Debater defined meritocracy as IQ+Effort, but the first example is a gymnast which is purely an athletic pursuit (also exemplifies meritocracy). Using elite Ivy League schools as a point of discussion is more of a class/caste/elite debate which continues to be a dominate power play by their constituents. A tenured professor at an elite Ivy League school arguing against meritocracy? Isn't he a product of a non-meritocracy elite caste system. In my 30 years working across 4 continents with many languages, cultures, and races, meritocracy was a Darwinian natural selection of who rose up and achieved the most.

Are you tryna fight me bro cause i got street cred #gangsta

Im more gangsta than you #gangsta

i did not side with dan wanna fight bro # gangsta

wanna fight bro #gangsta

i farted but i was actualy a poot #gangsta

This is one of the best discussions I've heard in some time around the many issues that grow structurally from the philosophical ideal of meritocracy. These are all issues I've personally pondered at great length when contemplating some of the policy challenges raised (racism, income gap) and the "American system" as more or less laid out in our Constitution. I disagree with the comment that there was little substantive disagreement; even though there was considerable agreement about the nature of the problem and shortcomings of the way "meritocracy" operates, there was some clear disagreement (perhaps irreconcilable) about first principles, which has real implications for how one best builds remedies. I am still left to some degree with the "worst system except for all others" position, but watching Germany is always instructive.

Why don’t we tax capital that seems to circulate amongst the elite (hedge fund managers, derivatives, short term capital gains) and reinvest the money in early childhood development as well as K-6 grades.
Rebuild the middle class, through policy, especially in the service sector (something that cannot be so easily outsourced).
Publicize what jobs are needed and spend the money, that was initially promised after free trade agreements and globalization, to retrain people.
These three things would appear to fill the gap in the debate.

This was an exercise in sematics. There was very little substantive disagreement.

Always missing in debates about meritocracy is that effort is substantiated by time, affordability, and opportunity. You may have immense raw skills that cannot be increased because you have to work to at taco bell to make ends meet. Effort is still related to privilege.
And also, that there are late bloomers whose skills are not evident in childhood. Skill inventory to determine 'talent' at age 10 (or earlier), as suggested, may be too soon and send a child down a meritocratic path unsuited for their late-blooming revelations. It is deterministic in a bureaucratic fashion that also could be based on an inventory of only fashionable clinical ordering.

This was an exercise in sematics. There was very little substantive disagreement.

Very interesting debate. Have to say I side with Dan, but glad that Adrian mentioned Michael Young, a good friend of my father, Ray Goodman; together with my mother, Dorry Goodman (it was really her idea), the three of them founded the Consumers' Association and wrote the first edition of Which?

The yes side is silly. Should we rank iq2us debates by merit or by something else. Your choices of debate topics are drifting more and more towards the far left.

In the days when we had a substantial inheritance tax, taxation on "unearned income," and an upper tax bracket that limited (somewhat) generational wealth transfer there were some moments of "meritocracy." We may not be living "in the days of kings and queens (the existence of Bezos, Musk, Gates, etc belies that statement)," but we're cursed with tens of thousands of princes and princesses and their effect on everything from art to politics is bringing down the American Experiment.