Competition is a more essential skill for gifted learners than Cooperation

I propose the counter that gifted minds work best in social settings and learning. I will use reasoning to demonstrate my stance until sources are required. I would like to start by simply stating my contest to the "pros" that my opponent has posed: 1. "Children face the real-world challenge of competition."; I would argue that this is not true on the grounds that real-world competition is based almost entirely on communication. Networking is a major portion of success and it isn't necessarily networking with your boss that will get you the furthest; instead utilizing people are resources (team-oriented study) in school, college, and beyond will grant greater yield than attempting to overpower your component workers or students in an effort to impress a single entity. With communication being one of the top skills all employers are seeking it is hard to state that one's ability to communicate can be cultivated as well through competitive education. 2. "Students are encouraged to do their very best."; I would argue that this is not true on the grounds that students not utilizing students as resources and granting incentive to not utilize the primary resource (human resources) in every field actually sets them up for failure. In gifted learning this is likely more true because the concept of self-sufficiency is bread into these children who are then incapable of connecting with their "lesser" peers through the training that suggests they are capable of greater thinking than others and thus will only be weighed down which is not true. Many great ideas have come from all components in a group and some of the simplest outlooks or certain integral skills can come from persons not considered to be the best or brightest in the group. 3. "Independent thinking and effort are encouraged and rewarded."; I would argue that this is not true on the grounds that students are actually experiencing the opposite. Rating systems tend to make people do worse, not better, and independence is actually restricted, not encouraged, because there is no reward for doing well if you're not the best. Efforts are actually wasted, not rewarded, in a system where only the top two or three are granted praise which teaches that efforts should not be made. This is reinforced as gifted children may have greater trouble in school due to boredom where the rewards were easily attained, they were transient, and they were immaterial. Instead of doing meaningful collaborative work as though preparing to actually produce they are instead subject to a standardized and weakened system of hierarchy and empty praise. 4. "Children can still work in teams but compete against other teams: It can be a great way to "enliven the classroom environment."; I would argue against that this is untrue on the grounds that competition in groups has the same problem as competition in individuals. Competing reduces the value of praise, reward, and recognition and puts a disparity between all students and their teammates. If a team does not win instead of camaraderie there is blaming. If the class is gifted and the students are told they are then there will be a sense of failure due to some weakest link and thus removal of status of intellectual capability by other members of the team. Basically there will now be a smaller hierarchy within the team therefore the competitive nature maintains it's individual nature and simply expands. This detrimental system only sets people up for failure because if you are in competition within your own competitive team you are stressing more about saving face than you are actually doing anything useful.