Competition is superior to cooperation as means of achieving excellence
Debate Rounds (3)
"Let"s take a look at some definitions shall we,
"Competition: "to compete" "> "strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same." New Oxford American
"Cooperation: "working together for a common purpose; activity shared for mutual benefit." Dictionary.com, Random House
"Now for the definition of competition, do you think it adequately shows excellence? By defeating someone? How about cooperation, activity SHARED for mutual benefit
"Competition is more important to individuals with bigger egos, who"s only fulfillment of excellence is competition
"Rather, individuals who can skillfully work together with others enjoy excellence knowing that not only have they achieved excellence, but others have too.
"For example, in the real world after high school, life becomes more about achieving academic goals then beating your friend in a soccer game to prove you"re superior.
"I think you understand that to achieve true and meaningful excellence you can use your peers or teammates to drive you.
If two people want the same thing, forcing them to outdo the other will constantly produce a cycle of excellence because the moment one gets better the other will strive to outdo them. If they worked together they'd produce a double-whammy of low quality outcome since there simply is no motivation to succeed.
HOWEVER, co-operation combined with competition is undoubtedly going to produce excellence because two heads are indeed better than one. Nonetheless, without competition co-operation is all but futile in achieving excellence.
"Another example I have is our government, currently we aren't achieving anything because there is competition between both parties and instead of driving them to excellence, it"s driving them to mediocrity!
"These are just some example on many different circumstances. So, tell me this would the election project be more beneficial to us students and the teachers if we didn't have one project? What about our government? Do you think that adding more competition is going to help us achieve excellence?
You and I both agree on something: A co-operating team can compete far better than an individual alone.
Here is where we disagree: If that team is not competing they will be superior in achieving excellence.
This is simply not the case.
Without competition the individuals comprising the team will lose any feeling of bonding. The only thing holding a team together is the hatred of opposition. If this isn't present then the team won't gel and if they do happen to co-operate, they will have no standard, no baseline of excellence to strive to achieve.
You provided zero support of your claim that a one-party nation's government is more effective than a competitive democracy in which one party is voted every few years.
Let's see... Soviet Russia was one-party, so is most of Middle East, Nazi Germany and all dictatorships of history. What do they all have in common? They slowly failed over time. From this our competitive democracies arose and have so at a very healthy pace.
Competitions undeniably superior to co-operation as a means of achieving excellence because without it, there is not standard for the co-operating team to judge what excellence is.
They are not equal.
Competition alone, without co-operation itself will, in an anarcho-capitalist society drive excellence but in an extremely brutal manner where only the first to get excellent end up succeeding.
In a more Keynesian-capitalist (which is essentially Trotskyist) society whereby there is compulsory cooperation between the high achiever and low achievers so every competes but is overall a 'team' there will be less REASON to be excellent and hence less logical drive for excellence to be achieved.
Here is the fundamental flaw, and in fact the fundamental argument in your swimming example.
The reason people are more excellent as a team than alone is because many people hating something together creates a feeling of warmth among the group (as I already said). Your swimming team wanted to destroy the other team and it was THIS that was UNDOUBTEDLY the reason you felt loyal to them and proud that you helped them. If there had been no other teams, your team would have been boring to be a part of because suddenly there's no competition and without a doubt you would have split into individual competitions out of pure lack of urge to become an excellent swimmer.
You think Michael Phelps swims for USA or swims to destroy others than USA for good? Well considering he'd already done his good duty to USA and still went on to win 22 something medals really shows your swimming example to be a good support of PRO.
A group of people will better achieve excellence of they compete with one another or at least divide into pairs where one person competes with another for a reward of some kind (that only the winner gets). Why do you think DDO encourages excellence? Because it's competitive. Why do you think that apart form the severely secluded and pathetic state of North Korea EVERY ONE PARTY NATION (Especially communist) HAVE ALWAYS FALLEN TO PIECES and then come back as a multi-party democracy?!
BECAUSE CO-ORPERATION is simply not the primary drive for a human to be excellent. We are social animals, yes, but before the urge to relate to others comes the urge to be better than them. It is inherent in absolutely all human beings. The urge to be social is apparent in less. There is always SOMETHING, whether it's being nice to people, playing football, writing poetry, singing, dancing or any other talent where a human thinks it's okay if I lose other lines of competition as long as I throw myself into this line. Heck, why are there specialists in any field of work if it wasn't for competition?!
I shall now conclude by re-iterating my round one and round two debate.
Contentions (which my opponent never addressed nor rebutted by anything other than his unfalsifiable and unprovable subjective experience)
C#1: If two people want the same thing, forcing them to outdo the other will constantly produce a cycle of excellence because the moment one gets better the other will strive to outdo them. If they worked together they'd produce a double-whammy of low quality outcome since there simply is no motivation to succeed.
C#2: Without competition co-operation is all but futile in achieving excellence.
C#3: Without competition the individuals comprising the team will lose any feeling of bonding. The only thing holding a team together is the hatred of opposition.
C#4: If competition to a group of co-operating people isn't present then the team won't gel and if they do happen to co-operate, they will have no standard, no baseline of excellence to strive to achieve.
C#5: A competing-party nation has, throughout history always been what a country comes to be for sustainability (North Korea is an exception because they have decided to be very non-excellent and will not bother to compete with the world and hence are in quite a pathetic state).
In conclusion, competition without co-operation drives excellence but co-operation without competition drives laziness and perhaps a reason to create competition between the individuals. It is thus inevitable that one must conclude that competition is superior to cooperation as means of achieving excellence.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Noumena 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: The winner of this seemed fairly obvious. Con's arguments were mostly just anecdotes, arguing from how *his* experiences played out to an unsupported generalization about the nature of cooperation. Pro on the other hand successfully showed that competition was superior by conceptual analysis, not mere anecdote. Furthermore, Con mostly dropped Pro's arguments. The fact that group competition was a superior amalgamation of the two, that cooperation without competition is futile, that competition provides a sutainable bond, and that competition provides a standard of excellence to reach for went untouched by Con. Easy win for Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.