Competition is superior to cooperation as a means of achieving excellence

A1: We did not agree on what excellence is. We agreed to the standard for measuring it. The standard for being the fastest runner is the shortest time to cover the distance of the race. That tells nothing about how to achieve the fastest time. The standard for being the best physician is curing the most patients. That says nothing about how to achieve it. there is no way to determine excellence other than by competition. Con never disputed that fact that competition is absolutely essential to determining what the greatest good is for the greatest number of people. He claimed that knowing the specific path to excellence is irrelevant to the debate. I challenged con to describe how cooperation would determine what to do in any specific case. For example, does the greatest good for the greatest number require that we build iPhones, Droids, some of each, an altogether different product, or no smart phones at all? Con could not answer the question. No one can answer the question. Only competition in a free market can answer the question, and it does so consistently. That is the only mechanism that allows the people to determine by their own standards what is good for them. The resolution questions the "means of achieving excellence." It is not, as Con claims, about the standard for measuring excellence. Excellence can only be achieved by actually doing something, not by contemplating the standard by which an effort might be measured. Only competition determines what excellence is, so only competition can achieve excellence. Abstract understanding of goals does not equate to "achievement." Achievement is attaining goals. Con's argument therefore fails. A2: Con is completely wrong in his claim that I compared cooperation to authoritarianism. I offered several possible alternatives for possibly determining what to do to achieve excellence, absent competition. One alternative is authoritarian decision making. Then we should, presumably, all cooperate in doing what the authoritarian figure wants. I also offered the possibility of adopting consensus among those developing the product or service, and I offered the possibility of determining a consensus among potential consumers. All of the methods of determining what we ought to work cooperatively upon fail. The authoritarian isn't smart enough to know, the group consensus avoids innovation, and the users only know goals not methods. Only competition determines what is best. I pointed out that if the specific choice of what to do were unimportant, then authoritarian regimes would always be excellent. That's not true, so we know that the choice matters. The same argument applies to choosing what to do by developer consensus or consumer poll. If developer consensus were reliable, then every product would be excellent. If consumers were reliable, they would always demand the right set of new features that were not yet on the market. that doesn't happen either. The point is that only market competition allows excellence to be achieved. I did not equate authoritarianism with cooperation, I only claimed it was one of the methods that did not achieve excellence. Con never said how excellence could be achieved within the framework of "cooperation." It cannot. I also claimed that cooperation necessarily suppresses dissent, and that dissent provides innovation. I asked what happens to the person who does not want to go along with whatever he is supposed to cooperate with. If competition is allowed, the dissenter can compete. If only cooperation is allowed, the dissenter must be suppressed. Con offered no other choice. There is no other choice. N1: Of course products are developed with the consumer in mind. No one knows ahead of time what combination of price and features will best please the consumer. Even the consumer does not know. Therefore competing products must be introduced to find out what provides the best solution. Given that consumers have different needs, a single solution is unlikely to be best for everyone. Competition provides multiple solutions. Cooperation suppresses alternatives. N2: Con asks, "However, who knows what the people want, but the people?" The problem is that the people do not generally know in advance what they want. Ask people what they want and they will always choose to have every possible feature and benefit at no cost. Only competition requires people to choose from among what is possible. Con only concedes that competition "can be helpful." That's not true. Competition is essential to determining what is best. N3: Con offers, "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." Either the dissenter is allowed to produce a product and compete, or he is not. If he is allowed to compete, then the people who consume the product get to make the ultimate choice. Con only allows dissenters to provide solutions that cooperate with the original group. Thus you may disagree temporarily so long as you end up cooperating. However, everyone knows of consensus decisions that are dead wrong. The escape is competition. ------------------- In this debate Con never gave an example of how cooperation could be assured of producing excellence. He relied on the useless generality of doing whatever benefits the most people, without any means of knowing or discovering what that is.. By contrast, it is easy to explain how competition achieves excellence. People develop different ideas of what is best, and the people get to choose among them which one they judge to best suit their needs. Competition is required as a means of achieving excellence. The resolution is affirmed.