Different cultures can never be equal

After reading your response I think it would've been best if you've started your debate in defining "culture" because as I've indicated in my last response, there are various cultures. I am confused as to whether you are referring to ethnic cultures, or sub-cultures within our society. Nonetheless, I'll respond. In response to your beginning sentence I will continue to state that no, we do not agree. I believe all cultures are equal on the basis of humanity. Let me again state that all cultures regardless of their variance, are equal in that their variety is the result of human migration and settlement, and that our human ancestors did what they had to do to survive and out of that, they have developed a culture in relation to their geographical status whether it is religion, ethnic foods, ethnic garments they wore etc.....What binds all these cultures together as one is the human element. On the basis of "equality" one cannot judge which culture is better than the other because we cannot measure cultures based on our perspective because it will not become fact because we are a part of the outgroup of that particular culture. With that being said I'll answer the following: My opponent said: "I agree that everyone should have the same rights under the law. What do you mean by equal status and opportunities, (given that we agree on equal rights)? When you say status, do you mean money, power, and influence?" I mean that on the day a human being is born, they ought to have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. Regardless of financial status, nobody deserves to NOT have a chance at making a better life for themselves. Unfortunately in the United States people do not live in a meritocracy therefore it is incumbent upon those that wish to obtain a better life to know someone who can help them. This is symptomatic to capitalism, and unfortunately those who are able to perform tasks and have the credentials in relation to the job cannot get an opportunity due to favoritism. However, all human beings regardless of status (money, power, influence) are equal and regardless of whatever culture they belong to, ought to have a chance to realize their full potential. My opponent stated: "Say one culture is obsessed with social status. For that reason they're hard workers, and bigger risk takers. They're willing to take a risk by changing companies, or starting up a new company, or borrowing money and putting it on the stock exchange. Because they're risk takers, many of them will be poor, but their culture will end up owning and controlling more and larger companies than other cultures. We could say that culture has more money power and influence than other cultures, and therefore a higher status. Other cultures have equal opportunity to do the same, but they're not risk takers, and they're more likely to stick to one job for longer." The above really has nothing to do with culture per se and more having to do with the person's intellectual capacity to make risk assessments on valuable stocks, if we are going to use your stock broker analogy. You must remember people of the same culture do not typically conduct in groupthink so just because people of the same group perform the same job functions does not necessitate that they will think the same even if they're of the same culture. When it comes to stock brokers some may take risk and some may not. I serious think you needed to rethink your idea of culture and perhaps defining culture would've been best if you've began your debate in defining what culture is to you. Because alas your analogy has little to do with culture and more regarding risk-benefit analysis. Because you are associating people who perform the same job functions as if they are going to think the same and I repeat just because you perform the same job functions does not mean you will think the same. My opponent said: "Can't we say that there is probably something about the middle class culture that makes them wealthy compared with the impoverished class, who's culture makes them impoverished?" Again a healthy definition of culture would've been beneficial since now you are going all over the place. Being in the middle class is not necessarily a "culture" it is your financial status with respect to your assets not necessarily the group to which you belong. Being in a middle class category is fluid. by fluid I mean some people's net worth grows, some don't. What "makes people impoverished" can be a multitude of things. My opponent said: "Let's say everything is a culture as you say" But I did not say everything is a culture.... My opponent said: "Should student culture be the same stutus as teacher culture?" Again you are going all over the place and this is the result of you (the debate starter) not clearly defining culture in this debate. So the result is you going all over the place using the same argument. But to answer your question in terms of knowledge no, "student culture" is not the same as "teacher culture" because one has attained more power granted by the school than the other. by power I'm referring to the ability of one to dictate to the other information that is taught. But in terms of professionalism they are equal because the student abides by classroom rules and goes to class and learns the subject matter and the teacher, provides that subject matter to the student. Although we agree on this matter, the teacher-student relationship is fluid because although students depend on teachers, teachers depend on students. My opponent stated: "Some people are poor because they're unlucky. A lot of the poor have made bad choices, for instance they might take drugs, they try to pay off credit cards with credit cards. Why should we treat the impoverished with the same status as the wealthy rather than encourage them to be more like the wealthy? Should we treat drug culture equally with other cultures?" Making bad choices does not mean we should dehumanize the person nor should we withhold from them opportunities to allow themselves to get themselves out of debt. Some people mismanage money due to the fact that they haven't been taught to manage money. This in it of itself, is not a culture, it is a behavior that many people do. Just like someone who is addicted to gambling. It is not a culture because you are addicted to gambling, it is what it is, an addiction one that needs behavioral treatment and modification. With respect to the polar opposite, some people are wealthy for a variety of reasons. Some come into wealth through inheritance. Some come into wealth because they sold drugs. Some come into wealth by luck via scratchers or playing the lotto. Some come into wealth by playing sports, or stockbroking. Regardless of who comes into their circumstance, we should not treat one or the other different. Although this is not a religious subject, a theologist would say in the eyes of God himself, the rich and the impoverished are the same. The notion behind that is because the very basic nature of the two is the same, and that nature is humanity. With respect to my opponents analogy in the last paragraph I say this.....When an advanced culture that has reached the zenith of its achievements and notices a culture that has not acquired a better living situation it would be assumed not just by me but even by that advanced culture to morally help the other. If that advanced culture sees another culture being destructive I think it is obligatory for any culture to assist in providing knowledge and resources to help. An advanced culture helping does not necessitate assimilation it just means that, that advance culture is providing resources to assist in cultural growth.