The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Is competition or cooperation more important when achieving excellence?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
deannaiscool has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2017 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,942 times Debate No: 101911
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




I have a big debate in school next week and need evidence for my side - " Cooperation is superior to competition as a means of achieving excellence."
In this debate, I will be doing the opposite side so please give your reasons as to why you believe cooperation is more important that competition. Thank you!

Competition is superior to cooperation.
Anyone who is competitive to a certain extent strives to absolutely defeat the opposing team no matter what, which helps them achieve excellence.
Competition drives us to advance. We want to stay one step ahead of the other guy, so we keep pushing ourselves to develop something bigger and better. While cooperation sounds better on paper, competition is what actually fuels advancements.
In the business world, competition will drive a company to either reduce their prices or increase their quality, both of which are beneficial to consumers. Competition also fuels companies to develop new products.
Biologically, competition is what drives natural selection and evolution. If a species didn't have to compete for limited resources, it would weaken the species as a whole. The weak would be less likely to die off and more likely to pass on their inferior genes, keeping that species from potentially developing an adaptation that will help it in the long run.
Competition is human nature. You have to teach little kids to share, but you don't have to teach them to compete for what they want.
Basically, competition is what ignites change. Cooperation is stagnant; nothing gets worse, but nothing gets better, either. Competition pushes us to make our world a better place


I believe that cooperation is more important than competition to achieve excellence. We can achieve so much more when we work together. Competition does allow us to defeat the opposing team, this is true. However, excellence is not only achieved by "beating the other guy". I do not need someone else to lose in order for me to excel.

When I cooperate with others, I can achieve more than I could if I was working alone. "Two heads are better than one" is an expression for a reason. I come in to each problem with my own set of experiences and assumptions. When I work with others, I am exposed to other means of problem solving, other ways to tackle a problem, and this can lead me somewhere I would be unable to get by myself.

We all have different strengths and weaknesses. If I work with someone who's strengths are my weaknesses, we will be unstoppable!
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by qwzx 3 years ago
This is a hard debate.....cooperation is the most effective as long as there is a competitive force moving it. Without either one results in terrible results.
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
It's a false dichotomy anyway. Teams of cooperative individuals can still use competition to achieve something. If you can run a Kritik, do that. Sports teams, businesses, etc. all require competitive environments in order for there to be achievements, but they also necessitate competitive environments. In the most extreme scenario, it would be to argue the thing where everyone gets a trophy just for showing up or something, but that's not necessarily cooperation. I don't know. I can only think of one example, but it was from a study that proved it was completely ineffective.
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
The only way con can win is by debating the definition of superior. In other words, con would have to argue that cooperation creates healthier communities and groups of people, and then something about how achieving something with people who care about you is better than achieving something in front of a world that hates you.

Honestly though, competition has already proven to be far superior than cooperation. Multiple studies have tested that and come up with the same conclusion. Competition actually causes one to accomplish something.
Posted by RR-MKIV 3 years ago
This is an interesting topic. Unfortunately for both of us I happen to agree with your stance.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.