The Instigator
doopydoopdoop
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Igor
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Selection for tertiary education should be entirely standardized and merit based.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2008 Category: Education
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,055 times Debate No: 6071
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

doopydoopdoop

Pro

A standardised result should dictate admission into university. Income, associates, parental influence (Monetary and Character based) and ethinicity should not have anything to do with selection for higher levels of education.
Igor

Con

I negate: Selection for tertiary education should be entirely standardized and merit based

[Definitions]

(1) Tertiary education: third level of education; college

(2) Entirely: to the full or entire extent; without exception

(3) Merit: claim to respect and praise; academic excellence

[Topical Observations]
(1) Because of the word 'entirely' in the resolution, the negatives burden is to prove only why one group should be held without exception (I will present two, however)

[Value/Value Criterion]

Value: Justice
Value Criteria: Mobility through Societal Rankings

Justice is inherent to the resolution because it deals with admittance to a form of higher education, and in order for society to be just, it must be fair through the level of admittance afforded to applicants. Justice is giving each their due. My value of justice is upheld through the ability to increase or decrease in societal rankings. The United States prides itself on the ability to move up and down through societal rankings, unlike other forms of government like communism (which creates mass poverty.) In this debate, I will prove why my opponent is unjust and severely restricts mobility through societal rankings.

[Contentions]

(1) Affirming the resolution discriminates against athletes. Because of the 'tertiary education' (college) wording of the resolution, we are talking about division one athletes whose skill rivals that of professionals. Because of out-of-state games, practices, workouts, and other obligations entailed with athletic competition, athletes are at a disadvantage in terms of education. That is why colleges hold athletes to a lower standard of education. Because colleges hold these people to a lower standard of education, then a university must apply this mindset to athletic applicants as well, in order to be fair and just. Colleges must recognize the talent ability of these fine athletic competitors. Also, revenue from home games would increase overall academic achievement by being able to use more resources via money

(2) Affirming the resolution discriminates against the poor. Poor people generally grow up in poorer areas. They grow up in poorer areas and through poorer school districts with fewer resources than that of richer areas. Therefore, they have a less likely chance of doing as well on 'merit tests' than say someone who was born equally as smart but had a better opportunity to achieve academic excellence. Therefore, affirming the resolution would be unjust. Also, the affirmative restricts access to move throughout social rankings. In other words, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The cycle of poverty, under the affirmative, would never cease to an end.

[Rebuttal]
--> my opponent did not warrant (justify) his case. He did not give reasons for his (flawed) logic reasoning, just stated how he felt

[Value]
--> he does not present one, thus mine is the 'higher standard'

[Value Criteria]
--> he does not present one, so mine is superior and extended through to the final round

[Contentions]
(although he did not portray is reasoning in an easily read format, I will make do with what I have)

'Income'
-->this gets into my second contention (kind of) Refer back to my second contention about the poorer members of society

'associates'
--> I do not argue associates, and, because of the wording of the resolution, I only have to prove one group to be excluded from this group

'character based'
--> I do not argue this, but, in my opinion, I think they should take that into consideration. If you make bad decisions or have shown bad judgement, you would only become a detriment to the university as a whole. You would impede the learning process.

'Ethnicity'
--> Once again, I do not argue this. The negative burden is to prove only one group (however I offer two: athletes and poor people) to be withheld of exception

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Debate Round No. 1
doopydoopdoop

Pro

Societal ranking is an arbitrary term. This manor of thinking is precisely why merit based admission is essential. It is in the best interest of society that academic merit determines ones access to education rather than a widely relative perception of undeserved personal entitlement.
It is not just that access to education is dictated by ones parents wealth position in society. Wealth is not a reflection on entitlement or ability. A society that prides itself on creating discrimination amongst its people and allowing them to freely move among these discriminative categories is unjust. I will point out that your alternative to your undefined form of discriminative government is not "a mass creator of poverty". While absolutely no evidence has been put forth to support this claim, it is also blatantly incorrect. The largest communist government is the 4th largest economy in the world and is set to become the world's largest economy in early 2020

The argument that athletes should be given special admission circumstances to university is a dated and costly burden to society. While I do not deny that athletes are at a disadvantage it is incorrect to argue that they should be provided with special circumstances. It is true that individuals who work to support themselves or engage in artistic pursuits while attempting to gain admittance to tertiary education are not provided with special circumstances. Why should it be that a particular group who serve no other purpose than to entertain should be able to over take more qualified individuals simply because they choose to invest more time in an unrelated field? It is dangerous that because an individual can ran fast he was able to take the place of a more intelligent individual who achieved better on his examinations. It is abhorrent that someone who can jump high took the place of an individual who would have performed his job more efficiently. I do not deny that athletes are impressive individuals, but they are athletically impressive and should not impinge on the rights of academics when they are in entirely unrelated fields. Home games may entertain and provided limited funds but they ultimately undermine the value of educational institutions by giving access to undeserving individuals.

The argument that merit based selection discriminates against the poor is counter-intuitive and offensive. While the less fortunate members of society accept that they do tend to acquire less effective educations it is a far greater risk to their potential education that places in universities could be purchased. Irrespective of socioeconomic status individuals who perform equally on tests should be given equal access to academic resources. This is not only in the best interest of a nation, as more qualified individuals are given access to essential positions but it serves to motivate the less fortunate as they perceive there capacity to gain admittance to tertiary education as fair. Further more it is of interest to point out that socioeconomic status is not a robust determinant of IQ. Adoption studies indicate that children tend to report similar IQ's to their biological parents despite the type of environment they were raised in. Secondly the socioeconomic status of an area does not dictate the quality of education acquired in that area, rather it is the nature of the information being disseminated and the teachers ability and style that are larger contributors. Therefore the argument that poorer individual's right to education justifies non-merit based admittance is incorrect. Poorer individuals are much more likely to be negatively discriminated against due to the capacity of individuals to buy places and due to the fact that the deviation between the poor and rich on intelligence scores is more explainable by genetic variation.

My opponent has criticized my previous argument due to the fact I didn't "include" a "value". This is simply due to the fact I do not want to insult the intelligence of my audience. The value of fair access to resources, especially essential ones such as education is intrinsic and intuitive. My opponent has taken an entirely arbitrary and offensive concept to defend a cornerstone of discrimination. Lastly, my opponent has criticized my manor of argument simply because I do not subscribe to a particular style of argument which is entirely contingent on his discretion. My opponent has failed to recognize that clinging to arbitrary concepts and manors of presenting information do not justify a position
Igor

Con

Thank you, doopydoopdoop, for starting this debate. I have found it to be rather interesting

I will begin with defending my own case, then go on to attack my opponents

"It is not just that access to education is dictated by ones parents wealth position in society"

I have two responses

--> I do not argue parental wealth. I argue that somebody that is born in a poorer neighborhood with a poorer school district will have a less likely chance to succeed, thus have a disadvantage on 'merit tests'

--> My opponent is trying to say that the the smartest people in society should be rewarded with the best education. This is wrong for two reasons: (a) The cycle of poverty would never cease to an end (b) Somebody born with a similar IQ in a poorer neighborhood is automatically going to do worse on 'merit tests' versus somebody who is born with the same IQ (equally as smart), yet just because they are born in a better school district they are going to do better on 'merit tests'.

"The argument that athletes should be given special admission to university is a dated and costly burden to society"

I have two responses

--> because colleges hold athletes to a lower standard IN college, then college should hold athletes to a lower standard BEFORE college (i.e applications)

--> this practice is not 'costly'. Once again, between ticket sales, home games, and TV broadcasting grants, the standard of education is increased for the rest of the college, which, I believe, is what my opponents wants

"Adoption studies indicate that children tend to report similar IQ's to their biological parents despite the type of environment they were raised in. Secondly, the socioeconomic status of an area does not dictate the quality of education acquired in that area, rather it is the nature..."

I have two responses

--> Good (wealthy) environment = Good (wealthy) school district = better learning = more learned = does better on a 'merit test' (in case my opponent does not understand)

--> Okay, let's take two adoption kids with the same IQ at birth. Are you trying to tell me that the child who goes to a private school in the upper west side of Manhatten in New York City is going to end up with a poorer education than a child who goes to school in the slums of Bronx? Hopefully you, the voting panel, can see my opponents flawed logic reasoning

"My opponent has criticized my previous argument due to the fact that I did not include a value. This is simply due to the fact that I do not want to insult the intelligence of my audience."

--> My opponent is insulting the voting panel, for he did not think that the people who vote would understand a word like 'justice' or 'equality'. Hmm, go figure

Thank you, and it is for those reasons that I strongly urge a negation of the resolution
Debate Round No. 2
doopydoopdoop

Pro

doopydoopdoop forfeited this round.
Igor

Con

Extend all of my arguments

Because my opponent has failed to meet his burden, which is proving the resolution categorically true, he has, basically, forfeited

Also, the resolution specified that there should be no exception, and I have proved not only one but two exceptions
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
doopydoopdoopIgorTied
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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by TheRaven 8 years ago
TheRaven
doopydoopdoopIgorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07