People can never be regarded as equals

"this information was from 1995" True, my apologies, the rate is in fact 14.4% whereas white unemployment is 7.4% http://money.cnn.com... "This is not because of her race or gender, but more because of Mario Borghezio personality" Mario Borghezio has a history of RACIST insults, implying that he is racist atleast to some degree. We can draw this implication on constant racial remarks. http://www.alde.eu... We can infer from this that he does not treat other races as equals, he demeans them. Therefore he could never regard people as equals. Given the authority he yields we can infer that he can influence people to follow his racial stance. To further elaborate on this point Pro draws attention to the racial divide present in Italy, evident in the media's portrayal of society in Italy http://edition.cnn.com... (here is an example of an international soccer player being subjected to racial e and not being regarded/treated as the normal/average soccer player, therefore not being treated equally) http://www.reuters.com... (here we have an example of a website an anti-discrimination website in which Kyenge is called a "Congolese monkey") "even if we empower a certain group of people in today's society (African Americans), future generations will have equal opportunity. That means it is possible for these people to have equal opportunity with the rest of society in the future" Empowering a certain group which is presumably disadvantaged is just reverse racism, giving more opportunities to a particular group, at what point do we stop giving these advantaged say everyone is equal? At that point another group will claim to have been disadvantaged by the unfair policies that placed another group on a pedestal, then we will have address their needs too. Do you get what i'm trying to argue? its an endless cycle and could potentially lead to a flood gate of other claims of being disadvantaged (infact it has, homosexuals want to be regarded as equals in the sense that they want their unions to be regarded as marriage. Feminism movements, Religious movements, all religions want to be afforded the same rights including small religions) Point is there will never be equality across the board, because we as humans will always prejudge certain behaviors, cultures and people and this prohibits the possibility of equality every occurring "Middle class and lower class can participate in reducing their federal tax as well" Much like Apple the rich can avoid paying taxes by sending their money to tax havens, they can afford to send large chunks of money, where as someone in the middle class would probably need that money to furnish his/her debts, so in theory the middle class have that option available to them, but practically that is incredibly hard to do. Therefore in theory they are treated as equals, but in practice they are not equals "They are aware that this is unequal treatment and will put a stop to it as soon as possible" You just conceded that there is unequal treatment. With regards to putting a stop from it, that is all hypothetical especially considering that the source, Obama, is the same man who promised to shut down Guantanamo Bay, but didn't (false promises) http://abcnews.go.com... "The difference is, these disabled people are different from us regular people" Is Pro asserting that they are different from "us regular" people and should as such be treated differently? Does this not go against Pro's argument that people should be treated equally. The use of the word "regular" in your statement, draws a distinction between "them" and "us" if we were truly to be treated as equals would you not then have phrased your statement differently? Should we also treat left handed people in the same manner as we would disabled people. About 15% of people in the world are left handed http://dailyinfographic.com... If we afford such special treatment to disabled people to try and make them feel like equals should we not then afford the same rights and "special" treatment to left handed people "If we let criminals continuously roam our streets and don't do anything, we will end up with much violence and murder" What do you base this assumption on?, criminals where once "innocent citizens" too. "These past-time criminals are the ones at fault, for committing a crime in the first place, when they should fully understand the consequences of doing so" In an instance where one is forced by his circumstances to sell drugs or steal, should we also label his as a "villain" especially considering the fact that chances are he/she would have already been labelled as a victim given the circumstances surrounding his life (for example if he was born in a crime-ridden neighborhood, abandoned by his father and his mother has not job, generally people will think that he is a criminal just on the basis of his appearance, because we profile people based on their appearance. Furthermore we make judgements on people based on the first few minutes/seconds we see them "Many of these past-time criminals either end up starting their own business, participating in medical tests, or doing online freelance work" I disagree with the use of the word many, because it implies that a vast majority of them start businesses, or are online free lancers which is far from the truth, a vast majority of them do not get jobs, nor do they have societal backing to be able to start a business venture http://money.cnn.com...