Collaboration is better than competition

First, my apologies I did not intend to disregard your rule, just used to no rebuttal in the last round and assumed that's what you had meant. Moving on. While it may be that the U.S. and Russia could have been more productive had they collaborated, the fact is that they didn't and we can speculate all we like as to how it would have played out, but cannot say anything with any degree of certainty. However before I go further I feel I must ask pro to again evaluate his resolution, as in the 2nd round the definition given for competition is as follows, - the rivalry among sellers trying to achieve such goals as increasing profits, market share, and sales volume by varying the elements of the marketing mix: price, product, distribution, and promotion. From this description my belief was that pro wished to discuss the competition vs. collaborative aspects of business. However reading pros analogies, all of which necessitate some sort of collaboration to combat there current situation, I find many of them do not tie back to the issue at hand. Electrons in a semiconductor may move in the same direction, but is this an act of collaboration or is it just a physical property of the atom? Either way, how does it relate to the competition/collaboration of business? The same question I will apply to the human body analogy, even if it were the case that the body needed all organs to function, which is not as you can live just fine with one kidney and tonsil removal is fairly common. I will agree with pro's point that most money is in the hands of a small portion of people, but that is a topic on distribution of wealth, and again we are supposed to be discussing whether business should collaborate rather than compete. Coming back to the focus of the argument pro asserts that competition between business's means they'll only try to make better products than other companies, but it is not that simple. As I had already stated in round 2, competition is beneficial for the consumer rather than the corporation. Competition gives the consumer freedom of choice, which is good since we don't all like the same burgers. It also urges companies to keep prices lower, and more recently environmentalism has even become an aspect of a business's image. Pro makes this aspect present in his example of Tesla Motors, who appeals to the more recent green movement. This is a car with intent of sustainability, whether or not it meets this goal is a topic for another debate, what's not for debate is whether this car is unique. Tesla was not the first to that party of electric cars, the first electric car produced was in 1867 and several have been produced since. Nikola Tesla has many legends surrounding his name, the free energy one being of the most prominent. He did believe he could build it and did attempt it, and while it may be theoretically possible the energy produced would not be of great proportions, he also did not invent the electric motor as Michael Faraday had already invented it in 1821. But again I ask, what does this have to do with your resolution? While pro has put out many arguments few pertain to the topic at hand, this is a large topic already so it does not help to dilute with other issues. Pro has also not clearly defined what he means by collaborating/competing business. While definitions were provided this does not tell us whether his idea of collaboration is to mean that we would have one company who produces cars, or that all car producers should share their information? What is the view of competition you are taking? http://www.nasdaq.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.magnet.fsu.edu...