Is meritocracy a myth?

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

Should all students learn in school how to be good and responsible citizens in their country?

Look, you're asking if schools should teach citizenship. I'd say absolutely not—at least not the way you mean it. Schools already push their version of "good citizen" down kids' throats, and it's usually just indoctrination dressed up as education. Teach them critical thinking, math, science, how to question authority. That's how you get responsible citizens. The moment you start prescribing what "good" looks like in a classroom, you're just training obedient workers, not thinking humans. Parents and communities should shape values. Schools should educate. There's a massive difference, and pretending otherwise is how you get sheep instead of citizens. What's your actual problem with kids figuring out morality themselves?

Preserves Democracy

That's the trap right there. You think teaching "good citizenship" preserves democracy, but it does the opposite. Democracy needs people who question the government, not trust it blindly. If schools teach kids what the state defines as "responsible," you're just conditioning them to accept whatever's in power. Look at history—authoritarian regimes always start by controlling what schools teach about citizenship. Real democracy survives when people think for themselves and challenge the system, not when they're trained to be compliant. Civic participation comes from curiosity and skepticism, not state-approved lessons on obedience. You're actually arguing for a tool of control while calling it protection.

THEY need to teach this in school to know their education to work in a company with high school

Hold on, you're mixing two things. Teaching kids to show up on time and follow basic rules—sure, companies need that. But that's not "citizenship education," that's just workplace discipline, and honestly, parents and life teach you that already. The bigger problem: you're saying schools exist to prepare workers for companies, not to educate minds. That's backwards. Schools should teach you to think critically so you can negotiate better pay, recognize exploitation, and demand your rights at work. If schools just train compliant employees, you're setting kids up to get exploited. Teach them real skills and critical thinking instead. That actually serves them better than corporate-approved "responsibility." What happens when the company doesn't want responsible workers—just cheap ones?

active participation and they can make active making desiciion and not to get exploit their rights by government and they can practise their democreacy and can make freedom of speech.

Now you're actually making sense, but here's the thing—schools don't teach you freedom of speech by lectures. You learn it by doing it. If schools control the curriculum on "democracy," they're already limiting that freedom. Kids need space to debate, disagree, challenge teachers, speak up without punishment. That's how you learn rights through practice, not textbooks. The problem is most schools punish dissent and reward compliance. So yes, teach civic participation through actual practice—let students challenge authority, run real student governments with power, debate controversial topics freely. But calling it a formal "citizenship curriculum" just makes it another subject to memorize and forget. Democracy lives in action, not lessons. How do you practice democracy in a classroom designed for obedience?

tobe a substaanable commucity singapore teach cce civic citizenship and they pursue this to know their nad take responsibility so their coutry developed philipoer john devey said civic citizenship is life

You're actually right about Dewey—education IS life. But Singapore's CCE model proves my point perfectly. They teach civic responsibility, yes, and look what happens: conformity, surveillance culture, limited free speech. People follow the rules, the economy grows, but dissent disappears. That's not sustainable democracy, that's sustainable control. Philippines needs critical thinkers who challenge corruption, not obedient citizens who accept it. Real community development comes from people who question their leaders, demand accountability, innovate outside the box. Singapore's model works for stability, not freedom. Dewey meant education should teach you to think and act in the world—not just obey it. Big difference. Which one actually builds a better country long-term?