there pretty much to the benefits of married couples is taxes and money problems. This will only appeal to those who dislike the system of gay marriage, which you only pointed out from Christians that do not want gay marriage. But then again, not all homosexuals wants to be married together, some of them don't even want to be married but simply be together. That is possible and they don't have to get the rights to be married for they can just simply be together and be happy with each other. So, this is no matter to Christians even though they hate gay marriage. It is the homosexual couple's need to be married, if not at all but to simply be together.

So, there you have it. Also, to simply prove that "ism" exists, here are some words that have "ism" in it which exist because that was part of the original argument:
1. communism
2. capitalism
3. anarchism
4. liberalism
5. socialism
6. fascism
7. Presbyterianism
8. Zoroastrianism

And again, that is but a short list of "isms" that exist. Now for equality. Here is a list of stuff to show that "equal" exists as part of the original argument that Con has stated in R1 to show that "equal" exists:
1. You see this word right here: equal
2. = sign is an equal sign
3. What is 1+1? one plus one equals two.
4. Equal also exists in this sentence.

There you have it, four simple cases of that "equal" does exist as per original argument by Con.
Thank you for your time and this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Colelogicaly 2 years ago
Colelogicaly
No you didn't because even you said that 99.9 percent of all people have that stuff (kidneys, hearts and brains). Well not everybody has all that stuff even if it is 99.9 percent. There are legless people out there. There are brain shortcomings that people have out there. There are people who only have one kidney out there. Your argument is invalid.
Posted by yay842 2 years ago
yay842
Yes that is true, I did rebut and argue against your first argument which was that (as you can see there):
There is never going to be equal ism no matter what anybody does." And I just disproved that statement
Posted by Colelogicaly 2 years ago
Colelogicaly
The title can be how ever you feel like describing the debate. The first argument is what the debate is exactly about. The title is just a broad thing. Not only the beginning but I even specified later on what I meant exactly, so I'm not sure why you kept on with a pointless argument.
Posted by yay842 2 years ago
yay842
it would be more clear if you changed the title name to say that one is over the other and stated exactly what you meant by equal and ism in R1
Posted by Colelogicaly 2 years ago
Colelogicaly
Well figuring I said president, I'm guessing the president couldn't change physical features of all people so there is your "intuition" for you.
Posted by yay842 2 years ago
yay842
well he shoulda specified that in the first round, how should i have known that? intuition?
Posted by Jared2595 2 years ago
Jared2595
Yay842 I feel that your arguments as you put them were not as should have been argued. Especially your last few parts saying that the con said those would never exist. he said there would not be Equal ism. the form he meant it to be in I believe would be, as an example, some people in the United States, like the POTUS, are pushing for everyone to be equal, everyone should make the same amount, everyone should have the same amount of things. You chose to argue pointless facts and that is why i feel like you have waisted all of our time. On this subject I believe there will never be complete income equality, complete status equality, and complete racial equality. That is what i believe was meant to be argued.
Posted by Colelogicaly 2 years ago
Colelogicaly
True, you got me there. I guess I should have been more specific. We are all equal in the physical way as humans from what you said being true (which I agree is all true) but we are not equal as in the way I mean to debate. Our brains think differently from one person to the next which makes everybody have something different in their thinking. In the USA, for example, we strive to make everyone equal to another. My argument is that, that is never going to happen because of our brains being different. One person is going to get what they want, then the next person is going to want something different or better because we are humans.
So all in all, I agree with what you say about how we are equal by our physical traits (well at least 99% of the time). An example of what I'm trying to say is- a homosexual person will always fight for the same rights as a heterosexual person but if a Christian feels that is unnecessary, then that Christian will fight to keep the homosexual person from getting those rights because the Christians feels that it is wrong.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Colelogicalyyay842Tied
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: "Well here it is in a nutshell..... (It's in the comments part of it). So if you go to comments you shall read what my other argument says. I'm pretty sure I just wasn't specific enough for the argument you're trying to make." Arguments in the comment section are arguments ignored (so says a vote snob), as they are ignored they are not harming conduct (had they been designed to bypass the character limit would be another matter), but it leaves a huge gap in argument quality favoring pro by a landslide.
Vote Placed by Dakota-Hiltzman 2 years ago
Dakota-Hiltzman
Colelogicalyyay842Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro shows that there *can* be equality regardless of whether or not there currently *is* equality. Also. Con, Please post any substantive arguments in the debate itself.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
Colelogicalyyay842Tied
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 provided a detailed argument and proved Con's original claim wrong.
Vote Placed by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Colelogicalyyay842Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's rebuttals and subsequent arguments are left nearly entirely un-refuted. Con had poor grammar and awkward sentence structure.