merit is more valuable than wealth and resources

No amount of money, wealth or resources can help you achieve in sport, a person may have vast stretches of wealth but without merit success is not possible. 

An extract from Serena Williams speech, " Growing up I wasn’t the richest, but I had a rich family in spirit. Standing here with 19 championships is something I never thought would happen. I went on a court just with a ball and a racket and with a hope." 

The list of sporting figures could go on but it is safe to say legends like Muhammad Ali,Michael Jordan, Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo have all earned their name in the sporting world on their merit. No amount of wealth can help a person get an olympic gold or a FIFA best player of the year or an NBA MVP. 

Science and Technology: Einstein's merit in Science is unquestionable, but the very fact that matter can be converted into energy was unthinkable untill Einstein came up with it. There were a lot of universities with a lot of budget and a lot of people with weath in his field, but none are of match with him or are as popular as Einstein. Merit can earn a person a Nobel Prize, wealth and resources although can help but cannot guarentee a Nobel. PRO will make the case irrefutable by using his idol as an example next. 

Maria Salomea Skłodowska or Madam Curie some extracts of her life to make my point . She was still labouring under the illusion that she would be able to work in her chosen field in Poland, but she was denied a place at Kraków University because she was a woman.

The Curies did not have a dedicated laboratory; most of their research was carried out in a converted shed next to ESPCI. The shed, formerly a medical school dissecting room, was poorly ventilated and not even waterproof. ESPCI did not sponsor her research, but she would receive subsidies from metallurgical and mining companies and from various organizations and governments.From a tonne of pitchblende, one-tenth of a gram of radium chloride was separated in 1902. 

Engineering: Wright brothers name should come up if we are talking about engineering with no little or no formal education they were able to think of very complex engineering phenomenon such as gyroscopic precession. This makes PRO's point further person of sound education can only be called qualified but not meritorious. The merit they showed to invent an aeroplane was a quality well funded and well resourced researchers in universities across the world lacked. Here too merit is more valuable than wealth. 

CONCLUSION: PRO has effectively made his point that even if resources and monetary means are lacking , an individual soles based on his or her merit as demonstrated in examples in the field of Engineering, Science and Technology and Sports can rise up and achieve success, but without merit achievements demonstrated by individuals cited as an example by PRO are impossible. 

I accept my opponent's proposed definitions, and the BoP is on my opponent.

My opponent states that the best players in the world solely relied on their merit to accomplish their current position. But, this is completely false. He starts off by providing a source about Serena Williams. He says that she wasn't relying on her resources. Well, she attended the tennis academy of Rick Macci, a star player. One can only imagine the cost of that academy. He then provides sources about Muhammad Ali, Michael Jordan, Lionel Messi, and Cristiano Ronaldo. 

I agree with my opponent that these people have merit, yes. But the way they increase their talent is by PAYING for teachers and help. 

Let's take Ronaldo for an example. He had talent as a kid and practiced extremely hard. But, he had to pay to practice and learn. He payed a couple thousand Euros to join a team. And his early teachers did not cost very little either.

No one can get good without teachers. And good teachers don't come cheap.

My opponent is picking his sources very carefully. He suggests the greatest are made solely from merit. But, let's take a look at the overall scheme of things. The top average middle class jobs like doctors, lawyers, etc. all give you a lot of money, and the position is extremely valuable. The colleges and schoolwork needed to get their costs a lot. In order to achieve merit, you must first have money. This makes money more valuable than merit, as you cannot achieve merit without money. But, you can get money without achieving merit.

This is false. The Wright Brothers spent a long time saving up nearly 1000 dollars. That may not sound like much, but today, that money is worth nearly 20 grand.

• Wright brothers had no or little  formal education they were able to think of very complex engineering phenomenon such as gyroscopic precession.
  
• This makes PRO's point further person of sound education can only be called qualified but not meritorious.
  
• The merit they showed to invent an aeroplane was a quality well funded and well resourced researchers in universities across the world lacked.
  

 But, you can get money without achieving merit.

• Bill Gates, co-founder Microsoft Co-operation. 
  
• Jeff Bezos, founder Amazon.com 
  
• Warren Buffet, Berkshire Hathaway 
  

a stock or supply of money, materials, staff, and other assets that can be drawn on by a person or organization in order to function effectively.

a stock or supply of money, materials, staff, and other assets that can be drawn on by a person or organization in order to function effectively.

It's a valid definition. But, my opponent and I have thus far missed a key component of this. The fact that it also says that materials are a resource.

This means that water, shelter, and food are all resources. You need these to function effectively. 

My opponent and I have missed this point entirely, but I intend to emphasize on it in this round.

Contention 1: Water, Shelter, Food, and their importance.

It doesn't really matter how much merit you have, if you don't have stuff you need. Let's take a look at Albert Einstein, a person who my opponent emphasizes on.

Albert Einstein would not have been able to have merit if he was not born, right? If his parents were dead, he would not be alive. The thing we need the most is water.  And water is a resource. Life is more important than merit, because without life, you don't have merit. I have met my Burden of Proof.

-------------------------------------

My opponents entire contention can be disproved by the fact that without water, food, and shelter, EVERY SINGLE PERSON he brings up would not have achieved merit. In fact, the fields that he brings up would not have even been MADE possible without water in the first place.

What I'm trying to say is:

Who cares about merit? If humans were not created there would no merit. In fact, humans themselves ARE resources. Humans meet the definition of resources. Everything on this planet is a resource. 

That means, merit itself is a resource. Which means, that if merit is a type of resource, it can't be more valuable than every single resource available in the universe.

VALUABLE:the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something/principles or standards of behaviour; one's judgement of what is important in life.

Counter:  Water shelter and food are of value, were of primal importance in neanderthal- homo sapien age thousands of years ago, what is the value of water in current age, people get water mostly free from supply facilities set up by governments. In basic survival obviously water, food, shelter are all important. They hold no or little value in today's world because of easy availability. How did the value of such a primal necessities become so low? Human population is  7.8 billion. Most of the developed countries have easy access to water and shelter. 

Why is that?

Why only technologically and economically advanced countries have it? 

Because people / great scientist worked readily to make water filtration and food readily available. If it was not genetically modified crops and animals , the world would come under acute shortage of food. 94% of meat in an average British market is of genetically modified chicken, with a life of only 35 days.

Who developed such animals?

Who devised easy and cheap water filtration techniques? 

People with merit. Take water for example:- number of processes yield water fit for consumption , activated carbon filtration, zeolite filtration, chemical bleaching, sand filtration, reverse osmosis, thermodynamic desalination(PRO is well aquainted with all because of his engineering degree, his merit) . How developed these processes? Common working folk ? or highly skilled professionals and scientist. 

Water and food were available long before humans ever stepped foot on the earth. 

Water and food were available when humans were hunter and gatherers.

Water and food were available during the medieval era.

Water and food are available now. 

Only now their value is far less and has decreased in value constantly. Why is that? not the contribution of not the entire human race but a few pioneers. Pioneers with merit, who devised more and more productive techniques for cultivation of food and filtration of water. 

Farmers have been long part of human society? Why is that food cultivation has sky-rocketed in the modern world? Did the farmers devise tractors, irrigation techniques, performerd plant growth studies? No. People of merit did it. Farmers only took advantage of the inventions. PRO has proved his point successfully. 

Humans are a resource agreed. Voters must note it is a stand taken by CON not by PRO. PRO welcomes it. 

Lets take an example:-

• An illeterate watchman guarding a shopping complex. 
  
• A mechanic working in a car factory. 
  
• A heart surgeon performing complex open heart surgeries.
  

It is easy to notice their value to the society is in increasing order. What gives them that value: their merit. Humans are like currency notes, merit is like the monetory reserve, just like the currency has no value without monetory reserves. Humans have no value without merit. The more their merit increases the more is their value. Not the other way around as CON suggests it. PRO's three stage example above proves it. 

Value of a heart surgeon> An illeterate watchman, 

Since merit is the virtue that renders value to humans as a resource. Merit is more valuable than any resource. 

MERIT:the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward.

Albert Einstein has been mentioned by CON,in R3. What is value of Albert Einstein without his merit and discoveries? Nothing,absolutely nothing, just a common German. Albert Einstein merit reders him valueable not the other way around. With the example PRO believes he has made his case irrefutable. 

Merit is a quality, a virtue,not a resource. 

Humans are a resource  does not mean greed or lust or merit is also a resource. Virtues and vices are not resources. Definitions were pre-defined and agreed upon in R1.