Will Equality Truly Prevail Today?

[ohlhauc1]

Today in my English class, we were assigned a debate topic. My argument is that equality will exist.

I was thinking that I would have to find some practical reasons because using just that "it is theoretically possible" will destroy me during the debate. Does anyone have any ideas?

Thanks
C

 

[Gale]

equality of what?

 

[Rach3]

What kind of "proof" are you looking for? Mathematical? Alcohol?

 

[Pengwuino]

Well its an english class so its probably some social justice topic.

 

[kmarinas86]

https://www.physicsforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=973524[/b]

Equality is the wrong word. Not everything should be the same, or equal. Bland would it be if everyone were the same. If all particles has the same charge. If all things went down, or if all things went up. Or if everybody had the same clothes, the same eyes, the same kind of toilet, etc.

Fairness is the correct one. The sum of everything should be fair and balanced. It means that people may still assume differences, as long as these differences are fair and balanced.

 

[heartless]

Today in my English class, we were assigned a debate topic. My argument is that equality will exist.

I was thinking that I would have to find some practical reasons because using just that "it is theoretically possible" will destroy me during the debate. Does anyone have any ideas?

Thanks
C

For what kind of equality would you like to see a proof?

 

[dduardo]

Fairness isn't always possible either. Imagine you're on an island with another person and you have enough supplies for one person to survive the next day, which is when help is supposed to arrive. Who is more entitled to the food? How can you fairly distribute the food.

Both Don't Eat Food or Share Food=> Two Dead People

One Person takes thes food => One person dead and one person alive

In a scarce world it's survival of the fittest.

Even at the atomic level there is Pauli exclusion principle which says that no two electrons, or more precisely, two fermions, can occupy the same quantum state. Once the "room" is filled you're out of luck. Fair or not fair, that's how things go.

 

[Gale]

well, if its only one day to go without food.. i think someone could just not eat...

 

[dduardo]

Gale, let's say the only food source is the other person and you have another week on the island.

The point is that in many cases there is no such thing as fair. It's more about desire and chance.

 

[Gale]

i know i know. i was joking around. for the record, you can probably go a week withouth food as long as you have water. but yeah yeah... besides the point.

fairness is a relative concept anyway. how about instead you have two people on an island, one can survive, the other can't, period, regardless of food and rescue etc. so you try to decide who dies based on fairness. person1 is a 14 year old boy, intelligent, promising future, so on. Person2 is a poor middle aged woman. seems 'fair' to let the boy live since he has much more to live for. But wait, now the woman has 6 kids who she's supporting back home, without a husband. Now it seems that 6 children's lives are more important that 1, seems 'fair' to save the woman. but of her 6 children, 3 are mentally retarded, 2 are severly physically handicapped, and the other is just average. Now do we save the 14 year old with the promising future, or the single mother of 6 children who likely will have dismal lives either way. which is more fair? its very relative...

anyway, that hardly helps the original poster. i suppose you could say, that regardless of who gets off the island, they both eventually die, so they turn out equal. equality prevails, woo!

maybe this thread should be in philosophy instead?

 

[Gokul43201]

My argument is that equality will exist.

Here's all you have to say :

--BEGIN DEBATE --

"Assertion 1 : Equality doesn't exist.

Assertion 2 : You (my opponent) win the debate.

Assertion 2 contradicts assertion 1 since it proclaims the equality of 'you' and 'the winner of the debate'. So, either assertion 2 alone is false or both assertions are false. (Assertion 1 alone can not be false)

If assertion 2 is false, I win the debate.

If assertion 1 is false, equality exists, and hence I win the debate, making assertion 2 also false. "

--END DEBATE--

Simple, no ?