Is equality a good objective

Your grammar makes your argument hard to read at times. You start your argument by stating: The word "equality," and what is meant when someone uses the expression is subjective and the words significance is different when used to define different objectives. This is precisely my point. Equality is a broad term used in many different ways. As such, and since neither your opening argument nor your debate's title define or limit the interpretation of the word equality, my burden in this respect should be to prove that any one interpretation of the term can be a good objective. To that task, I proposed the idea that because there is subjectivity in all cases of judgements of equality, and that because all objects can represent, at some point, no value to someone, then the intrinsic value of people is not real (To a fish living deep in the ocean, the worth of people is non existent because it doesn't know of our existence nor does it require it for survival). If intrinsic value does not exist, then all human beings (all things really) are equal in their lack of intrinsic worth. In such a scenario, equality of all things is unequivocally true. All things are objectively and intrinsically worth nothing and only other's subjective desires render value to them by attributing usefulness. Since nothing is useful to everything at all times, nothing can have intrinsic value (Only subjective "contextual value"). This establishes a fundamental, true, objective equality that exists prior to all valuation judgements. From there, reason dictates that any system based on reality must account for this fundamental fact. I believe that the argument can be made that systems of interaction generally benefit from being grounded on truth. Whatever our endeavors and desires might be, constructing a proper sense of truth is fundamental to producing systems that succeed at producing desired results. Accounting for intrinsic equality of worth in society, therefore, is fundamental to producing expected and desired results. On the Company Pay Argument you propose: "The value of each individual to society is easily demonstrated as it is every day in the real world, for example, if a individual has a skill or a degree in a specialized field, needed by a company would that company if it attempted to hire someone for a position offer the same pay to the person who hadn't the same qualifications as the individual with the degree in a specialized field or skill, we all know the answer to this question. So these individuals are both equal as humans..." Subjective valuation of worth as represented by pay is not indicative of actual worth. Companies often offer less money to people perceived to be less capable but which in fact would be perfectly suited for the job. For instance, women were generally considered lesser employees and paid less to preform tasks that physically required no more effort from a woman than they did of a man (Think any desk job ever). This did not mean that the woman was necessarily underperforming, only that she was, because of gender bias, being undervalued. Or are you implying that women could never do as good a job as men at anything? The reasons why a company might offer more money to one person over another can have to do with many different factors, including some as simple as a person asking to be paid more while the other hasn't asked. I lesser qualified person can be more convincing when being interviewed and hence get the company to offer more. A more qualified but timid candidate might sell himself short and ask for less than he deserves. So to answer your question. Would a company pay more money to more qualified candidates? Of course everyone knows the answer to that question. The answer is maybe! Also, I will now direct your attention to your own admission that "these individuals are both equal as humans". You argued in your opening statement that: "Can there ever be equality of the human condition or equality of outcome between humans, I don't believe that its possible to achieve equality by government fiat/ Legislation, as every human being is different from every other individual and some are in-capable of reaching a level of equality with their fellow human being. This doesn't mean that those who can't reach the same level of equality with others are being treated unfairly by society, it only indicates that some humans by nature and fate, have limited capabilities." Here you say equality is unattainable and that it is not unfair to treat people better or worse because they cannot be considered equal. You contradict yourself. On your Janitor/Surgeon example: I am by no means suggesting that I would let a Janitor preform surgery on me, only that the janitor's intrinsic worth is equal to that of the surgeon. For instance, though surgeons are generally thought of in higher social standing than janitors, the case could be made that maintenance of public hygiene is of the utmost importance as it relates directly to our health and requires constant care and effort whereas I have never once in my entire life required surgery. To me, janitors have been regularly and constantly invaluable throughout my life while every single surgeon in the world has been of no use to me at any time. Their capacities, though different, do not carry intrinsic worth. A janitor is not less than a surgeon when what you need is clean a toilet. They are equally worth nothing until you either need a clean bathroom or surgery. They are equal. On Fairness you say: "humans who are in position of arbitrators of "fairness," suffer the same frailties that all human being have as having particular interests and prejudices that would effect their vision of what "fairness" is." I agree. Which is why it is important to recognize the subjectivity of value judgements. Because it is reasonable for everyone to value themselves and their loved ones more than strangers, no judgement can be trusted over another. Everyone's sense of fairness is EQUALLY biased. Recognizing this equality is fundamental to the proper functioning of society and to it's continued improvement. You say: Equality, it is a method used by them to instigate unrest among America's citizens by appearing to sympathize and point out that they are victims of an unjust society. You provide no fact based argument for this. You are stating an unfounded opinion. Maybe some are, in fact, victims. There are real, visible injustices within our economic model. One would be the inheritance of wealth. You can be born rich or you can be born poor (or anywhere in the economic spectrum really). You do not earn you place in line at birth. You are stuck with whatever you get. You can be a very capable individual and be born poor. You can be useless and be born rich. One could even argue that your birth and the financial implications of it (as well as the parents you happen to get) greatly determine, or at least play a significant factor, on wether you will be a surgeon or a janitor for instance. This, because our current system gives access to better resources (such as better education) to people with money (or, in most cases concerning education, people with parents who have money). Society, as it stands in America, can indeed be thought to be unjust because of birth privileges. You say: "Equality is just another convenient tool of those who wish to disrupt America' government and cause hostility between America's citizens and were quick to put the issue out there to stir up animosity and disrupt and tear down our society." How exactly does treating everyone equally "cause hostility between America's citizens." Doesn't inequality create civil unrest? (Think slavery or Boston Tea Party 1773) If we were both hungry and we had two apples and I argued that I should be able to eat one and half of the other because I'm a surgeon and you are a janitor, would that create more or less hostility than if we both ate one apple?