Need Help in a Debate (Brainstorming)

@Desmond Any idea ?

Perhaps try contacting whoever is the debate organizer and get some insight from them? Especially the source of that quote.

From what I read it just seems like some random statement.

No response from the organizer . What I think is that they want us to argue that Meritocracy is bad .

Take for example , traditional aristocracy where people ruled over kingdoms by their status of birth(being born to a king) than their ability (they haven't earned it) .

I came across this article where he is speaking about an author who claimed in his book that merit is bad . The author says that , people who are naturally gifted something(being born to king) are ought to be humble than over people who have earned something , so they think that its a god gift and be humble towards everyone .

In modern world , meritocracy is mostly about education , People who go to Top Universities are already at an advantage of having money , and they are respected for their degrees (which isn't really a merit , cause poor people cant afford expensive colleges) ....

Could you check the above article and give some cool points about why meritocracy is bad ..

Too little time to think, If I didnt have office today, I would have helped you out (My opinions only)

saintmode said:

No response from the organizer . What I think is that they want us to argue that Meritocracy is bad .

Take for example , traditional aristocracy where people ruled over kingdoms by their status of birth(being born to a king) than their ability (they haven't earned it) .

I came across this article where he is speaking about an author who claimed in his book that merit is bad . The author says that , people who are naturally gifted something(being born to king) are ought to be humble than over people who have earned something , so they think that its a god gift and be humble towards everyone .

In modern world , meritocracy is mostly about education , People who go to Top Universities are already at an advantage of having money , and they are respected for their degrees (which isn't really a merit , cause poor people cant afford expensive colleges) ....

Could you check the above article and give some cool points about why meritocracy is bad ..

Click to expand...

Watch Super 30

Ummm... I don't have time .

My notes so far....Any additional points would be helpful

There is a wide belief that merit rather than luck determines a person's success . It isn't true.
Talent and Capacity for determined effort depends on one's genetic endowments and upbringing .

There are many programmers who are nearly or much more skilfull than what Bill Gates is ....
Many have merit , but only few succeed .

If meritocracy = “do awesome in school, go to fancy college, get prestige job”, then rich kids are way ahead of the game , they go to the
best coaching centres , have better living conditions and whereas
there is no option for people who aren’t in situations where their childhood isn’t carefully curated by their parents or guardians.

The biggest downside of meritocracy is that it is an equality of outcomes and not equality of opportunities.
Simply put they win because they have won before
And meritocrats often feel that it is their vast intelligence , hardwork and impressive academic scores that got them their position,
when in reality if without a fortunate family , they wouldn't have even graduated in the first place .
Students from expensive and top Universities are often from families of top 1% of the population.

Students buy entrance into a network of classmates whose careers may intersect profitably with theirs... It is not unmeritocratic
when we learn that someone got a job interview through a college roomate or an alumni connection .

Meritocratic jobs require elite adults to work with grinding intensity,
ruthlessly exploiting their educations in order to extract a return from these investments.
They also do it in order to maintain their status and to pass it on to their children .
Which isnt good for an individuals happiness .

Your words sound like "Money can Buy Everything in Life...."

No I was trying to make a point that , we're living in a meritocratic society . Which is bad because , if we are valuing a person by his skill or education , then it's wrong because we all can't go expensive universities and the students who are in expensive universities think that they are rewarded for their hardwork and lookdown on other people ... when in actual reality they are skillfull as they were already at an advantage before(being rich) .

So its basically like , a harward guy comes to you and says @Zangetsu which college are you and you say i went to IIT Delhi in UG and some shit college in USA for Masters , then he will try to see himself as a dominant one .... thats bad for him also because he would try to keep his identity through out his life which will hurt his happiness ..

^^So, it will be like discriminating the Education background.. similar to showing the Lamborghini to a Maruti 800 Guy.

Exactly ...

If lamborghini is gifted by his dad he would be humble towards maruthi guy , whereas if hes owned the lamborghini he take pride in it and be like bro you have maruti you suck ...

@Desmond seriously waiting for your inputs!

Another point against meritocracy is that in the actual job market their marks don't really count for much. Employers look for job knowledge and skills learner in academics dont always translate to job skills.

Merit means having the ability to do something , having skillset ......... need not be academic perspective
So by that definition i cant use this point right ?

Desmond said:

Another point against meritocracy is that in the actual job market their marks don't really count for much. Employers look for job knowledge and skills learner in academics dont always translate to job skills.

Click to expand...

That's True. No body talks about whether you score Gold medal or 99% in SSC/HSC when you enter Corporates world.

saintmode said:

Merit means having the ability to do something , having skillset ......... need not be academic perspective
So by that definition i cant use this point right ?

Click to expand...

Perhaps. I mean it's a different standard of merit.

In other words corporate merit might be more important than academic merit.

Read this for some insight: Peter principle - Wikipedia

afaik, all these iitians are only considered due there stress management ability and not due to the knowledge they have, as there selection is not based on knowledge but how much pressure they can absorb before exploding.

similar way, a person with more knowledge but less $$ is considered weak but one full with bags of money from illegal sources is considered to be the top in the society.

Whats the us of a "Harvard" Degree when a person is not able to do pretty much basic tasks in life? That degree is just for name sake and does not guarantee a successfull life afterwards. I would like to employ a guy who has good experience+ knowledge + skill to do that Than to hire a guy who has Many fancy degrees but cannot even do some basic shi*.

saintmode said:

There are many programmers who are nearly or much more skilfull than what Bill Gates is ....
Many have merit , but only few succeed

Click to expand...

Those who do not exceed are basically due to lack of guidance or due to lack of ability to strike opportunity. Or in other words, they are not hardworking.

Yes luck factor does count in when deciding to which family you are being born, if born into a rich family, then offcourse the probability of a smooth future is high, but if born in a poor one then the probability decreases.

But what if that rich kid is spoiled as hell, does party every friday and spends excessive amount on luxury? Then that wealth will not stay for long unless he puts in equal hardwork. But if that poor kids puts hardwork in right direction without getting distracted, then he will succeed, no matter what the circumstance is.

So.... how did the debate go??

It went nice . but the debate judge was pretty dumb , she is an university professor . When there was a rebuttal round instead of raising a counter argument point , she was like , "explain to me how is it relevant to today's world" .

It was a 170 participants debate , so we were distributed into 10 break out room where each room had a judge before filtering out to semi finals . But my bad , however good I was , a girl's topic whose statements were easily understood by the judge ended up getting filtered to next round .

@Desmond You know any online sites to do debates sir?

Nope. I haven't really participated in formal debates like this, so don't know much.

saintmode said:

It went nice . but the debate judge was pretty dumb , she is an university professor . When there was a rebuttal round instead of raising a counter argument point , she was like , "explain to me how is it relevant to today's world" .

It was a 170 participants debate , so we were distributed into 10 break out room where each room had a judge before filtering out to semi finals . But my bad , however good I was , a girl's topic whose statements were easily understood by the judge ended up getting filtered to next round .

@Desmond You know any online sites to do debates sir?

Click to expand...

I'll tell you what, never ever raise points that may be perceived as "extreme" even if its true, in college level/school level debates.

The moderator determines the flow in these types of debates, and essentially any point that he/she may be ignorant about/dislikes etc. are gonna net you negatives. (IMO). There are absolutely amazing moderators but they are a rarity.

I'll tell you from experience the "Group Discussions" conducted by colleges to prepare for placements (atleast in IT sector) are absolute horseshit and has zero real world benefit.