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

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