People can achieve goals by cooperation rather than competition.
Debate Rounds (3)
My opponent has created an area of potential confusion that I would like to start by clearing up. The topic that I am debating on the pro side of is "People CAN achieve goals by cooperation rather than competition."
However my opponent has stated "People can achieve goals by competition rather than cooperation."
Competition and cooperation are not mutually exclusive meaning it is possible to achieve goals through competition and/or cooperation. All I am required to do to win this debate is argue that it is POSSIBLE to achieve a goal with cooperation. That seems a little too easy, and I would not want to cut my opponent short of the debate that my opponent was trying to have.
I suspect that my opponent is arguing that competition is MORE IMPORTANT than cooperation when trying to achieve a goal. In which case I would have to prove that cooperation is more important than competition.
Arguing over which is more important (cooperation or competition) strikes me as a much better debate than arguing over the possibility of achieving a goal with cooperation. I am making an assumption and I hope my opponent will affirm or correct that assumption in the next round. So…
Cooperation is more important than competition in achieving a goal.
Competition directly implies two or more opposing forces. However a goal is "the result or achievement toward which effort is directed" (Dictionary.com). You do not have to have an opponent or other force in order to achieve a goal. For example, someone may have the goal of being able to walk again after a severe injury. That person's doctor may have the goal of getting that person to walk again. So after a while the doctor and the patient work together until the patient can walk again. They cooperate to achieve the goal.
Competition alone will almost never help someone achieve a goal. It will simply be an obstacle to overcome on the way to a goal. If that challenge encourages someone then good for them, but it is the encouragement that will help them achieve the goal, not the competition or obstacle itself.
Cooperation is very important in achieving a goal even in areas that you might think of as competitive.
In sports you have to cooperate with your teammates in order to win. Sure, you might be competing against the other team, but if they were to stop competing, winning the game would be much easier. Therefore cooperation makes it easier to achieve a goal while competition makes it harder.
In sales you may have the goal of increasing your sales by 30% by the end of the year. You would have to cooperate with your current customers or cooperate with new customers in order to achieve that goal. Sure, there might be other people out there competing against you, but everyone can still achieve the goals that have been set.
Even if you are alone cooperation is more important. What if you have the goal to be able to run a mile in 5 minutes? You have to have the cooperation of the weather, those who affect your schedule so you can train, and you have to have the cooperation of your knees. Believe me, if you start competing with them while you are trying to run a mile that will not help you achieve the goal.
My opponent may have the goal of winning this debate/competition. If that is indeed my opponent's goal, my opponent may argue that this debate is an example of competition being more important than cooperation in order to achieve the goal of winning. The reality however is that competition is part of the goal, not the way to achieve it. The destination is not the path. And so even though I too have the goal of winning this debate/competition, I know that I will only achieve that win if the audience cooperates with me by voting pro.
My opponent implies that people don't need competition in order to achieve a goal with the example of "a doctor and a patient work together in order to heal the patient's health." Let's set a situation where there is no competition and only cooperation exists. First possible thing that could happen is since there is no competition, doctors would not have to try to increase their skills, or lower their prices in order to lure patients. Therefore, patients would not be trated with diligent care because doctors do not have to worry about the quality of their work. The only thing they have to do is to cooperate with doctors, and set the price as high as they can. Patients will not get any option other than be victims of the doctors' COOPERATION. Going back to my opponent's argument, what would be the doctor's primary motivation to set the goal, which is to heal some stranger's health? It is to gain more success than other doctors, or to help more people than other doctors, which is another example of competition. It is not possible to cooperate without competing against someone.
My opponent also points out that cooperation in sports gives athelte more success than competition, but it is not true. To win against other atheletes is primary goal of athletes who practice as hard as they can, and struggle with their own minds. If they did not have competitions, they would be so discouraged that they would have no reason to practice or struggle with themselves. It may sound wonderful to some people, no struggling and no hard work. However, without competition, people will not be able to see historic, and glorious moments where great athletes go beyond human-being's limits, and let you know the meaning of nothing is impossible. These people are all motivated by competition, rather than cooperation.
Another example that my opponent also pointed out is an example of a goal of increasing your sales by 30% at the end of the year. Well, without competition, what is the point of setting the goal to increase 30% of your sales? Isn't the purpose of increasing the sales is the desire to get better lives than others by achieving the goal, a motivation that fits right into the definition of competition? (rivalry between two or more persons or groups for an object desired in common, usually resulting in a victor and a loser but not necessarily involving the destruction of the latter.)[http://www.dictionary.com...]
Furthermore, my opponent gives an example of a runner who sets a goal as running a mile in 5 minutes by cooperating with nature. "What if you have the goal to be able to run a mile in 5 minutes? You have to have the cooperation of the weather, ... Believe me, if you start competing with them while you are trying to run a mile that will not help you achieve the goal." The first motivation for someone to set such a goal would be the desire to compete against himself, not the nature itself. The bottom line is, he started to compete against himself, or maybe others who had better running records than him. As my opponent said, "The destination is not the path." cooperation in this case, can be considered as the path, and winning the competition against himself should be regarded as his own goal.
My opponent also argues that cooperation is more important than competition in this particular debate because we both have to get the votes from the audience. It is true that to win the debate, we need cooperation of others as well. However, if there was no competition, we would not have the common goal of "winning the debate by presenting better arguments than the other" in the first place. At the time when the goal is set, the existence of competition is inevitable, while the presence of cooperation can be often unnecessary.
I think my opponent contradicted himself a little bit when he argued it is not the competitors themselves whom are more important, but are the audiences whom are more important. My opponent said, "The reality however is that competition is part of the goal, not the way to achieve it." but competition is definitely the only way achieving the goal because the cooperation of the audiences would not be followed if the arguments were not good enough. My opponent's saying is something similar with that of "it is not how great the president is that is more important, but it is the votes that is more important to achieve his goal." How will people know whom to give their votes if the presidential candidates did not compete against? and how would the candidates achieve the goals to be the president without competing? Will they cooperate with each other to take turns to be the president?
Competition is more important than cooperation in order to achieve someone's goal because it is the motivation which helps people to achieve their goals and even set their start lines.
For example, in response to my scenario with a patient and a doctor having the common goal of the patient being able to walk again and cooperating to achieve that goal my opponent said:
"Let's set a situation where there is no competition and only cooperation exists. First possible thing that could happen is since there is no competition, doctors would not have to try to increase their skills, or lower their prices in order to lure patients. Therefore, patients would not be trated with diligent care because doctors do not have to worry about the quality of their work. The only thing they have to do is to cooperate with doctors, and set the price as high as they can. Patients will not get any option other than be victims of the doctors' COOPERATION."
Nowhere in my opponents response is there a "GOAL". The context of a goal has been completely removed. My opponent is trying to argue the ultimate merit of competition over cooperation (That is another debate) and even in my opponents example the cooperation is limited to similar parties. The doctors are only cooperating with the doctors and not cooperating with the patience, even though a doctor would see many more patience than doctors during their practice.
My opponent then tries to justify it in the following statement with:
"Going back to my opponent's argument, what would be the doctor's primary MOTIVATION to SET THE GOAL, which is to heal some stranger's health? It is to gain more success than other doctors, or to help more people than other doctors, which is another example of competition."
Please note the terms "Motivation" and "set the goal" are not the same as "in achieving a goal."
My opponent then suggests some alternative goals that are based entirely on competition "MORE success than OTHER DOCTORS" and "help MORE people than OTHER DOCTORS". Since my opponent appears intent on only using competitive based goals (better than the other/rest), I will dispense with the vast majority those using the goals my opponent just suggested. One particular doctor sets the competitive goal of helping more patients than the other doctors. Seeing as there are more patients than doctors, in order to achieve that goal the doctor must cooperate with more patients, more staff, more marketing channels, etc. And seeing as a doctor will likely see the same patients et al over and over that doctor must cooperate each time. Where there is only one instance of competition for each of the other doctors that doctor is competing against, there are many and repeated instances of cooperation between that doctor and the numerous patients et al if that doctor wishes to achieve his goal.
If I have the goal of "politely shaking Paul Smith's hand the next time I see him", I must have his cooperation. If I didn't have his cooperation the exchange would not likely be polite, and could get downright violent if he tried to compete against me in my goal. Yes this is a humorous example using a simple goal. It also demonstrates that cooperation will help me achieve my goal while competition will hinder me achieving my goal. The topic does not address the quality of the goal or the reason it was set in the first place. Quality of the goal and reason for the goal are irrelevant to the topic. Only importance in achieving the goal should be addressed.
In the first round I asserted that competition can be a good motivator (A point to which my opponent's entire case is almost built around), but that motivation and achievement are not the same thing.
Please keep in mind that my opponent and I are currently debating:
"Cooperation is more important than competition in achieving a goal".
Please also note that nowhere in this topic are the terms "motivation" or "success" or "setting a goal" or "effort" or "encouragement" or "preference" or "merit" or "opponent" or "origin" or any of the other elements that my opponent seems to be trying to inject into the topic such as capitalism vs. communism.
My opponent makes these attempts the clearest in the opening and final statements of the previous round.
"If there were no competition for him, he would not work hard enough to achieve his goal BECAUSE there AREN'T ENOUGH MOTIVATIONS for him to give enough effort into his goal."
"Competition is more important than cooperation in order to achieve someone's goal because it is the MOTIVATION which helps people to achieve their goals and even SET THEIR START LINES."
Motivation is not achievement. There are lots of people out there who are motivated to become millionaires but there are many fewer who have actually achieved it or will achieve it. If they want to turn that desire into a reality and actually ACHIEVE becoming a millionaire, they will have to cooperate with many people in order to achieve that goal. Origin of a goal is not part of the topic. In fact "...in achieving a goal." directly implies that "a goal" already exists. If my opponent wishes to win this debate then my opponent should show that competition is more important than cooperation in achieving a goal.
My opponent is expecting too much cooperation from me. In the first round I attempted to cooperate by restating what I thought my opponent had intended the debate to be, even though it was to my disadvantage. I suggested a change:
From "People CAN achieve goals by cooperation rather than competition." (in which case I would only have to prove it is possible)
To "Cooperation is MORE IMPORTANT than competition in achieving a goal."
I'm sorry, but that is as generous as I am going to be with my opponent when it comes to cooperating on the topic, and if my opponent does not openly accept the topic of "Cooperation is more important than competition to achieving a goal." at the beginning of the next round, I will stop attempting to cooperate with my opponent and argue the topic that my opponent originally stated (People can achieve goals by cooperation rather than competition).
1. motivations, encouragements, etc are not included in the topic.
2. competition only hinders people from achieving their goals, rather than help them to do so.
My opponent implies that I pulled out the context of "goal" in my arguments. However, I did not pull out the concept of goal, instead, I tried to explain the circumstances that someone needs in order to achieve his/her goal. Even though no where in this topic are the terms, "motivation" or "success" or "setting a goal" or "effort" or "encouragement", achieving a goal without these words cannot be considred as a goal. Noone can possibly achieve a goal without motivations or encouragments, which can be obtained by competition rather than cooperation. Achieving a goal cannot be separated from those terms, whereas cooperation is not necessarirly needed in order for someone to achieve his/her goal. My opponent argues that "motivation and achievement are not the same thing," but noone is able to achieve a goal without motivations, and achievement can only come after a motivated person. Therefore, competition, which gives people motivations for their goals, is much more important than cooperation to achieve someone's goal.
My opponent also represents some examples, which he admits as "humor examples." Although someone can set his goal to shake someone's hands more politely next time, most of people's goals would be something more grandiose, and need much more effort in order to achieve them.
For example, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs now are the two CEO's of the biggest computer companies in the United Staes. Their goals were to found the most recognized company in this country, and they have achieved their goals without doubt. This was possible because they were competing against each other, which gave them motivations to make better products for people, and introduce higher technology. Even though they were competiting aginst each other, they were not stymied by their competition, but rather they were motivated and encouraged to take steps forward to achieve their goals.
Going back to my opponent's doctor example where he stated "One particular doctor sets the competitive goal of helping more patients than the other doctors. Seeing as there are more patients than doctors, in order to achieve that goal the doctor must cooperate with more patients, more staff, more marketing channels, etc." The doctor's goal already conveys the word, "COMPETITIVE", which means that competition alreday takes up the half of portion of his goal before even starting to attempt to achieve his goal. Cooperation was only a path for someone to step on in order to achieve the goal, which was primarily based on a competition. In this case, cooperation with staffs and patients was needed, however, the more important matter to the doctor was competition, in order to reach his goal.
Motivations and encouragements, which can not be fully obtained by cooperation ,can be obtained by competition against rivals. They are highly important for someone to achieve his goal. Even though my opponent believes "There are lots of people out there who are motivated to become millionaires but there are many fewer who have actually achieved it or will achieve it," if none of them had the motivations to become millionaires, would they(even though only a few) have had become millionaires?
1 Competition is more motivating than cooperation.
2 Competition is good.
3 Goals should be set high
1 Competition is more motivating than cooperation:
"In this case, cooperation with staffs and patients was needed, however, the more important matter to the doctor was competition, in order to reach his goal."
Wow, this doctor analogy just won't go away. My opponent again is using competition as a source of motivation and then motivation as an encouragement towards achievement. Fine I concede that "competition can be a better motivator than cooperation." And if we were arguing motivation that would matter. However we're not. There are 2 ways that this doctor can achieve his goal of helping more patients than the other doctors:
1. The doctor will need to get the cooperation of many people.
2. The other doctors will need to stop competing.
Either way shows that cooperation is more important than competition when it comes to achieving a goal. And remember this is a goal based on competition, yet it is the presence of cooperation or the lack of competition that will cause the doctor to achieve it.
2 Competition is good:
"For example, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs now are the two CEO's of the biggest computer companies in the United Staes. Their goals were to found the most recognized company in this country, and they have achieved their goals without doubt. This was possible because they were competing against each other, which gave them motivations to make better products for people, and introduce higher technology. Even though they were competiting aginst each other, they were not stymied by their competition, but rather they were motivated and encouraged to take steps forward to achieve their goals."
Lets ignore the little mistakes in statement such as Steve Ballmer not Bill Gates is the CEO and they can't possibly both be "the most recognized company in this country" and get to the crux of this argument. Microsoft and Apple have the goal to be more recognized than the other. While this is more of a contest than a goal it will still illustrate what I have been saying this whole time. How many stores sell Vista? How many customers buy iPods? That's cooperation. How many websites, programmers, marketers, engineers, teachers, trainers, hardware manufacturers, software manufactures, trucking companies, news papers, TV stations, radio stations, accountants, share holders, regulators, CEOs, CMOs, CFOs, COOs, phone companies, power companies, the contractors who built their facilities, disposal companies, airlines, janitors, lawyers, and employees will Microsoft and Apple need to cooperate with if they would like to achieve the goal of "being more recognized than the other". One could easily look view this as a contest of cooperation. (Whoever gets the most people to cooperate with them wins.)
Now ask yourself "If Microsoft stopped competing against Apple, would that make it easier or harder for Apple to achieve the goal of ‘being more recognized than Microsoft?'" Obviously it would make it easier for Apple to achieve that goal. That is why I have said that competition is a hindrance in achieving a goal. Competition may have been the reason that the goal WAS set, but now that the goal IS set they will need cooperation from many many people in order to ACHIEVE that goal.
3 Goals should be set high:
"Although someone can set his goal to shake someone's hands more politely next time, most of people's goals would be something more grandiose, and need much more effort in order to achieve them."
Okay. So what? Where is the argument for competition or against cooperation? My opponent seems to think that a goal must involve competition in order to be relevant. Goals can be personal. (loose weight, run fast, learn a new language, read the entire dictionary, wake up before noon.) There could be countless reasons why these goals were set, but, now that they are, cooperation will help them to be achieved.
Filling your car with gas won't get you to your destination. You still have to drive there. Competition may be good motivation or fuel for your car, but you won't get to your destination unless you actually start your car and drive. In which case you will need the cooperation of the other drivers on the road, the road crews, the people that make maps, the power company that lights the road, the people that keep traffic lights working, and of course your car. Of course to even get the gas in your car in the first place you had to cooperate with the gas station, the other people at the pump, and the credit card company if that's how you paid for the gas. This of course assumes that you chose the method of driving to get there. If you run out of gas you could always hitch a ride, call a cab, call a friend, catch a train, catch a plane, walk, ride a horse, or ride a bus. Cooperation is so common that we almost take it for granted. Competition is a good thing. It helps us set goals. It helps keep us motivated. It may even be the goal itself, but in order to ACHIEVE that goal you must cooperate with someone or something. Yes my opponent and I are engaging in a competition where we each have the goal to attain more votes. Yet in order to ACHIEVE that goal my opponent and I are cooperating in many ways. We are both using English. We are both putting quote marks around our opponent's statements. We are both continuing to use the doctor analogy. We are both remaining professional by referring to each other as "my opponent". We are both addressing the readers as "you". We are both responding to each other long before the required time. And ultimately we are both hoping that you will cooperate with us. Because if you don't cooperate then we cannot ACHIEVE our goal. That is why cooperation is more important than competition in achieving a goal. So I request that you take our respective sides by cooperating with a vote for Pro and competing against a vote for Con;)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Dali 8 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||6|
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.