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

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.