Further,

There is nothing to debate

Seems there is. Probably a waste of time considering you dont want to consider anything other than what you've decided is the true reality of the situation.

I'll start.

Almost none worked half as hard as she did.

Um, neither of us know of those that were denied an opportunity when she got into Harvard, or how hard these people worked.

Good homes, good parents, great schooling, a dedicated education and a stable environment which supports you and allows to focus solely on a single task?

We have no idea if others came from good homes, had good parents, good schooling, or had a stable environment in which to study.

Its more like, you are judging marathon runners and you have two people with identical times. But one of them ran twice as far. I know which I would pick.

But that's bullshit. If you set out a race all that should matter is what time you finished. It shouldn't matter if you walked there yourself or were dropped off by your mother. What's the point in having a race if you consider factors outside the result. Or if you do, consider it like a handicap in golf or sailing and admit you're happy to give a place to someone that wasn't first across the line.

She is a better candidate on her own merits, and she proved it by keeping pace while starting so vastly far behind

Honestly, she may be. Maybe not. But if you're happy to let people in on handicap that's always going to bring up a little doubt. If everyone were admitted purely on their performance this wouldn't happen. As I've said all along, when looking at 1000 people who are very equally qualified I think the only fair selection process is a lottery.

Feel free to discuss. Given you say there's no debate here I'm sure you have a perfect answer for each of these points. I'd be interested to hear them.