Instigator / Pro
4
1464
rating
17
debates
41.18%
won
Topic

merit is more valuable than wealth and resources

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
0

With 1 vote and 2 points ahead, the winner is ...

Crocodile
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
20,000
Contender / Con
6
1443
rating
15
debates
33.33%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Pro
Some definitions for clarity: 

DEFINITIONS:
MERIT:he quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward.
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.
WEALTH:an abundance of valuable possessions or money.
RESOURCES: 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.

Since PRO has instigated the debate PRO feels the need to prove his side of the case, to do so PRO will demonstrate how in overall sense no matter what field we look at merit is more valuable than wealth or resources. 

BOP

SPORTS: 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. 
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. 

Madam Curie and her husband seperated 1/10 gram of Radium Chloride in a shed, the merit and dedication shown is unparallel and cannot be comprehended, that to from A TON of pitchblende. 

No resources , No wealth still the only Female scientist and the only scientist to win a Nobel in both Physics and Chemistry. 
Maris Salomea Sklodowska remember the name. 

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. 
Con
RESOLUTION: MERIT IS MORE VALUABLE THAN WEALTH AND RESOURCES

Thanks nikunj_sanghai. I hope this will be my best discussion yet.


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

I'll begin by refuting my opponent's contentions.
===========================

SPORTS: REBUTTAL
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. 
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. 

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.


SCIENCE AND TECH: REBUTTAL

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. 


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.

ENGINEERING: REBUTTAL
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. 
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. (https://www.nps.gov/daav/learn/kidsyouth/wilburandorville.htm#:~:text=In%202007%2C%20Hawthorn%20Hill%20was,approximately%20%2420%2C000%20in%202002%20dollars.)

The merit they achieved was, again, only made possible by money and resources.


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 firmly believe that I have successfully refuted your points. I yield the next argument to my opponent.
Round 2
Pro
Thanks croc, 

I accept my opponent's proposed definitions, and the BoP is on my opponent.
PRO belives providing evidence that merit is more valuable than wealth in most fields concerning mankind is sufficient as an BOP. 

SPORTS: 
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.
For further purposes also the debate is merit is more valuable than wealth and resources , not that wealth and resources have no value PRO has just to satisfactorily demonstrate merit is more valuable than wealth and resources. 

Serena Williams: How many students attend that academy each year , safe to say a lot. Meaning all have the same kind of wealth and resources. CON failed to highlight the sad parts though .
 Richard stopped sending his daughters to national junior tennis tournaments when Williams was 10 since he wanted them to go slowly and to focus on school work. Experiences of racism also drove this experience, as Richard Williams had heard white parents talk about the Williams sisters in a derogatory manner during tournaments.In 1995, when Williams was in the ninth grade, her father pulled his daughters out of Macci's academy and, from then on, took over all coaching at their home. CON was sure to point out the academy but neglected cases of racism she faced suggesting if she has made it so far she has done mostly on her merit secondly from the support of her family as she herself claims. 

Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo: I will refute my points on Ronaldo, Ronaldo did not pay that sum, he received the sum. 

In 1997, aged 12, he went on a three-day trial with Sporting CP, who signed him for a fee of £1,500.
European clubs are Free to attend if the person has the skill . FC Barcelona even paid for Messi's growth hormone treatment when his father failed to provide health coverage for the family. The only reason Canadian and US soccer teams are horrendous is not because US players dont have the skill, but because of a prevalent concept there called Pay to Play. Whereas European clubs pay for their youth programs and provide small monetory helps to children apart from covering all costs, US clubs charge players to play on their team at the youth level. Most of the European stars come from poor backgrounds (these two included) and would never have been able to make an impact if Pay to Play was in Europe. US soccer(Men) has become a joke for the same reason - Pay to Play. Talent is talent, the difference is that in US talent is asked to pay, and in Europe talent is paid to play . Everyone knows the difference US (Men) does not even qualify for the FIFA world cup neither does Canada. The phenomenon is well documented CON can check it out here in this link. 

Current state of US soccer (Men) successfully demonstrates how merit> wealth and resources. 

Science and Technology

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.

Incorrect, to have an education one must have money, that too only in few countries (varies mostly). Lets not confuse merit with education PRO has had a completely seperate section about wright brothers that one can be meritous without money or an education. In India fees charged at premier medical institution(AIIMS)  is (5800 rupees roughly 80  dollars per year). Only way one gets in is through merit no amount of money or resources can help. 1.5 million students apply for the exam and only top 1000 get in. Money is no barrier. Education is basically free also in Germany, so only way a person getting a law degree or an bachelor in medicine is by merit. Even in the US home of some of the best universities in the world, top students get all their costs covered, is it not the reason why cost of tuition is higher for other less merit holding candidates. PRO successfully proves if one has merit even in general case one does not require a lot of wealth, reverse is sadly false no amount of wealth can get into college. Even if we uphold CON's standard , Stanford has an acceptance rate of  5% means 1 in 20 applicants gets in, all 20 have the wealth and resources to pay but only the one getting an admission has  more merit than others.
Thus even in general case merit> wealth and resources. But CON is yet to argue against Einstein and Madam Curie and their conditions of life and how with no help Madam Curie is the only scientist to receive a Nobel in both Physics and Chemistry. CON is yet to comment on her conditions of life.PRO is not suggesting the greatest are solely based on merit, PRO is proving it. Radium was discovered in a shed.  

PRO will give yet another example if CON wants: Srinivasa Ramanujan, Though he had almost no formal training in pure mathematics, he made substantial contributions to mathematical analysisnumber theoryinfinite series, and continued fractions, including solutions to mathematical problems then considered unsolvable.
As late as 2011 and again in 2012, researchers continued to discover that mere comments in his writings about "simple properties" and "similar outputs" for certain findings were themselves profound and subtle number theory results that remained unsuspected until nearly a century after his death. He became one of the youngest Fellows of the Royal Society and only the second Indian member, and the first Indian to be elected a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge .


Engineering:

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.
The average cost of an automobile sold in USA(their home country)  in today's value is 33,000 dollars. Millions of Americans own an automobile, are all those as famous as Wright brothers? Money is valuable but PRO only has to demonstrate merit is more valuable. CON has argued against a part of the statement and determined the entire statement as false. 
Things that are unchallenged and widely accepted: 

  • 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 
All three one of richest men in the world, all have earned the wealth on their merit, CON needs to support his statement with examples. PRO refutes by citing richest men on Earth as examples. 

CONCLUSION: PRO successfully refutes all arguments made by CON and reaffirms in every field Merit is more valuable than wealth and resources. 


Con
Forfeited
Round 3
Pro
CON forfeits PRO claims victory. 
Con
Sincerest apologies for forfeiting the last round. I am currently on a trip. I hope my contentions in this round can make up for my forfeit.

RESOLUTION: MERIT IS MORE VALUABLE THAN WEALTH AND RESOURCES.

I will opt for more resolution based contentions in this round. And, this round might be short, but I am trying my best. Please award conduct points to my opponent if VOTERS feel the have the need to.

I'll begin my argument now.
-----------------------------------------------------

Let's begin my argument by taking a look at the definition of resources, which my opponent has so graciously provided to us. 

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.

My opponent's claims have been refuted and my claims have surely warranted a vote for me.
Round 4
Pro
PRO will begin with rebuttals of CON's fresh arguments and then strengthen his position by his previous arguments. 

PRO had perviously tried to imply that merit is more valuable by emphasizing the need of merit in various fields of occupation. CON has taken more of a fundamental approach, a definition based one, PRO will refute will full force. 


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.

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. 

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.


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.
 
CONCLUSION:  All fundamental cases made by CON have been refuted successfully. Since Merit is the virtue that renders value to humans and their various professions, since all developments in human race have been because of result of few merit holding individuals. Merit can be said as more valuable than wealth and resources. While is mostly earned by merit and easily lost by people who gain it accidently, the most important resource humans are rendered value by their merit. Thus merit reigns supreme in the human world. 

Thank you for reading! Vote PRO if you find my arguments more convincing. 
Con
thx nik,

I'll begin my rebuttals.

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. 

Are water and food truly available now? Are they truly? Not everyone gets enough water, and in fact, many people don't. 663 million people do not have water. And, the definition of valuable is something that is useful, or important. 

I am sure my opponent agrees that developed countries have water. Yes, but water is still important, because humans need it to live.

My opponent is trying the argument that water is not important because people have it. But it is. If we take away the water from earth, everyone would die. This proves that water is valuable. And so is food. And so is air.


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, 

What creates the value of merit? Humans create merit. Human's value do not translate to their merit. Their value translates to their importance. And money gives them value. This also proves that wealth is of great importance.

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.
What is a quality? What is a virtue?

Quality: a distinctive attribute or characteristic possessed by someone or something.
Virtue: a good or useful quality of a thing.

What is a resource?
Resource: 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.

Since quality and virtue are assets that a human may have, and that they can rely on, they are resources.

In fact the very definition of asset is

"a useful or valuable thing, person, or quality."




This proves that quality is an asset, therefore it is a resource.

And, since a virtue is a quality, a virtue is a asset. This means that virtue is a resource.

Since my opponent stated that merit was a virtue, this also means that merit is a resource.

CONCLUSION

Since merit is a resource, that means that merit cannot possibly be more valuable than every single resource. I rest my case, and I hope that VOTERS vote for me.