An example where a term is used incorrectly does not support your argument. It is obvious that all men are not created equal.
Only by defining a limited set of terms can the statement become accurate. The statement can then only be logically argued on the basis of the limiting set of terms. Comparison on the basis of any term not included in the set is not then part of the logical argument. All men are not the same height, so all men are not created equal. Exclude height from the limited set of terms, and height is no longer a disqualifier.
All men are created equal
The opening of the United States Declaration of Independence states as follows:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;[4]
“An example where a term is used incorrectly does not support your argument. It is obvious that all men are not created equal.”
We’re arguing the same side, just on what appears to be insignificant technicalities, the primary one being how language is actually used.
You stated earlier,
“Equivalent only requires that the two items are equal for the property being compared not for all properties possessed by each item. Equivalent and equal are two separate distinct terms both in mathematical and logical equations.”
On that point we agree and it seems obvious. Yet we codify, in the law of the land equality as a concept when it is “obvious that all men are not created equal.” ‘it is meant to convey an idea that the two items are equal for the property being compared’, regardless as to the validity of the comparison, which has to be judged separately.