Are all discussions in human history equal?

No.

Which ones aren't equal?

Yesterday I got stung by some yellow jackets that took up residence in my yard recently. It has nothing to do with the Rio Olympics

I'd say all of them, I don't think a perfect balance exists in nature (outside the conceptual realm) so no two discussions are perfectly equal (in length, gravity, participation etc).

But I have no idea what you are going for here, and even thought you might have had autocorrect substitute "discussions" for something else that had made more sense so I may be entirely missing the point you are trying to make and the meaning of equality that you are using.

Perhaps you can make your case and I can see if I was just not getting something?

Is any discussion between a mother and her daughter (anywhere on the planet, at any time in history) as valuable as any discussion between a NSA and a US president?

You should become a professional comedian. LOL

Yes. Maybe more so.
Anytime in history is still limiting, because NSA is not that old.
The NSA was founded in 1952.

I guess my first answer works then. Not even all discussions between said mother and daughter are of equal value to them.

The logical conclusion has to be that the value of a discussion can never be exactly known, because of relativity.

I think it can't be known, because we are all subjective beings that perceive things differently.

Ok, but even if you take that line of reasoning that the value is unknowable the broad range of variance in their nature makes it unlikely that all discussions in human history are of equal value.

Absolutely. Not all discussions are equal, however discussions and their link to subjectivity makes the truth difficult to know.
Assume that discussion A and B are more or less identical, but I could possibly consider A as slightly less valuable than B; the problem would be that the reason for my judgment can be seen as relevant to myself, but not to someone else.

Let's say the truth is exact standard: so the discussion between a radio show host and their guest is always less valuable than a discussion in a household, by virtue simply of the place being a house, the logic would be absurd - however if the criteria were made less dependent on the setting, and more on the actual content, the judgment is arguably less absurd.

Discussions in a church or a hospital can be more valuable than discussions in a shop, but the reverse is also true, depending on context.
I believe that the value of context isn't subjective, and so an exact standard can be ascertained.
Would you agree with that?

reminds me of the statement we used qhen I was a kid
"DO YOU WALK TO SCHOOL OR CARRY YOUR LUNCH?"

You bring up an interesting query. Looking forward to the discussion.

I struggled with my last post.
Here's a list of contexts:

Talk about movies, just after a birth delivery.
Job interview.
Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday in the UK
Discussion about house eviction, at a bar in a town in Munich
Dinner table talk
Discussion about depression at a park
CNN discussion
Discussion between teachers in a private staff room, at a secondary school
Discussion on a honeymoon
Discussion on a movie set
Forum discussion (any topic)
Twitter discussion
US administration discussion, in the aftermath of the 2015 Paris attacks
18th year birthday party discussion, between a mother and her daughter.

This whole discussion is reminiscent to me of a timeless musing by a renowned philosopher that has gotten me through many trying times... I believe it went something like,

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"

Assuming that all discussions aren't equal, do you think that context is the reason?

Tom, no offense, but when I noted your title before I saw you were its author I remarked to myself, "This'n sure sounds like Tom"

But I sure admire the concerted attempts of some participants