The Instigator
eemde
Pro (for)
The Contender
NerdiestNerder
Con (against)

Everyone should have an equal and fair start in life.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
eemde has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/7/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 110 times Debate No: 116365
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

eemde

Pro

Currently there's a lot of inequality worldwide. The richest 1 percent of the world has the twice the amount of money as the poorest 50 percent. And there's said that inequality is growing(World Inequality Report). I think if people out of every country have the chance to educate themselves, the global world will have a huge advantage out of it. Because if inequality shrinks then poor countries can join more in the world trade, which offers new opportunities. With this topic I don't want to say that everyone should earn the same amount of money. But I want to say that every child should have the same start from birth on, or anyway a more equal start. And this should maintain the same rights for everyone. If everyone around the globe could have the same start, great talent could rise and it would give an opportunity to countries to invest more in other problems as climate change.

If you have a different opinion on this topic please share it.
NerdiestNerder

Con

Well, I'm glad that you brought this topic up, you've obviously done a lot of thinking.

First of all, I want to say that more or less, I agree with your main thesis. That's fair. But, the arguments you make for the thesis in my opinion are flawed. Here's why:

[A] Most of the world's children do start off equally. In almost every country, they have access to the internet, the country is capitalist, or at least has few trade or a free market. Education is nearly in every country. So my question to you, is, what more do you want? Everybody to have the exact same family life, so there are no emotional scars? That's irrational! And you can't expect everybody in the world to start with equal chances, because that's also irrational.

[B] You begin by saying that there's a lot of inequality worldwide, then prove it in terms of finances. Well, you then use that as an argument of why not all children have equal chances.. That's also irrational. See, all of these people started off with somewhat equal chances, but made different choices along the way. If you took a struggling working class man, and but a billionaire beside him, they most likely started their life in the same way. They got the same education, most likely grew up in the same country, and had the resources to learn more.

The difference is, the billionaire probably made better choices, spending his time gaining his knowledge and honing his skills. The working class man probably did not care, and used childhood as a time to play around. Technically, they are unequal, but not because of the "system", but because of themselves. And the few times when the "system" is at fault, it's usually something we can't control, like impediments or family life.

[C] "But I want to say that every child should have the same start from birth on, or anyway a more equal start. And this should maintain the same rights for everyone. If everyone around the globe could have the same start, great talent could rise and it would give an opportunity to countries to invest more in other problems as climate change."

I'm sorry if I am forfeiting my civility, but that is a disgusting statement. What you are suggesting is what Karl Marx and fascism have been talking about for years. It's irrational, does not work, and destroys EVERYTHING. Making every single child do the same thing from birth to career is disgusting, and destroys everything capitalism stands for. There is no more freedom when you no longer have a choice of what differences you have.

Another thing, sure you might make the poor get a bit richer, MAYBE, but, you're forgetting you're making the rich poorer. And the rich are doing the things that you said, AKA "climate change". Not the poor.

Finally, the statement that if everyone around the globe could have the same start, great talent could arise is rubbish. What would arrive is the destruction of independent though, the forced dream on everybody, and not "great talents" but "One talent" would arrive.

Overall, what you don't understand is that inequality is good, when it is the user's fault. Equality is the destruction of personal expression. Have you ever heard the phrase, "If everybody was like me, then the world would be boring?" That's why your idea is bad.

Sure, making people fail to keep the inequality is bad, but the inequality most of the world has is healthy. If most of the middle class actually tried to be rich, and learned how money worked, they would get rich. Vise versa with the rich.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Surgeon 1 week ago
Surgeon
Well said Con. Absolute poverty has been largely eliminated through increased Capitalism. Naturally this system leads to inequity, whilst Socialism leads to force and wealth destruction every single time. In every single natural distribution the Pareto principle of distribution holds. The choice is between: 1) increasing wealth and opportunity for everyone and live with the inequity; or 2) decreasing wealth for everyone, decreasing freedom for everybody, decreasing life chances for everybody and slightly more equality (whilst of course the Socialist Utopians in power will not suffer and live the highlife). Maybe Pro should read "Anarchy, State and Utopia" by Nozick as well as the flawed hypothesis of Rawls" "Veil of Ignorance".
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.