Every human is unique.

“Actually, you were compensated because what God knows has absolutely no impact on your compensation.”-Con The problem that my opponent isn’t grasping is that we treat murder and slavery utterly differently when addressing human beings as opposed to the way we treat any other object that can be exchanged in aggregates. He’s obfuscated the issue by presenting the argument that since a person, and a society, can feel a matter has been resolved, that it has been resolved in principal. Just because society has been deceived does not address the problem presented to you. Which is; Why does society demand as compensation the return to life of the same individual person, and not demand in return a similar person? This is a fundamentally different demand than if a car was destroyed, or a bottle cap with sentimental value was stolen. In either case a similar value (or double) without consideration of sentimental value is usually acceptable, without any requirement of deception. “The family demands as compensation the following: a person that is fairly similar to the person that has been lost. This person must be similar enough that it is conceivable for the latter to have become the former. Consequently, all of society may consider the returned person to be the same as the lost one.” –Con That is not what the family is demanding. I would put it to you that ever since the dawn of man there has never been a single formal argument put forward before a judge that calls for the murderer to return to society a person that can be used as a doppelganger of the person murdered. My opponent is conflating a deception with what the society is actually demanding. They are not the same thing. “…does not invalidate my statement that "it possible for people to change in almost every way imaginable, deliberately or unconsciously, as to resemble others and be completely different from the way they were before" –Con (Emphasis mine.)I suppose I must have read too much into what you were saying. I agree then, that a person can superficially change, but since the person cannot totally and completely replicate a person, it doesn’t satisfy the actual demands of the family and society.That demand being that the murderer return precisely the same murdered victim to life. My challenge to you was to give a philosophical reason why this demand exists if the victim is not unique. This challenge has not been met. “This is the major flaw in Pro's argument: he implicitly assumes that humans can detect this essence.” -Con We assume that everyone shares this trait, and this informs the way we treat each-other. “The inverse, however, is true: if people are not unique, then it does mean that they are not predestined for anything, that they are afforded the same fundamental freedoms (negative rights), and that justice is blind.”-ConNone of that follows from the idea that every human being isn’t unique. “Correction: Jefferson Davis argued that slavery against African Americans, a distinct class of people, is fine because of the bible. He did not support enslaving Caucasians or everyone else part of the homogeneous society at the time. This is why slaves were imported from Africa and not taken out of Europe.” -Con Here is Jefferson Davis’ promotion of slavery:“They see that the slaves in their present condition in the South are comfortable and happy; they see them advancing in intelligence; they see the kindest relations existing between them and their masters; they see them provided for in age and sickness, in infancy and in disability; they see them in useful employment, restrained from the vicious indulgences to which their inferior nature inclines them; they see our penitentiaries never filled, and our poor-houses usually empty. let them turn to the other hand, and they see the same race in a state of freedom in the North; but instead of the comfort and kindness they receive at the South, instead of being happy and useful, they are, with few exceptions, miserable, degraded, filling the penitentiaries and poor-houses, objects of scorn, excluded in some places from the schools, and deprived of many other privileges and benefits which attach to the white men among whom they live. And yet, they insist that elsewhere an institution which has proved beneficial to this race shall be abolished..."[1] He’s not saying that whites, by virtue of their skin color, are better than blacks. He’s pointing out that African Americans under slavery were doing more for society than when they are freed. Here is Frederick Douglas, who was once a black slave around the period in dispute: “The slaveholders of America resort to every species of cruelty, but they can never reduce the slave to a willing obedience. The natural elasticity of the human soul repels the slightest attempt to enslave it. The black slaves of America are not wholly without that elasticity; they are men, and, being so, they do not submit readily to the yoke.” –An address Delivered in Cork, Ireland, on 14 October 1845 He like many abolitionists, appealed to the idea that we all have a human soul. Why is that so important? Because abolitionists often talked about the cruelty of the slave masters, but that begged the question, “Why should we care?” If someone wants to beat or slaughter their cattle, that’s the owners right.Empathy, or putting oneself into the experience of another, is only relevant if that “other” is sentient, and this is why the abolitionists appeal to the soul.This is a property that only humans, as far as we can tell, possess. “For example, the relationship between a man and his pet dog is not unlike the one between a master and a slave.” –ConThe issue you’re avoiding, is that some humans either are or can be made to be inferior to humans. So by your argumentation slavery isn’t immoral per se, it’s only immoral if the humans are sufficiently alike. “’every human is fundamentally unique due to its sentience’ “Actually, it can be replicated (see http://en.wikipedia.org......).” -ConImitation is not replication. “It's not slavery if it's voluntary... in this case, it would be more like indentured servitude and consequently could still be considered moral.” –ConI was pointing out than utilitarianism would demand that if an offer was sufficient that the transaction would morally need to take place. Suppose instead that the person was just kidnapped and taken into slavery and the slave-owner offered to pay the family and/or the society what he is worth. So the position could not only be seen as not anti-slavery, but actually pro-slavery under the right circumstances. However, our society is completely anti-slavery under all circumstances (voluntary slavery is not slavery.) Since I’ve shown that the position you’ve put forward demands that under certain circumstances slavery is the morally right thing to do, it doesn’t satisfy my challenge to show why slavery is immoral without admitting that humans are individually unique. TLDR: My opponent has tried to meet my challenge by showing how a family could be compensated for a murdered child by replacing the child with an imitated child. However, this didn’t satisfy my challenge because it doesn’t address why the family requires the precise revival of the same child.He also tried to explain that society views slavery as morally wrong because we are all the same kind of species, and none being sufficiently superior to another. This doesn’t satisfy my challenge because it only describes slavery as morally wrong under certain circumstances, that are both vague and arbitrary. It is further defeated by the fact that people didn’t abolish slavery during its time because they saw slaves as too similar to the slave master to be a slave, but that they appealed to the human soul. (Sentience.) 1:http://www.confederatepastpresent.org...