People can achieve goals by cooperation rather than competition.

I can't quite tell what my opponent is arguing. Here are some possible topics that my opponent is arguing, the support that my opponent gave, and my response to the topic we should be debating: 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. Or 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.