Is meritocracy a myth?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is meritocracy a myth?". Your opponent's style: Devil's advocate

Meritocracy is a myth,we don't live in a meritocracy

You're confusing "imperfect meritocracy" with "no meritocracy." Yes, unfair advantages exist, but effort and talent still predict outcomes far better than random chance. Name one society where merit matters less. (40)

Argentina

Argentina's economy collapsed despite plenty of talented people, proving my point exactly. Talent exists everywhere, but institutional failure prevents it from mattering. So what specific metric shows merit doesn't correlate with success there compared to meritocratic societies?

You just proved my point for me. You admitted talent exists everywhere but institutions prevent it from mattering. That's exactly what "meritocracy is a myth" means. Merit alone doesn't determine success when the system is rigged. Argentina shows talent gets crushed by inequality, not rewarded by it. Merit without fair systems isn't meritocracy, it's just luck.

Wrong move. You've just redefined meritocracy to mean "perfect equality of outcomes," which no serious person claims exists. The real definition is simple: merit correlates with success more than alternatives like birthright or pure luck. Argentina proves that when institutions collapse, merit matters even less, not that it never mattered. So here's the question: if merit didn't influence outcomes at all, why would talented Argentines flee to meritocratic countries instead of staying?

It is all just Luck,if You were born in the right place and time You are lucky otherwise You are not

That's circular reasoning dressed as fatalism. If luck dominates, why do poor kids outperform rich kids in some countries but not others? Luck doesn't vary by policy. What does?

You just proved my point. Poor kids outperform rich kids in some countries because of better systems and institutions, not merit. That's exactly why meritocracy is a myth—your own example shows outcome depends entirely on which country you're born in, not how hard you work.

You're confusing two different things. Better systems reward merit more reliably, they don't eliminate it. A talented poor kid in a good system outperforms a lazy rich kid in a bad one, proving merit matters. If it were pure luck, effort wouldn't correlate with outcomes at all. Why does it?

To become rich in many countries is really difficult,fue to stat3 polities

State policies create the playing field, not the outcome. Hard work still beats laziness within the same system. So which matters more to your argument: that the field is unfair, or that effort is meaningless?