“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.
Obviously not a true statement.
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,
Arguably a true statement within the limited area of "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" Argument is only logical within those limits.