All men are created equal. - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.









DebateIsland Referral Program: Get a Free Month of DebateIsland Diamond Premium Membership ($4.99 Value) Per Each New User That You Refer!

All men are created equal.

Debate Information

Can anyone create a basic legal precedent that creates all men equal for being nothing more than a male at birth?



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • MrDebatePerson2MrDebatePerson2 184 Pts   -   edited May 21
    Back then, the term "all men" didn't just mean men, it meant all men, women, and children. So the term all men are created equal really means all people are created equal.
  • Back then the term "all men" didn't just mean men, it meant all men, women, and children. So the term all men are created equal really means all people are created equal.
    Yes, it did mean only all men are created equal back then, this equality happens naturally by being born male, just as it can mean the same now to all men if held that way. Those who are born male are in fact all equal in basic principle as they are nothing more than the gender of their birth. The only thing this statement means to women is she by nature can prove in a court of law all men are equal when they are described as male by use of constitutional union, be it King or pauper.

    When assembling a democracy the united state created by basic principle and the one created by prejudice will not the same size, the united state which describes men as being equal as male is far greater than the size of assembly based on inferiority between gender.

    Are you saying you are incapable to create all men equal by use of legal precedent that is not built around an accusation of crime?
    Does this mean you are also incapable of creating all women equally without a criminal accusation to crime?
    PlaffelvohfenMrDebatePerson2
  • MrDebatePerson2MrDebatePerson2 184 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    Back then the term "all men" didn't just mean men, it meant all men, women, and children. So the term all men are created equal really means all people are created equal.
    Yes, it did mean only all men are created equal back then, 
    you don't know anything do you?  :D

    If you won't take it from me, take it from Melissa De Witte, a Stanford Scholar.

     " When Jefferson wrote “all men are created equal” in the preamble to the Declaration, he was not talking about individual equality. What he really meant was that the American colonists, as a people, had the same rights of self-government as other peoples, and hence could declare independence, create new governments and assume their “separate and equal station” among other nations. But after the Revolution succeeded, Americans began reading that famous phrase another way. It now became a statement of individual equality that everyone and every member of a deprived group could claim for himself or herself. With each passing generation, our notion of who that statement covers has expanded. It is that promise of equality that has always defined our constitutional creed."          

     Next time, do your studying. :D @John_C_87
    all4acttOakTownA
  • MrDebatePerson2MrDebatePerson2 184 Pts   -  
    So what Jefferson was saying was, all Americans are created equal, which also shows he was a Christian, notice the word Created.
    In fact, most of the Founding Fathers were Christians, which shows how far America have drifted away from our once God glorifying ways. But I don't want to get political.
  • Plaffelvohfen, MrDebatePerson2

    You are not clear in what you are saying here, can you create all men equal with,  or can't you create all men equal with anything other than the gender at their birth?

    MrDebatePerson2
  • @MrDebatePerson2

    Can you prove a King and a man are both equal as a basic male or not?
    If not, why not? It sounds kind of easy to do something so basic.
    MrDebatePerson2
  • MrDebatePerson2MrDebatePerson2 184 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    @MrDebatePerson2

    Can you prove a King and a man are both equal as a basic male or not?
    If not, why not? It sounds kind of easy to do something so basic.
     :D 
    I can't dumb it down much more for you, but I will try.

    A man and a king are pretty much the same, but the king holds more political power, and the man doesn't. but they are both just men.

    So politically the king and the man aren't equal, but when it comes down to the fact that they are both humans, they are equal.

    Me and you are equal, nether of us hold power over the other, because we are piers, a king and a man are not piers. speaking in political terms. @John_C_87
  • MrDebatePerson2MrDebatePerson2 184 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:

    did you sleep with your teacher or something?

    ! how dare you?! I am homeschooled so that makes my Mom my Teacher. Even if you didn't know that, that was going too far, you are . @John_C_87
  • MrDebatePerson2MrDebatePerson2 184 Pts   -  
    And that is totally irrelevant to the subject! stop trying to change the subject because you know you are wrong.
  • John_C_87 said:

    did you sleep with your teacher or something?

    ! how dare you?! I am homeschooled so that makes my Mom my Teacher. Even if you didn't know that, that was going too far, you are . @John_C_87
    That explains a lot and if you get your mind out of the gutter all it meant is you had a well-established personal relationship with your instructor. It is not like being homeschooled and having private tutors and instruction brought into the home and address your learning.

    "Separate and equal station" and all men are created equal by their creator are not verbatim and is an independent method to describe a basic principle twice. Is there any other way to describe two people one a King and one a male pauper equal to each other than to just calling them both male from the gender of birth?
    Saying you do not agree and detailing why a person might disagree with the way it is done is not debating a better way to accomplish the goal made in this debate. Focus, please, go big, or go home. Debate.
    MrDebatePerson2
  • Argument Topic: Basic principle and multi tasking.

    Are all females created equal by calling them, women?

    Are all women who are voted to sit before an official document of basic principle created equal by calling them a Presadera?

    Even though a gender-based prejudice takes place it does not negate that a non-gedner-based crime doesn't also take place.
    Are all males created equal by their creator by calling them men?

    Therefore all men who are to sit in front of basic principle and "basic" legal precedent by vote as a single united state in precedent can be Presdient of the united states?

    We have all been told no.
    We have all worked towards personal goals.
    We have all not learned that doing something well is often worthy of doing one thing right.
  • SonofasonSonofason 313 Pts   -   edited June 6
    John_C_87 said:
    Can anyone create a basic legal precedent that creates all men equal for being nothing more than a male at birth?
    It is quite a stretch of the imagination to believe that all men are created equal.  We know as a matter of fact at least so far, that every human being that has ever existed has been born.  So we can put away the crazy notion that some magical being snapped his fingers and lo and behold a man appeared out of thin air.  The fact is, that is not what the word created means anyhow.  Nothing comes about in that manner...not ever.  The definition of the word created is "to bring into existence."  Things that are brought into existence require something and or some things to cause them to be brought into existence.  The existence of human beings requires, among other things, the fertilization of an egg that results in a human zygote.  Indeed, a fertilized ovum is the creation of a living being that is separate from the individuals from which it came.  Male and female human beings create new human beings.  And with this creation, there is a potential for it to be born and live a long and healthy life.  Yet some of them have been born into slavery, while others were born as princes.  We are not all equal at conception, and we are not all born equal.  Some human beings are born with male anatomies, and others are born with female anatomies.  Some are born into rich families, and others into poor families.  Some are born healthy, and some are born sickly.  We are clearly not physically equal.

    We are typically born into communities.  Communities typically join forces and call themselves a nation.  Other communities combine and call themselves another nation.  The people of nations give power to a central government, wherein a smaller group of individuals are empowered to enforce rules, bestow privileges, and coordinate the sale and distribution of certain resources required by it's citizens.  People can grant to each other various rights.  I can let you say what every you want, despite what others might think you have a right to say.  Nations can bestow rights to the people that reside within its jurisdiction as well.  A nation can for example determine that each citizen has an equal right to not be enslaved by another human being.  If a person happens to be born in such a place, we might like to say that with regard to having a right to not be enslaved, all people that are born within the jurisdiction of such a nation are equal.  But not every born child remains in the place he was born.  Some move away, and lose their right to not be enslaved.  Some people are born in places where they do not have a right to not be enslaved, but later find refuge in a nation that does grant such rights to its citizens.  This person is not born equal to the citizens of the nation that grants such rights, but becomes equal once those rights are granted to him.  We are not created equal.  

    If we are equal it is because we treat one another as equals.  We are not born equal.  We are not created equal. It is a gift we grant to one another.


    OakTownA
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 1017 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Founding myth

    So what Jefferson was saying was, all Americans are created equal, which also shows he was a Christian, notice the word Created.
    In fact, most of the Founding Fathers were Christians, which shows how far America have drifted away from our once God glorifying ways. But I don't want to get political.
    That’s our American Founding Myth. America was not founded as a Christian nation nor was its government inspired by Christianity. Just compare the Ten Commandments to the Bill of Rights and it’s clear they contradict. 
    PlaffelvohfenOakTownA
  • SonofasonSonofason 313 Pts   -  
    So what Jefferson was saying was, all Americans are created equal, which also shows he was a Christian, notice the word Created.
    In fact, most of the Founding Fathers were Christians, which shows how far America have drifted away from our once God glorifying ways. But I don't want to get political.
    That’s our American Founding Myth. America was not founded as a Christian nation nor was its government inspired by Christianity. Just compare the Ten Commandments to the Bill of Rights and it’s clear they contradict. 
    No, the bill of rights does not contradict the Ten Commandments.
    The bill of rights does not direct you to not love god.
    The bill of rights does not direct you to commit murder.
    The bill of rights does not condone stealing.
    The bill of rights does not condone coveting your neighbors stuff.
    The bill of rights does not direct you to have false gods.
    The bill of rights does not direct you to use the Lord's name in vain.
    The bill of rights does not direct you to work on the Sabbath.
    The bill of rights does not direct you to dishonor your mother and father.
    The bill of rights does not direct you to commit adultery.
    The bill of rights does not direct you to, nor condone bearing false witness.

    Your statement is completely wrong.  There is not one contradiction.

    OakTownA
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 1017 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason

    "Thou shall have no other god before me" sounds like religious freedom only to the willfully ignorant. 
    anarchist100PlaffelvohfenOakTownA
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 819 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne. The founding fathers definetly were inspired by Christian texts and intellectual thinkers.

    This argument is made well in broad strokes by Barry Alan Shain in The Myth of American Individualism: The Protestant Origins of American Political Thought. It also receives interesting empirical support from Donald Lutz, who examined 15,000 pamphlets, articles, and books on political subjects published in the late 18th century. His study found that the Bible was cited far more often than any other book, article, or pamphlet. In fact, the Founders referenced the Bible more than all Enlightenment authors combined.[20]

    The declaration: 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.  
    Notice creator is capitalized.
  • SonofasonSonofason 313 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason

    "Thou shall have no other god before me" sounds like religious freedom only to the willfully ignorant. 
    The First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, and impeding the free exercise of religion.  God's commandment to you, that you have no other God before Him has nothing at all to do with what the governments role is in that.  You can reach for the stars, but you will never take hold of one.
    SkepticalOneOakTownA
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 1017 Pts   -   edited June 7
    His study found that the Bible was cited far more often than any other book, article, or pamphlet. In fact, the Founders referenced the Bible more than all Enlightenment authors combined.[20]

    So what? If I reference Harry Potter more than any other work, does that mean any governments I create are inspired by Harry Potter? Of course not.

    Notice creator is capitalized.

    Again - so what? 

    First, I'll point out 'their' before Creator references a conception of creator held by *other* people - meaning "Creator" wasn't speaking of a conception the author(s) held or even necessarily a deity at all. 

    Secondly, the Founders also capitalized Tyranny, Murders, and Cruelty (among many, many other words) - were these also referring to the Christian deity?! In actuality, writers of the time capitalized many words that are not capitalized today.

    As I pointed out originally, the Ten Commandments and the Constitution are incongruent. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" is quite literally the opposite of religious freedom in the First Amendment. I've not seen a defeator for this argument.

    I'm not opposed to having a formal debate on "The US was founded on Judeo-Christian principles" if you or anyone is interested. I would take Con and ask for long argument periods.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 1017 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason

    The First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, and impeding the free exercise of religion.  God's commandment to you, that you have no other God before Him has nothing at all to do with what the governments role is in that.

    Just to be clear, you're conceding the first commandment (arguably the most important Christian Commandment) isn't essential to the US government. You might as well concede the 2nd and 3rd as well - they're just as problematic. 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Argument Topic: To overlook basic principle is sometimes the means to create a wrong.

    @Sonofason
    @SkepticOne

    It is quite a stretch of the imagination to believe that all men are created equal.
    Yet, all males are in fact created equal in legal precedent for simply being witnessed as a boy at birth... and nothing more.

    The First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law respecting the establishment of religion
    It Identifies Congress as being unable by some untold or unknown way ...to write law respecting an establishment of religion that is by truth, fact, and liberty free exercise. In a much more basic principle, it states that only religions which hold a cost can in fact influence law thus giving justification to why United State Consitutional separation of church and state is advisable for the common defense politically.

    The 1st Amendment too a greater truth, fact, and liberty of justice made in writing from the preamble of America's constitution, basic principle, and legal precedent as a union of purpose. Congress as a member that is mentioned by name and it is the Executive Office only by association of basic truth after the fact. The potential is available, an executive order can be written and signed as a religious test by the democratic process of the united state formed by political alliances, in general, this against the passing of legislation made by Congress and Senate directly. This does not create an immunity to the crimes that may be associated with the legalization process as a whole simply the idea that can be capitalized on.

    The process is still left with the weight of having to prove that a crime is taking place which often means allowing crime to occur after giving only a warning sometimes for years or longer. The act taking place then after warning of the potential of wrong is possible and simply may or may not be self-evident to those looking to make a change.
  • Argument Topic: All men are created equal by their creator.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident.
    Legally or illegally, right or wrong, or they do not.

    All women are created equal by their creator.
    Legally or illegally, right or wrong, or they do not.

    The constitutional united state held by law is self-evident and inescapable.

  • MrDebatePerson2MrDebatePerson2 184 Pts   -  
    So what Jefferson was saying was, all Americans are created equal, which also shows he was a Christian, notice the word Created.
    In fact, most of the Founding Fathers were Christians, which shows how far America have drifted away from our once God glorifying ways. But I don't want to get political.
    That’s our American Founding Myth. America was not founded as a Christian nation nor was its government inspired by Christianity. Just compare the Ten Commandments to the Bill of Rights and it’s clear they contradict. 

    Then explain this, why does it say this in the Declaration of Independence: 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. If it is just a myth, then why are they talking about a creator? when is the last time you have read the declaration of independence? and are you still in grade school? Seriously, are you?@SkepticalOne
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 1017 Pts   -  
    @MrDebatePerson2

    If it is just a myth, then why are they talking about a creator? 

    Why are you assuming "creator" could only be referring to a diety... or even your specific deity? I've already addressed some aspects of this point:

    MichaelElpers: Notice creator is capitalized

    SkepticalOne: Again - so what? 

    First, I'll point out 'their' before Creator references a conception of creator held by *other* people - meaning "Creator" wasn't speaking of a conception the author(s) held or even necessarily a deity at all. 

    Secondly, the Founders also capitalized Tyranny, Murders, and Cruelty (among many, many other words) - were these also referring to the Christian deity?! In actuality, writers of the time capitalized many words that are not capitalized today.


  • MrDebatePerson2MrDebatePerson2 184 Pts   -  
    @MrDebatePerson2

    If it is just a myth, then why are they talking about a creator? 

    Why are you assuming "creator" could only be referring to a diety... or even your specific deity? I've already addressed some aspects of this point:


    It said Creator, if it isn't a "deity" then what did they mean by Creator, I think It substantiated for me to assume they meant God, after all, they were Christians. 
     
    @SkepticalOne
    Plaffelvohfen
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 1017 Pts   -  
    @MrDebatePerson2

    It said Creator, if it isn't a "deity" then what did they mean by Creator, I think It substantiated for me to assume they meant God, after all, they were Christians. 

    Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration, rejected the divinity of Jesus. Its a leap to assume he would have been referring to the Christian deity.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • MrDebatePerson2MrDebatePerson2 184 Pts   -  
    @MrDebatePerson2

    It said Creator, if it isn't a "deity" then what did they mean by Creator, I think It substantiated for me to assume they meant God, after all, they were Christians. 

    Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration, rejected the divinity of Jesus. Its a leap to assume he would have been referring to the Christian deity.


    You are not giving any evidence that he is not talking about God, and that he rejected Jesus. Where did you learn that?@SkepticalOne
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 1017 Pts   -  
    @MrDebatePerson2

    You are not giving any evidence that he is not talking about God, and that he rejected Jesus. Where did you learn that?@SkepticalOne

    Its a fairly well-known fact, but you don't have to take my word for it. Look at the Jefferson Bible [link]. Jefferson literally took a razor to the Bible and removed any references to the purported supernatural aspects of Jesus' life - no resurrection, no ascension, no miracles...no divinity.

    MrDebatePerson2Plaffelvohfen
  • MrDebatePerson2MrDebatePerson2 184 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: READ THIS.

    @MrDebatePerson2

    You are not giving any evidence that he is not talking about God, and that he rejected Jesus. Where did you learn that?@SkepticalOne

    Its a fairly well-known fact, but you don't have to take my word for it. Look at the Jefferson Bible [link]. Jefferson literally took a razor to the Bible and removed any references to the purported supernatural aspects of Jesus' life - no resurrection, no ascension, no miracles...no divinity.


    First, I didn't say ALL of the founding Father were Christians, Second, I don't know whether that is true or not, schools are now corrupt, Third, who do you think Jefferson was talking about, Fourth the very opening of the Declaration features a reference to God (emphasis added):

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. This reference to God has been cited as an example of deism, but it actually is doing something more than tying nature to God. Deism states that a Creator God made the world and gave humans the capacity to reason but left them to run on their own (it also rejects scripture as twisted and a bad source of truth and morality). He does not engage in human events, and there is (and was) debate on whether He is the source of morality. This document explicitly states that the God revealed in nature is also the giver of a moral law between peoples — a law which states that the American colonies ought to be free and independent states. This is, arguably, going farther than deism by giving God the ultimate moral authority. The Declaration of Independence only has force because it appeals to the Natural Law and the law of the one who made nature itself — making the deity the clear source of morality. So you could very easily be wrong, and remember Jefferson wasn't the only one who worked on the Declaration of Independence, he just wrote it down, he worked with Benjamin Franklin and Madison, and we know for a fact that Benjamin Franklin was a Christian, and possibly Madison. 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 1017 Pts   -  
    @MrDebatePerson2

    You're delving into areas I've already addressed (which you ignored). Also, you reject verifiable facts about Jefferson purely in an effort to salvage your position. If you're going to deny facts, you're clearly not ready for an honest conversation about this topic. I have better things to waste my time on. :-)
    Plaffelvohfen
  • MrDebatePerson2MrDebatePerson2 184 Pts   -   edited June 7
    @MrDebatePerson2

    You're delving into areas I've already addressed (which you ignored). Also, you reject verifiable facts about Jefferson purely in an effort to salvage your position. If you're going to deny facts, you're clearly not ready for an honest conversation about this topic. I have better things to waste my time on. :-)

    No, I am delving into areas I want to continue to address, this is how debating works. You don't just talk about a certain area and then never pay any attention to it again, this things are called rebuttals.  @SkepticalOne
    Plaffelvohfen
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 1017 Pts   -   edited June 7
    You don't just talk about a certain area and then never pay any attention to it again, this things are called rebuttals. 

    Ok - you first:

    'Their' before Creator references a conception of creator held by *other* people - meaning "Creator" wasn't speaking of a conception the author(s) held or even necessarily a deity at all.
    This addresses some of the arguments you're bringing up now. Consider it a 'pre-rebuttal'! XD

    PlaffelvohfenMrDebatePerson2
  • MrDebatePerson2MrDebatePerson2 184 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Funny

    No no no, a Prebuttal, I invented it! I call it, mine mine mine! hehehe call me Mrprebuttal2.
    SkepticalOne
  • MrDebatePerson2MrDebatePerson2 184 Pts   -   edited June 7

    Plaffelvohfen, You are doing it again, fallacy on everything I say, not nice. not everything I say is a fallacy.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • MrDebatePerson2MrDebatePerson2 184 Pts   -  
    Why don't we just take a break from this debate, let's do a fun debate.
  • MrDebatePerson2MrDebatePerson2 184 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Question Time.

    Why shouldn't we all be equal? not politically or any thing like that, just equal, who's to say who is better than just because? That is a question we should all ask ourselves.
  • Why shouldn't we all be equal? not politically or any thing like that, just equal, who's to say who is better than just because? That is a question we should all ask ourselves.
    All men are created equal by their creator is a basic principle that can be held by anyone to be true. The argument then raised is why would legal counsel or courts of law not hold this basic principle to be self-evidently true? The argument that Plaffelvhefn makes is discrimination is the reason not to hold the united state that all men are created equal. Here Plaffelvhen and others have been waiting for an answer to a religious test conducted by way of the executive order by an Exsecutive officer that answer is criminal perjury. Like a term of God criminal perjury may not be easily proven by all people without the ability of learning.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Why shouldn't we all be equal? not politically or any thing like that, just equal, who's to say who is better than just because? That is a question we should all ask ourselves.
    Great point...
    Equal being in the eye of the beholder, how would you hold someone equal to you... Is not giving them a new and specific name the best way by use of law to create all men equal?
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 819 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne

    "So what? If I reference Harry Potter more than any other work, does that mean any governments I create are inspired by Harry Potter? Of course not."
     
    I'd say it would mean things you create probably are influenced by it.

    But yeah I'll respond if you create a debate.
  • Argument Topic: A job half done.

    @MrDebatePerson2
    Why shouldn't we all be equal?
    All men are created equal by their created is a self-evident truth that can be held true. When it is not held true by acts of politics it does not mean it is discrimination that has taken place as a united state. This is a statement that can be preserved in any type of judicial order not just in  American Courter. The burden of perjury gives those who take warnings from basic principles sometimes the mane of something must be changed to protect the innocent. It is a legal precedent set by protective custody for witnesses and testimony in most courts. Under normal conditions.
  • Argument Topic: A question.

    "Here rests in honor and glory a soldier known but to GOD."
    Measuring the risk.
    In a statement like this who in their right mind would ever believe only that the soldier's name is not known not by GOD alone and instead is in fact also known by the mother of the soldier who was laid to rest at liberty as unknown?

  • Argument Topic: The test of this debate.

    The test of this debate is to ask what is the best right way in which all men can be created equal when connected to basic principles and law? We are not looking for excuses why not to participate that you do or not doesn't make you less of a man or woman.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch