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

Equality of opportunity by law shall be held to a higher degree than Equality of outcome

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Antoine_Wolfgang has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 337 times Debate No: 112557
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




In a World where governments seem to become ever so reliant on the concept of promoting Equality of Outcome through varying preferential policies such as Affirmative Action and Race or Gender quotas, I believe it is of our best interest to adhere to policies that encourage for the practice of Equality of Opportunity by Law. I personally would like to further stress the fact that we are morally obligated to combatting federally enforced preferential policies that result in the forced proportional representation of ethnic groups within a certain field of employment.

Trudeau's attempt at creating an 'equal' work force of 50% Men and 50% women serves as one of many examples of a false ideology (One with good intentions) that subjugates those qualified for certain positions to exclusion and one which will inevitably hamper the society for which we live in.

For I see no reason at all, for the prioritization of an attribute by which we have absolutely no control over. For we are created equal under the eyes of the Constitution, and be bless with equal treatment of opportunity.

Of course, Affirmative Action is just one of thousands of examples used for discussing the nature of equality and equity. I encourage whoever chooses to argue against my position within a civil debate, to propose further examples that coincide with the topic of this debate.


Since it's Pro who holds the burden of proof (BoP) in this debate, I won't bring up many things here as I am entitled to force all creativity onto Pro.

I am going to explain a simple concept that will win me this debate:

You can't measure equality of opportunity without ensuring equality of outcome.

At first it sounds like some left-wing rhetoric that I am speaking which really holds no ground but it isn't. You can't ensure that everyone is truly having equal chance to make it in this world without measuring if they, on average, have equal outcome across the races, ages, genders and whatever other methods there are of comparing people by attributes that they can't help but have (and even ones they can help having like religion and transgender transitions).

If one group is consistently doing worse than another and by all measurements appears to have equal opportunity, you then need to investigate why they are doing worse. If you can't see any signs that they have less of a rate of attempting to succeed at the said thing, you then need to force corporations and other opportunity-providers to legally meet certain quotas as clearly there is a bias they are not openly admitting to have that's holding back the chances of the said group succeeding.

Let me explain what I mean here. Just because on a surface level it would appear that a Nigerian, Indian and French foreign student in USA have equal chances of getting into university or even a Nigerian-ethic US-national and the other 2 as US nationals have equal chances, you cannot say they truly have equal opportunity if the ones who choose who gets in and who doesn't get in are silently biased and the only way of knowing if that level of ensuring equality is equality of outcome vs the portion of them in the population then, while not perfect, that's the best way you can ensure equality of opportunity.

Physical chance to make it is not the entire equation to actual equality in opportunity. Equality of opportunity in the mental bias in the mind of those hiring people as well as those choosing who gets promoted within organisations is only measurable by equality of outcome when you compare how many make it in that industry or corporation vs the portion of the population that group is and how many of them are showing indication to be trying to make it at the industry etc.

In summary, you can only measure true equality of opportunity by actual equality of outcome relative to those trying to take advantag eof siad opportunity in each sebset that you can compare bias between. This results in it being wrong to hold equality of opportunity above equality of outcome and instead correct to hold equality of outcome as the ultimate measurement of equality (including of opportunity). The left wing is actually superior to the right-wing of this world in fairness and that's something I am sick of Conservatives denying with their bullying and calling us 'snowflakes'.
Debate Round No. 1


As William F. Buckley, The Father of modern day Conservatism once said in a 1968 televised debate against Gore Vidal, "Freedom Begets Inequality" and this is true in every politically driven institution that has ever existed. Freedom and Equality share an antithetical relationship, in which as personal individual freedoms increase, our choices lead us to different spectrums of various fields (In this case, a different income bracket). If a leviathan-like big brother government were to guarantee equality of outcomes at the expense of our individual freedoms, it would inevitably result in a loss of incentive amongst a population typically bent on earning money and bettering their societal status.

One must understand that individuals hold varying morals, perspectives and contain different attributes that dictate whether or not they are inept or completely capable of taking up different positions, nobody is subject to their own race. Morally and in terms of practicality, it is more attractive for a society to functionally present its citizens with the promise of equality of opportunity by law rather than equality of outcome by law, and this can be seen in the extremity between a state run economy and one that is almost entirely dependent on the free market.

You claim that it is impossible for us to measure equality of opportunity by law without equality of outcome, to which I say is incorrect. Under the constitution of the United States for example, or any constitution of any developed nation for that matter, are clauses and amendments that guarantee the rights and opportunities of each and every one of its citizens regardless of the differing factors that you have mentioned.

You provide examples of different situations that include the need to evaluate the ethnicity of a certain group, which begets an argument between the values of individualism vs collectivism. In the case of the exchange student example provided, neither of us would agree that subjectivity within applications to universities on the bias of race, sex, age would constitute for a valid argument against my position of equality of opportunity by law, as if one is to be discriminated against due to his or her uncontrollable attribute, it goes against the conservative agenda of equality regardless of race, religion, condition, etc.

The problem with your position is that it relies completely on the idea of collectivization, and the need to reach a proportional amount of numbers based off of a certain criteria that is primarily genetic, while completely neglecting qualifications that anyone has the opportunity of achieving (In your case of hiring).

I shall give you a more accurate depiction of the two equalities for which we are discussing. Equality of opportunity completely disregards the need to take into account ones group identity, as it prioritizes ones qualifications and individual abilities, while equality of outcome primarily values groups on the basis of their group identities, seeing how groups are currently "systematically oppressed" (in the case of quotas). If 10 students were to be prepared for an exam that took place a week after they were told, in which each student were given equal study material, then regardless of how each student spends their time preparing or the examination results (Most likely nobody would obtain the exact same results) that would be an example of equality of opportunity. Equality of Outcome entails that regardless of your test result, you will achieve a grade mark set entirely by what the school demands, and in accordance to the wealth given to its citizens under purely Communist society's, it would not be a high mark.

It is not only morally acceptable to achieve a society that provides equality of opportunity by law, but is also one that proves successful. Do not claim that the left wing supports an ideology that is dominant in terms of "fairness" than Conservatives. It is not fair to prioritize ones ethnicity over ones qualifications, nor is it fair to subjugate a race to abuse for atrocities that have taken place hundreds of years ago that are out of the control of the very race you are insulting.

I would argue that it is more "fair" to determine people on the basis of their individual ability, something they have control over than to determine people on the basis of their group or ethnic identity, something they have no control over. And if you may be confused to why I am bringing race (or any uncontrollable identity) to this debate, it is merely because equality of outcome today determines the outcomes that will ensue depending on the proportion of these very identities.


You will notice that nowhere in Pro's Round 2 has Pro explained how we can objectively weigh opportunities one person has against that of another. He also admits we can't get inside the head of someone hiring and definitiviely know their bias without measuring outcome but then says we can't measure outcome to determine it (wrong).

Let's put it like this, it's true that a particular race, gender or any other group may coincidentally be a lot less determined to succeed at a particular field than another. They may even be less capable at that field than another group. If this is the reason there's such a huge disparity in outcome between them, if the reason that in the end so many more Ghettos are full of blacks or a particular group in a nation than others is they genuinely don't work hard enough or competently enough to deserve to get out we can only know that by first taking into account and first evaluating equality in outcome. After we do this, we then can think whether or not it's due to laziness or opportunity being unequal.

You can't ever know for certain that there is equality in opportunity if you don't first consider equality in outcome as the ultimate source of information to determine it and compare the equality of input to equality of outcome for what the race achieves versus how often they try to enter a career, college or really anything at all.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by RMTheSupreme 3 years ago
Don't worry, I'm a genuine left-wing liberal not just a guy experimentally defending the Con stance.

You're in for a treat, will just need a day or so to fully formulate my Round 1.
This debate has 0 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.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.