A human society that values equality benefits more than one that values hierarchy alone.

My esteemed opponent makes some interesting points. First, I must ask him to provide some “scientific facts” to demonstrate his contention that leaders are “…For the most part, natural born.” I have yet to meet any newborns with any talents other than sleeping, eating, and going in their diapers. In fact, science is coming up with quite another answer. “This is the most basic and most often-asked question about leadership. To cut to the chase, the answer is: ‘mostly made.' The best estimates offered by research is that leadership is about one-third born and two-thirds made. The job of leading an organization, a military unit, or a nation, and doing so effectively, is fantastically complex.” http://www.psychologytoday.com...Since the qualities of a leader tend to be more learned than innate, this drastically damages the effectiveness of my opponent’s lines of reasoning. Second, my opponent seems to be a bit confused on the meaning of connotation vs. denotation. He attempts to derive a connotative meaning from a denotative one with regards to the word discrimination. de•no•ta•tion (dn-tshn)n.1. The act of denoting; indication.2. Something, such as a sign or symbol, that denotes.3. Something signified or referred to; a particular meaning of a symbol.4. The most specific or direct meaning of a word, in contrast to its figurative or associated meanings.http://www.thefreedictionary.com... con•no•ta•tion (kn-tshn)n.1. The act or process of connoting.2. a. An idea or meaning suggested by or associated with a word or thing: Hollywood holds connotations of romance and glittering success.b. The set of associations implied by a word in addition to its literal meaning.http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Since the definition of a word is its denotative meaning, and the connotative meaning is the associations implied by a word in addition to its literal meaning, there is a problem with asserting, as my opponent does: "As we can see in the first definition, the negative connotations of the word is brought forth." Thirdly, my esteemed opponent contends that “equality” in a human society can only mean that everyone is somehow compelled to be the same as everyone else, when nothing is further from the truth. "Social equality is a social state of affairs in which all people within a specific society or isolated group have the same status in a certain respect. At the very least, social equality includes equal rights under the law, such as security, voting rights, freedom of speech and assembly, and the extent of property rights. However, it also includes access to education, health care and other social securities. It also includes equal opportunities and obligations, and so involves the whole of society. http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...+(law) As we have already dealt with the flaws in leadership being “natural born,” we now see that the idea of equality being something that tries to “force” people to be something they are not, is equally faulty. When one addresses the existence of the United States of America, as only having been around for 236 years, as opposed to the great empires of old (Chinese, Egptians, Roman, etc.) one thing stands out. What took these empires centuries to accomplish, the U.S. was able to do in only a couple hundred. While many different factors played into this, egalitarian ideals – the notion that privilege is more than just a birthright; but rather something that can and should be an opportunity which can be earned by anyone, had a profound effect on how the U.S. was able to grow from 13 isolated colonies into what it is today. Finally, one must deal with the notion that there is something delusional, or utopian, about valuing, in principle, the principles of equality. It would be unrealistic in the extreme, to expect any society could possibly make everything exactly fair, or equal, but in striving to remove as many boundaries as possible so that motivated individuals within that society have every possible opportunity to succeed. People all have their own set of skills and abilities. It is up to them to discover what they are and use them to the best of their abilities, but when they are born into a society that does not afford them any opportunities; they never have a chance to even try. A slave who was born in Georgia in 1790 has little chance of upward mobility, nor would a serf born during the Dark Ages of Europe. Fortunately, most “First world” human societies are more enlightened than either of these examples. Equality need not mean to force everyone to be the same as everyone else. One celebrates the fact that human beings are an interesting mix of traits, skills, talents, and behaviors, and still value the principles of equality. People in a society should not be treated equally in the sense that they are all the same; rather, they each should be protected equally under the law, and afforded the opportunity to succeed at whatever endeavor they should choose to undertake. It does not guarantee success, it only promises to give everyone a chance. "America should be free ground -- all of it. Not divided by a line between slave state and free -- all the way, from here to the Pacific Ocean. No man has to bow. No man born to royalty. Here, we judge you by what you do, not by who your father was. Here, you can be something. Here, is the place to build a home." http://www.americanrhetoric.com...