Competition is superior to cooperation as a means of achieving excellence

Refutation of A1: My opponent claims that we can't know what excellence is unless we have competing ideas, while in fact, we both agreed at the beginning of this debate that excellence is: "Good qualities in high degree," and that general welfare is, "the greatest good, as ordained by precepts of natural law, for the greatest number of people. " We use the standard of the general welfare to know when we achieve excellence, or in the terms my opponent is using, we can know what excellence is–the greatest good for the greatest number of people. My opponent seems to be under the impression that we are debating over progress, innovation, and improvement–all forms of a process. While competition certainly can give us a reason to improve, we must ask, "is competition the means of achieving excellence? " As showed earlier, the answer is no. Cooperation is what allows us to achieve the general welfare. If Motorola comes out with Droid one day, and the majority of the people consider it "excellent," then the general welfare has been upheld. If Apple makes the iPhone 4 and it's even better than the Droid, then that constitutes an improvement made by cooperation. While competition drives businesses on to make better products, the way they *make* the excellent products is through cooperation! This argument was completely unaddressed by Pro and still stands in our debate to prove the Con side of the resolution. My opponent agreed to the standard of general welfare to determine what and when we achieve excellence, but then he says "Con ignores the whole problem of knowing what best promotes the general welfare. " Pro is making a simple situation very complex while ignoring the true essence of my arguments–general welfare is the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Call it what you will, but that is what general welfare is! If we are considering a goal in which the majority of people benefit, it is just logical to look at cooperation, which involves an association of people, actively working and making an effort to not only benefit themselves, but others–mutual benefit. Refutation of A2: My opponent has repeatedly compared cooperation to authoritarian governments: once again, a false premise. Having completely ignored the definition of his own term (favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority), he then attempts to vaguely link "working together for mutual benefit" with "forcing others to obey one person. " This is simply an irrational and illogical statement, not to mention the definitions are practically complete opposites. My opponent then makes a blatant contradiction in his opening of his previous speech: "I did not equate cooperation with authoritarianism," but yet (in the same speech) he said, "If it were true that cooperating in achieving any defined goal produced excellence, then authoritarian regimes would always achieve excellence, and quite clearly they do not. " My opponent seems to be confusing competition–"strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same,"–and a friendly comparison of ideas that can and often does take place in cooperation. Cooperation allows people to think, unlike my opponent tries to paint it. In fact, because cooperation is working to achieve a mutual benefit, everyone must contribute in order to achieve that. It's a simple fact. Pro again makes the argument regarding "Con assumes everyone knows perfectly what best promotes general welfare," and once again ignores the fact that general welfare is simply the greatest good for the majority. Apple moved from the original iPhone to the 2G, 3G, 3GS, and now 4. They didn't have to compete to know what their consumers wanted; they simply worked to achieve mutual benefit between them and the consumers. Happier consumers = better-off Apple = benefit for everyone = general welfare. Now let's move on to my case and voting issues and see why cooperation is the superior means of achieving excellence: Voting Issue 1: Cooperation focuses on everyone Apple's iPhone 4 was developed with general welfare in mind, but because of the poor antenna design that Apple refuses to cooperate with consumers over, Apple's image is being hurt and people are having some trouble with making calls. All businesses must make profit or go out of business–the key is to focus first on the satisfaction of the consumer, and then the profit, because with the former comes the latter. A primary focus on "being the best" and "trying to beat everyone else," results in less focus on the consumer, less cooperation, and thus less general welfare. Motorola must still cooperate for mutual benefit with the consumer if they want to achieve excellence through the general welfare (not to mention to simply cooperate to make the phone). Cooperation focuses on everyone, mutual benefit, and thus is logically the best way to uphold majority benefit; general welfare. Voting Issue 2: Competition requires cooperation Pro says that since no one knows what is best for the majority, you must compete. However, who knows what the people want, but the people? A government has two options: to work for the benefit of the people, who will in turn, elect the official that benefits them or, as we see in Communist societies where the government strives against the people to be in control, competes and wins. Pro only addressed my example under this point. While I have repeatedly said that competition can be helpful, such as in the American government that has a level of competition built in, that competition is worthless if the government doesn't then cooperate more with the people as a result, thus leading to the general welfare. Voting Issue 3: Cooperation stands alone I didn't claim people think "group-think" as Pro put it (or don't think at all), rather that in cooperation people work together to find a result that benefits all of them. In the instance that someone has a different idea, or competes, they are free to leave and make their own group: the original group majority will still be benefited, thus the general welfare, and it is still up to the dissenting individual to provide an alternative that cooperates as much or more than the original group. General welfare can refer to any situation where the majority of those involved benefit, not just society. When all else fades away, all we are left with is not our phones, not our government, but our relationships with others–the key achieving factor of which is cooperation, not competition. Marriage does apply, and is a perfectly valid example of how competition fails while cooperation stands alone in achieving excellence. Voting Issue 4: Arguments Pro's case is built on the illogical argument that authoritarianism is the same as cooperation, despite his attempts to deny this. He has in fact, ignored cooperation's definition, "working together for mutual benefit. " My case, on the other hand, doesn't assume that "everyone knows what the general welfare is and agrees to not think," but rather simply points out that the general welfare is simply benefit for the majority. In business, you must cooperate to make products and to satisfy the majority–general welfare. In government, you must cooperate to have ideas and satisfy the majority, and in a relationship, you must cooperate for there to be a mutual benefit. My arguments still stand: cooperation's inherent focus on everyone results in a majority benefit, competition is only good if it leads to cooperation; all the examples of my opponent can be summed up in this way, and cooperation, not competition, has been shown to be the true means–action–of achieving excellence–this argument was also dropped by my opponent and should be considered a win for the Con. I have negated the resolution, and cooperation is truly the superior means of achieving excellence.