Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

35
26
True. Wait..., what? No!!!
Debate Score:61
Arguments:70
Total Votes:66
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True. (21)
 
 Wait..., what? No!!! (16)

Debate Creator

Bettyjoe(399) pic



Equality is the perversion of the NATURAL order...

 

it is a myth that is meant to protect the weak.  Working to make everyone equal will not leave much of a chance for ANYONE to achieve greatness.

True.

Side Score: 35
VS.

Wait..., what? No!!!

Side Score: 26
2 points

yes it is. and yet equality still will reign amongst the populous as it should in any just society.

Side: True.
1 point

In earlier days politicians were selected from the aristocracy and landed gentry (old and new money) because it was expected they had the skills and intelligence to lead society and they did so honorarily (unpaid). By the same token if they were convicted for the same offence as a lower class citizen the punishment was to be more severe because of their social station they should have known better. Equality would have perverted this to follow a dangerous course and at what cost.?

Side: True.
Amarel(4987) Disputed
1 point

Those early days are gone. Aristocracy is no longer a formal institution. What has been the cost? Is it problematic?

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
DKCairns(869) Disputed
1 point

There are and always will be those who have and those who have not. The clever and the ignorant, intelligent and dumb, dependent and independent, survivor and victim, strong and weak, etc etc the list is endless.

Equality is impossible in a species where difference is the natural order

Side: True.
2 points

Equality of humanity is a concept that needs to be made specific and clear lest it be misused. Properly, it is a social concept that holds each as equal before the law with no one above the law. This ideal is difficult enough to achieve without additional meaning added to social equality. People are different. We will never be physically, intellectually, or conditionally equal to one another. These differences cannot actually be leveled. Trying to level human differences turns equality into sameness; it isn't.

Equality before the law is the only kind of equality that matters.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Harvard(659) Disputed
1 point

Due to these "intellectual, physical, and conditional" laws people should not be treated as equal. [Legally] A female sexually molesting (through sexual intercourse) a boy (10-16) should not be charged equally as male molesting a girl (10-16) based solely of the differences you named alone. I can list other cases where this equality should be limited as well.

The law is what needs to be redefined when addressing equality. Females and males are not and should not be treated as equals. Intellectually deprived individuals should not be given equal treatment as the more fortunate.

Rich people should be treated differently than the poor. Rich people and intellectually superior people are more beneficial to the economy.

Physically: a man that bench presses 500lbs hitting a teen girl should have more extreme repercussions than a guy bench pressing 60lbs, even if they both had the same intentions. The only problem is the law (due to equal treatment) will charge them both equally for assault & battery- and this should not be as they are (physically) unequal.

Side: True.
Amarel(4987) Disputed
2 points

Equality before the law is not the same as sameness before the law as each crime has a unique set of circumstances. There are conditions that alter the way the law applies to you. For example a child or a mentally handicapped person does not have the full weight of the law on them, neither do they have the same rights. Our legal distinctions concerning age and mental capacity are appropriate. The young and the mentally handicapped are not fully functioning human beings.

That being said, assault is assault regardless of your size, strength, gender, income, etc. The difference in the severity of the assault will appropriately alter the sentencing, but not the charge. Fully functioning human beings should be treated as equal before the law. Charges should be indiscriminate though sentencing must take account of context. The context must account for intent and severity, not superiority of intellect or wealth.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
1 point

.................................................................................................

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

There are many types of equality, and only two that we can reasonably hope to strive for: equality before the law and equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome (the goal of most forms of Communist philosophy) is inherently flawed and can not be realistically achieved. Equality of opportunity, on the other hand, can allow even more people to achieve great things without bringing anybody down.

And equality before the law should be pretty straight forward.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

While equality before the law is pretty straight forward, I'm not so sure that equality of opportunity is. People will always have different conditions which will limit or advance their opportunities in life. Ones ability impacts their opportunity, as does who you know and what kind of family you are born into. Is equality of opportunity even an actual possibility? Can it even be approached?

Side: True.
GenericName(3429) Clarified
2 points

I wasn't claiming that equality of opportunity is straight forward, as it isn't at all. Can absolute equality of opportunity be achieved? No. Can it be strived for and positive effects occur as a result? Certainly! Subsidizing higher education for lower income families, for example, helps equalize the education opportunities between high income and low income areas.

Side: True.
2 points

While I totally agree with the comments if Amarel and Genericname, I would add this: Bringing about equality of opportunity is not easy for two reasons. We have created a dependent class who has lived generational on welfare. We have taken the sting of poverty to the extent that it has become liveable for tens of thousands

Secondly there remains the significant spectrum of abilities that will continue to limit some of us from things from some highly skilled vocations

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
2 points

Please cite the number of people that you believe choose to remain on welfare because they find it "liveable".

Remember, these people can NOT also have a job, otherwise that would undermine your point.

And the spectrum of abilities would primarily contribute to equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. The goal is to set everyone at close to the same starting point, so that different abilities and different levels of effort lead to different outcomes.

Side: True.
daver(1771) Disputed
1 point

Visit Oakland CA, park yourself on international blvd, and just start counting for yourself.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Amarel(4987) Disputed
0 points

5.2 percent of the total population received more than half of their total family income from gov assistance in 2011. Finding a source to tell you how much more than half will likely be impossible because statistical accuracy is difficult enough without asking people how much of their income is reported for tax purposes.

To assume a person having a job undercuts the argument that they are being lazy or mooching is inaccurate. I say this because there are people who make plenty of money who receive aid and assistance. I would argue that making plenty of money and still using gov assistance is even worse than relying on gov assistance entirely

I would further argue that ability creates opportunity (I never had the opportunity to play in the NBA).

Where do you draw the line between outcome and starting point? You would have to restart with every generation as their parents had different outcomes thus providing their children with different starting points.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
daver(1771) Clarified
1 point

Man I mangled that last sentence soooooo bad.

Wish I had said this:

We are not all blessed with high abilities. To some extent our outcomes are limited by nature.

Side: True.
1 point

Limited by nature and obstacles.

obstacles = other people

I hate obstacles.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Sounds like somebody has been watching Snowpiercer lately.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!