The Instigator
debategod123
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
joshuaXlawyer
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Britain is not a meritocracy

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,958 times Debate No: 14945
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

debategod123

Pro

Having read all of the arguments stating that Britain is a meritocracy, I cannot see their point! What part of our democratic society that this country is based on is meritocracy? I welcome any views the opposition may have to this & will argue strongly against them. I hope this will be a lively, interesting debate.
joshuaXlawyer

Con

Meritocracy
-A form of social system in which power goes to those with superior intellects.
-The belief that rulers should be chosen for their superior abilities and not because of their wealth or birth.

This is true for all democracy you have to believe that the ability to speak clearly and professionally and argumentatively.
Education,and intellect is need for such, as our senators and representatives , our presidents at least need such for being in our governments to make rational decisions.
Debate Round No. 1
debategod123

Pro

I think the opposition has not read the motion correctly- we are talking about Britain being a meritocracy not any other countries. When he mentions "senators and representatives" & "presidents" he is not referring to the UK system of government which has been democratic since its formation but the USA. As I have stressed this debate is about Britain & so the argument presented to you above is not valid. As such, I ask you to support this motion.
joshuaXlawyer

Con

The European Parliament (EP) is elected by the citizens of the European Union to represent their interests. Its origins go back to the 1950s and the founding treaties, and since 1979 its members have been directly elected by the people they represent.

Elections are held every five years, and every EU citizen is entitled to vote, and to stand as a candidate, wherever they live in the EU. The latest elections were in June 2009. Parliament thus expresses the democratic will of the Union's citizens (more than 490 million people), and represents their interests in discussions with the other EU institutions. The present parliament has 736 members from all 27 EU countries.Parliament has three main roles:

Passing European laws – jointly with the Council in many policy areas. The fact that the EP is directly elected by the citizens helps guarantee the democratic legitimacy of European law.
Parliament exercises democratic supervision over the other EU institutions, and in particular the Commission. It has the power to approve or reject the nomination of commissioners, and it has the right to censure the Commission as a whole.
The power of the purse. Parliament shares with the Council authority over the EU budget and can therefore influence EU spending. At the end of the procedure, it adopts or rejects the budget in its entirety.

I only used the U.S as an example, you see parliament is very much the same as congress and the king or queen is like the president.
Debate Round No. 2
debategod123

Pro

Once again my opposition has not understood the motion. We are talking about Britain specifically not any other countries being a meritocracy. I am afraid, therefore, that this argument is again invalid. I welcome any further points from the Con view but so far I am afraid the arguments he has presented do not apply to this debate.
joshuaXlawyer

Con

My opponent still ignores the fact that the reasoning of using the U.S as an example it should be thrown out however in the beginning of the debate he never stated the preference of the debate to only Britain as the only examples seeing how I posted Brittan's whole system on round 2. The facts are as stated parliament is almost identical to congress.
Seeing this we must say congress is lead by meritocracy and is understood so, My opponent just wants to be lazy and try to say all points are thrown out just because I used an example about the U.S however I have proved the U.S and U.K system are very similar and is a valid point.
Lets look toward my definition of Meritocracy
-A form of social system in which power goes to those with superior intellects.
-The belief that rulers should be chosen for their superior abilities and not because of their wealth or birth.

All governments are ran by meritocracy in some way shape or form, if the leaders of a nation had no intelligence at all the countries would not have lasted very long.
They would not have the knowledge or experience to run a country, They would not know the best decisions for their country.
Would you elect a monkey to be president? no
Therefore we can see people will not elect an incompetent leader or at least willingly or competently, so we must conclude that we as nations of democracy look for intelligence in a leader.
Debate Round No. 3
debategod123

Pro

debategod123 forfeited this round.
joshuaXlawyer

Con

joshuaXlawyer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
debategod123

Pro

debategod123 forfeited this round.
joshuaXlawyer

Con

again another forfeit must vote con thank you
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by RoryStott 5 years ago
RoryStott
I know that technically Pro's conduct is fine, but is it so difficult to take Con's essential argument (that any democracy is necessarily a meritocracy), apply it to the UK and refute it anyhows? It seems that Pro is wasting valuable opportunities to place an argument.

It's this petty bureaucratic conduct which makes this website tedious at times. And hell, if Con was to be this petty (and please don't follow this 'advice') he could point out that the only 'Britain' with any form of government is Britain, Virginia, USA. What you mean, Pro, is the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland', also known more pithily as the UK. But to compete at that level would devalue the whole debate, and noone would achieve what they set out to.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
debategod123joshuaXlawyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit