Competition is superior to cooperation as a means of achieving excellence

Thank you! I look forward to a good debate as well. I will start by firstly refuting the arguments my opponent has made, and then returning to my original arguments and showing why my (the Con) side of the resolution ought to win. Refutation against Argument 1: My opponent claims that the only practical way to determine excellence is by competition. Now, this may have been a simple difference of semantics, but we are attempting to *achieve* excellence, not just determine what it is (as the resolution states). I'll assume my opponent meant "achieve." My opponent brought up the example of business to support his argument that competition achieves excellence. My response to this is simple: cooperation is the means. I also happened to use a similar example; that of business, in my own case. My argument stated that, while competition can provide an incentive, in the situation of government, competition is not the means, or the "action by which a result is brought about." If, for example, we consider an iPhone and Droid as excellent products, the question of the resolution remains: which one is the superior means, the better action, of achieving the goal of excellence? While competition from a tangible rival certainly provided an incentive to achieve excellence, incentive and achievement are two different things. The excellent phones were actually made through cooperation: employees working together to make the products, engineers working to design the products, and then ultimately, the businesses end goal: cooperation with the consumer; working together for mutual benefit (business gets a profit, consumer gets a phone). My response to my opponent's argument of general welfare and competition is this: once again, my opponent showed how competition provided a "need to innovate," but not how the competition was actually the means. You can be motivated and fail to do something. Cooperation provides the action the resolution asks for. In the end, the business is also motivated not only by competition, but primarily by profit incentive–through cooperation. Business is motivated because of the desire for a profit, and thus must make an excellent product–or go out of business. My opponent's next argument about not knowing what general welfare and good qualities are doesn't quite add up: the general welfare is basically the greatest good for the greatest number of people; people can (and do) receive benefits without having a competitive rival. My opponent alludes to the fact that excellence is relative, which it is: but we *know* when we reach excellence when the majority has benefited (general welfare). Refutation against Argument 2: My opponent's second argument essentially equated cooperation with authoritarianism (defined by the New American Oxford as "favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, esp. that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom; showing a lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others; domineering; dictatorial") and this statement is simply false–cooperation is working for a mutual benefit for those involved, not making servants, essentially, out of people. My opponent says that if there is a group cooperating on something, it is natural for someone to disagree. This is not always the case. If, however, it is, we must refer to the standard of general welfare: would the competition–the disagreement–or the cooperation–which is currently in place–best benefit the group? Obviously cooperation, as the group has already made a consensus as to what will provide them the greatest benefit. My opponent claimed in cooperation, a "Dear Leader" or a dictatorial person will decide what is the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This is incorrect: Hitler *believed* that he was acting for the general welfare. But he wasn't–he murdered millions of people. Just because someone says or believes they are upholding general welfare is *not* the same as actually doing it. Communism's mindset is a form of equality, not cooperation. This mindset devolves into a competitive one as the government rivals with the people for control (obviously, the government wins since they are the stronger force). Let's see why the Con case still stands: P1: My first point referred to how cooperation's mindset focuses on everyone involved; my opponent said focus means to look only at one thing. This is simply technicality; in fact, focus is defined (New Oxford American) as "the center of interest or activity." This doesn't mean just "one thing." Cooperation does, in fact, focus on benefiting everyone in the group. Why? Because of it's nature: *working together for mutual benefit.* Everyone works for their own benefit as well as the rest of the group's benefit. This upholds general welfare, and through that, excellence. P2: Competition requires cooperation Pro's authoritarian example, I have already addressed. My opponent didn't address my point of how Communist government's compete with the people they should be cooperating with. This still stands. The market example once again comes up, and once again, competition has only been shown to provide a motivation and incentive. I agree, competition can be and is a good thing in the market; the fact remains that cooperation is the means of achieving excellence. Developers do know what promotes general welfare: through cooperation. Once again, businesses must cooperate with consumers so that both will be benefited, and when the consumers aren't satisfied, the business steps up quality. My original argument was unaddressed: as I put it, "competition is only good to the extent that it furthers cooperation." In business, companies can compete–Enron competed–but if they don't cooperate to benefit their consumers, they fail to achieve excellence. P3: Cooperation stands alone Pro made a few statements saying that cooperation suppresses dissent, or competition. Going back to my 2nd Point, that competition *is only good* insofar as it leads to more cooperation. Once again, my argument wasn't really addressed: cooperation stands alone; is able to achieve excellence by itself, while competition must lead to cooperation in order to be helpful. Pro said that cooperation encourages "group-think," which is in fact, a lack of thinking (defined as "the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility.") This is rather a lack of cooperation–cooperation requires working together for a mutual benefit. Cooperation is not a lack of thinking. Rather, you must think in order to reach a common benefit. My opponent claimed that excellence in personal relationships is relative. While people do have different concepts of benefit, in a marriage for example, the two parties must work together, cooperate, for a mutual benefit, in order for there to be excellence. The situation still applies. As I did compare it to competition, we simply see that competition fails in personal relationships. ––––––––––––––– While as I said, competition may provide incentive and a motivation (cooperation in business also does, because of the incentive to please the consumer), we haven't seen why competition is the *means* or action of achieving that excellence. My opponent said "no one knows in advance what best serves the general welfare." We do know: when the greatest number of people (majority or more) have received benefit. Cooperation is working together for mutual benefit–these two go hand-in-hand. No "elite" determines things in cooperation; this is a flaw in my opponent's argumentation: that cooperation is domination of others by one. No, cooperation works with everyone so that everyone may benefit. If there is no mutual benefit, it is not cooperation. Cooperation has been proven to be the superior tool in business, government, and personal relationships. Cooperation is the superior means, the action that the r