preporation for the final debate post things that will help and disscuss tuxedo combo ideas

The superiority of competition or cooperation is a debate that spans the left and right, individualists and collectivists, socialists and capitalists, and beyond. But even if these are two opposite ends of the spectrum of human interaction, it is not the absolute pure ends that anyone advocates. Free-market anarchists argue that the ethical element of the debate is over voluntariness. It is peaceful competition and peaceful cooperation vs. coercive competition and coercive cooperation.

Unfortunately, as simple and as clear as I think this solution, people here our argument and then go back to arguing against competition or cooperation. Perhaps a reframing of the issue can help others share the libertarian epiphany.

The most unrestricted level of human competition is unlimited war. Within this state there is no obligation to grant mercy, accept surrender conditions, fight fairly, limit pillaging, rape, or torture, or other malevolent acts. Sure, this may be called pure competition, but it is not a competition meant to allow anyone to enjoy life or have any liberty, especially in the long run. It is also worthwhile to notice that at this extreme, there is no obligation to limit such acts to opponents in such war. One could equally turn on allies and do the same to them as to enemies. There would then be no safety in numbers where there is no honor among thieves.

The next step up from this abyss is the limited war. In this stage, both sides cooperate by agreeing to certain rules of war. They may be quite ruthless and kill thousands or millions, but they do gain a little security in knowing they are less likely to be tortured for pleasure, and receive certain rights in case of surrender. It is not just the weaker party that benefits by the cooperation of limited war relative to the unlimited war. If the likely victor can assure the likely loser that the loser will "only" receive some specified maximum punishment if he surrenders compared to expectations in unlimited war, then the weaker party may surrender. In the previous state, no such assurances would be trustworthy. In this case, the loser receives less harm than otherwise expected by surrendering, and the victor obtains more power than if the loser would have fought to the death.

The second step up from this is that of the slave caste of a society/state not at war. The slave has his liberty restricted, and some portion of his labor is taken from him and is "paid" a certain allotment, neither of which he can control. The slave-owner is free to maximize what he takes from the slave, and will then provide only so much as he thinks will maximize the net of slave profit vs. potential cost of slave rebellion. This system is still better than the previous one. From a moral perspective, there is an increased restriction on injustice, and from a utilitarian one, there is less hindrance of capital growth.

The modern nation-state citizen is not really a separate step from such outright slavery in the examples above. Rather, it is more of a fulfillment of these steps. The most powerful coalition in each step realizes that granting a little more liberty, citizenship, and rights to the weaker classes both allows and encourages them to be more productive so that the powerful can extract more money, profit, goods, or labor from them. But at this level, this system reaches maximum profit for the ruling class. It will not voluntarily advance to another social structure that would increase either net freedom or profit to the whole society if it comes at a cost to the ruling class, because the next step up involves the concept of restitution, which the ruling class does not want to pay.

Considering other combinations of competition vs. cooperation require stepping into a completely new series with no natural or pareto-optimal passage from the former stages - unless the rulers were to adopt a more libertarian moral code and pay for previous acts.

The new social structure could be considered unrestricted anarcho-capitalism. It is not pure competition because it begins with the foundation of cooperation by acceptance of anarcho-capitalist law. Competition that would harm another person, their property, or their equal liberty is prohibited, but every other dog-eat-dog competition is allowed. This is a strong "buyer beware" society. A used car dealer sells a car "as-is," you buy it and discover it is a lemon. Tough luck. Everything is sold "as-is" with no guarantee unless otherwise stated. You can't trust anyone without a contract. Everyone tries to get every penny of profit from everyone else. Everyone spends a large amount of effort to evaluate the maximum the market will bear for his goods and labor. Every stupidity, ignorance, or mistake is "exploited" to the extent that does not violate the rights of the system, and so people must try very hard to avoid such receiving such exploitation.

Instead of taking a one-step up look at more cooperation, compare the final end of pure cooperation. Everyone always tells not only the truth, but also every relevant detail with no trade secrets. Everyone tries to work equal amounts of labor and take out equal amounts of value. Minimal time is spent in pricing goods because the profit (the difference between each party's subjective values) is split about equally in any trade. Given such, prices are not precise measures of value.

Now these two examples may seem like opposites, but neither is accurately representative of anyone’s complete belief system. The anarcho-capitalist situation above is merely what boundary the market anarchist believes should be punished as a crime. It does not imply endorsement of the vices that are not crimes. Even market anarchists practice every day the maximum cooperation situation above . . . in marriages. Every successful marriage (assuming a voluntary marriage of equals) requires that each spouse give and take about equally, act truthfully, accurately represent the labor they contribute and the expenses they create, etc.

The problem is that such cooperation is oftentimes hard. We may think that our labor is harder than our spouse's. We may think that some of our spouse’s labor is more leisure than real labor, a different degree of “toil and trouble” than we do, have a different time preference towards thrift vs. current consumption, etc. Partners either struggle to evaluate each other's net labor contribution to the marriage, or they just trust the other person, which tempts the other to free ride off of the other. When one spouse feels such, there is distrust and frustration. Yet, these are the challenges for pure cooperation for just two people who spent much time in trying to find the perfect mate with compatible goals. Marriages fail all the time, and even frequent sex as a reward for success is apparently not enough to keep many from failure. As the size of a totally communal/cooperative group increases, the difficulty of efficiency increases exponentially as it is harder to reach unanimity on goals and evaluation of the use-value of each other's labor.

So what degree of cooperation is ideal? The near tautological answer is to cooperate to the degree the expected benefits of cooperation outweigh the expected costs. The real world answer is that we cooperate with those we trust, but only to the degree the trust will not tempt them to free ride too much. We cooperate least with those who have goals contrary or hostile to our own. I hope you cooperate minimally with any nation-state because they do not cooperate with you except with you as citizen-slave. We cooperate more with those whom we have ideological, religious, and ethical agreements. We cooperate more with someone whom we can hold responsible and see every day than the transient stranger. I will cooperate more with someone who, when in trade with me, seeks to split profit (or "surplus value") equally with me than with someone who wants to try to get every penny of profit from me he can.

In short, no one should attack market anarchism for opposing cooperation. We don't. We don't care, at least from a legal perspective, if you want to form a commune where everyone is married to everybody in complete and permanent income sharing. Consider the debate about competition vs. cooperation as one of minimal detail for every individual to work out in each of his own interactions with others. Outside of cooperation on the minimum of opposing crimes, it is not a significant matter of political theory. It is those who want to coerce cooperation that should realize that doing so takes your beliefs out of the voluntary sphere back into the hegemonic social stages of unlimited war to class war.

Nevertheless, there is a point where such issues appear to make a difference. It is not an issue of principle, but of the temptation to sell out our principles. When anarcho-capitalists sell out, they sell out in favor of state-capitalism, and when anarcho-socialists sell out, they do so in favor of state-socialism. We shouldn’t fear only the other side selling out, but proactively work to keep our own sides from the temptation of the ballot, the parties, think tanks, academia, trade unions, corrupt businesses, or whatever may tempt us. Speak out harshly against the state today so that they will not want you in a future moment of weakness.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/lg/lg2.html

ok i still havent rely got much done on affirmate so far i got every thing we said at the class but it will be done soon

Competition is indeed good for our adolescents. It builds character and prepares them for life. It teaches them to give their best while learning to deal with disappointing moments if their lives.

Recently I read an article that an area football association would no longer keep score for the games. Their reasoning is the losing team would feel disappointed if they lost. What kind of reasoning is that? How will these children learn that you don't always win but you are a winner if you have tried your hardest?

Our daughter, Laurie, competed in our small town Little Prince and Princess contest when she was 5 years old. The only reason I entered her was the coordinators said they needed little girls because they didn't have any signed up. I prepared her with the knowledge that she may not win but to do her best. It wasn't a big pageant production with the fancy dresses or makeup, as I don't believe in that. They simply collected nickels and answered questions for a judging panel.

On the night they picked the Princess I assured Laurie that no matter where she placed she would be our Princess forever. She did win that evening. This little competition taught her social interaction and built her self-esteem. After a year of parades, she crowned the next Prince and Princess. When I asked if she wanted to compete in the County Fair contest she said no, which was fine by me.

During Junior High school she decided to play soccer. Her team lost repeatedly but it gave her the chance to learn to deal with disappointment. She continued to play soccer for the next two years knowing even when they lost she was doing something she enjoyed and winning wasn't everything.

Also in Junior High Laurie competed in the Snow Princess competition that was open to all the girls in her school. She took First Runner Up both times she competed. Even though I know she felt bad for not winning, Laurie showed her true inner beauty by congratulating the winner and handling herself with grace.

Her next competitions were in High school during the 4th of July celebrations. She competed twice and took First Runner Up the first year and eventually became the Independence Queen during her second try.

These were the last of her Beauty Queen competitions but with each time she competed we could see her grow as a person.

While still in High school she took a photography class for a semester. Laurie had taken a picture in silhouette of a friend. He was simply leaning on a railing at the school with the sun casting him in shadows. There was a contest for a Statewide High school photography classes and her teacher picked 3 of her photos to enter. Laurie never gave it another thought.

We received an invitation to the presentation of awards for photography one day after school. When we arrived we found Laurie had Best In Show. When I congratulated her she said, "Mom, I only got Best In Show and they still had a first place and second place winners." Laurie didn't realize that her award was the best and couldn't believe me when I told her that her picture was the best, hence that was why she was there. In the long run she learned of her love for photography due to a teacher who knew a great picture when she saw it. This would never have happened if not for competition.

This might seem like the ravings of a proud parent and part of that assessment would be correct. However I used these examples to show how competition has molded my daughter into the person she is today. She has confidence and can handle disappointment. Laurie is in the Army Reserves so she has to push herself to meet the standards required during her weekend training. This is not easy but when she fails a PT test she knows she has to push herself harder the next time she has to take the test. There is no giving up.

All youth are not going to be a football player or a beauty queen. But by encouraging them to compete in many different venues they learn the importance of trying new things. If they feel they no longer want to do something then they have other avenues to explore.

Our children compete daily when they play their video games and don't even realize it. Very few throw down the game and walk away out of disappointment. They simply continue until they conquer the difficult level and go on. This is no different than life. We all have had our share of disappointments but we learn to cope and continue on.

Learn more about this author, Dee Cain.
Contact this writer Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Hurt
1 of 20
by Randy Browne

Write NowWrite now Print articlePrint Invite a WriterInvite a writer Add to FavoritesAdd to Favorites RSSRSS Feed Contact this writerContact this writer

Ancient China has a number of sayings about competition. To name just a few (from memory; not claimed to be direct quotes) ....

(1) "Seeking great honor often results in no honor at all".

(2) "The sage seeks only to satisfy the cravings of his belly, and not the insatiable longing of his eyes".

(3) "The wise warrior knows that every victory parade is also a funeral", which can be seen as a metaphor with multiple meanings, including concerns over what military victory (or any form of competition) sets into motion.

It's one thing to teach youngsters that competition is a fact of Nature; it's quite another matter to teach youth to revel and delight in competition, and to seek competition for its own sake. Many adults who encourage competition among youngsters often argue the former to justify the latter, but the latter cannot be justified by the former.

There's nothing wrong with the idea that competition is a part of Nature. The common mistake is in thinking competition is the very essence of Nature; yet, there's far more to Nature than mere competition.

In the wild, two tigers might fight fiercely over food, prey, territory, and whatnot. That's competition, but even in the "animal world", that's not the whole picture. Clearly, there is cooperation within societies of non-humans, ranging from ants, bees, wolves, some large cat species, and even elephants. There is also mutual cooperation for survival between species; bees and flowers are perhaps the most well-known example.

Furthermore, look at the biosystem inside an individual mammal; even mammals like tigers, which have a less clear social structure in comparison with, say, lions and wolves. Blood cells in a tiger carry oxygen to the tiger's brain. The blood cells are not in competition with a (healthy) tiger's brain cells for oxygen; quite the opposite, the blood cells actually give up oxygen "in service" to brain cells and various other parts of the tiger's body. Similarly, the tiger's immune system works mainly by cooperation, not (internal) competition.

Outside the tiger, in the air and open oceans, many single-celled animals compete directly for food; yet the cells inside a tiger's body thrive mainly on cooperation. The fact that the cells in a tiger's body, or even a human body, might not be conscious of their cooperative roles, isn't the issue. When certain cells in a higher life form begin to engage in self-serving, independent growth; a form of competition with other body cells, then a serious biological condition exists, called cancer.

In Nature, the paradoxical role of competition is to develop and maintain cooperation (or God does, if you prefer; I sidestep that debate, as it has no place here). Over long periods of time, less-organized life systems interact, combine, reduce competition, and increase cooperation. Higher life forms and societies of various kinds of life thrive mostly on cooperation. Nature uses competition to slowly build progressively higher levels of cooperation (e.g. human beings first formed tribes, later built villages, later entire nations, etc.). Nature generally limits internal competition to maintaining health of an overall organism or society; not to serve selfish needs of individual life forms, such as arrogant and powerful humans. Even a dominant male in a society of wild mammals won't kill off other males just to keep everything for himself; lions and wolves need a good team to hunt, for example.

Now, as for human society, when cooperation is over-emphasized and individual competition is insufficient, the result is an inflexible, conformist society; its counterpart in "the wild" is the organism that dies off because it cannot adapt to change.

Conversely, in human society, when individual competition is excessive, then individual welfare suffers as well as society; one analogue in Nature is again, the organism suffering from cancer. Excessive competition in our society is thus metaphorically a "cancer", which destroys social cooperation, including respect for the rights and feelings of others.

Realizing for human and non-human society alike, as well as for higher life forms in Nature, that excessive competition is harmful both individually and collectively, the question is how to seek balance? Here again, ancient Chinese wisdom is pertinent, for still again, "The sage seeks only to satisfy the cravings of his belly, and not the insatiable longing of his eyes", and this profound Oriental wisdom is where our society has seriously failed our young.

When our young folks are taught the natural and unavoidable role of competition in their lives, they are learning how to "fill their bellies". Not everybody is equal in ability, nor need be. If we believe that already, then why are so many of us shrieking at that youngster who dropped the ball at their Saturday afternoon game? It's not as though they wanted to fail. Each person will inevitably end up in competition as part of finding that at which he or she can succeed. But our society is far, far past that point.

In ancient Chinese terms, competition in our society has become largely a matter of "the insatiable longing of the eyes" which is illogically defended by the need to "fill one's belly". Pride and vanity in animals perhaps aids their survival; the ancient Chinese at least, felt humanity could do better than that. In our society, we have the expression "keeping up with the Jones family next door", equivalent to the Chinese' "insatiable longing of the eyes". Even in those cases where we have adequate money, food, clothing, and shelter, then far too often, there is still a deep passion for obtaining "more" without any moral or spiritual purpose whatsoever.

Having everybody want to be corporate presidents isn't any more healthy for society than having all drone and worker bees wanting to be the Queen bee would be healthy for a beehive. People of all ages should accept and respect the strengths and weaknesses within themselves and others, but we undermine such thinking by encouraging competition without stressing at least equal importance for a sense of community.

It's one matter if a person feels naturally competitive; that too, is part of Nature. It's even another matter if a person's competitive nature has a noble aim. It always puts a smile on my face to hear a small child or even a teenager outline a completely unworkable plan to make everybody in the world happy; a competitive challenge to some unnamed, evil "they", yet who's to say something good won't eventually come of that? But actually teaching youngsters who are not naturally competitive to feel "the insatiable longing of the eyes"; to teach the desire for power, control, personal possessions, and the like, far beyond what a youth feels by nature, is the mark of a sick society.

For those families with one or more highly competitive youngsters, I think there's a test that one might apply to one's own family to discern whether competition is healthy or not, and that test, would be as follows.

If your son or daughter happens to win an award of some kind, then by all means, commend them. As you discuss their achievement with your youngster, reflect quietly to yourself on the ancient Chinese admonition that "Every victory parade is also a funeral", and say nothing of it yet. Your youngster might voluntarily lament how unfortunate it is that everybody cannot win an award. If something like that happens, then not to worry. You have a wonderful son or daughter, and in time, they might have as much to teach this world, as they have to learn from it.

But if your youngster doesn't express their regard for non-winners on their own, and the conversation is too centered on the "local victory parade", perhaps you could gently mention the matter of how non-winners might feel, to give your youngster cause to reflect. Perhaps you don't want to mention this right away, to avoid "throwing a bucket of water on the victory parade", so how about discussing the feelings of non-winners sometime later? There's no point to rehashing this each and every time your youngster wins an award, but if you can't ever seem to discuss this, you may have a problem. Are you really teaching your youngster that competition is a part of life, or are you unwittingly teaching them to "look out for Old Number One"? They're not the same thing in a good society.

If you truly believe that competition is a part of life and Nature, then by all means, teach your youngster such. But teaching youngsters to focus on being "a winner" is not the same thing, and at best, a half-truth. Again, the larger truth about human competition is, "Every victory parade is also a funeral", and when our society can truly claim to be teaching that ancient Chinese metaphor to our youth on a widespread basis, then, and only then, is competition a good thing. Until that day comes, I shall continue to assert that competition does more harm than good to our youngsters. As things are now, we're mostly just teaching our youth to be arrogant and inconsiderate; current competition among our young is only "healthy" for "winners", far less so for many others.

both sides http://www.helium.com/debates/116934-does-competition-help-or-hurt-young-people/side_by_side

Competition or Cooperation?

Joan S. Ingalls

You get to the boathouse early so you can grab the best set of oars. You peruse the catalogues for an ever more ergonomic pair of trou. You read about high intensity workouts to improve your strength. You learn all you can about nutrition to boost your energy. But that’s not all: You pass up a night out with your friends so you can make an early workout. You force yourself to endure pain in the belief that it is the only way to get faster. On race day, you are fiercely focused. Having trained so hard and made so many sacrifices, you want to win, not just perform well. You don’t know who will show up to race you or what shape they will be in, but never mind, you want to win — beat them. And you won’t be satisfied if the victory is too easy... so, it’s not just winning that you want, but the opportunity to prove yourself; the challenge of the competition.

But what is competition? Who are we and what are we doing when we are on the water? Competition means my success is your failure. If I obtain my goal, then you don’t obtain yours. It is essentially a "zero sum" game. Competition may be best described as a situation. It’s a situation, in which individuals or teams strive against each other to obtain a goal that only one can ultimately achieve. In rowing, we can distinguish several kinds of competition. Competition can be "direct" or "indirect". A regatta is a direct competition. The participants can gauge themselves against each other throughout the race. Head races and stake races are indirect competitions. The competitors are theoretically racing against the clock, not each other. (Experienced competitors, however, can judge their positions, and make at least part of the race a direct competition, if they choose.) Competition can be "public" or "private". It is a private matter if, when out for a practice row, I spot another rower, and make it a personal challenge to pass him. Or, when I watch my stroke meter and determine to improve on my previous rating. Or, when I time myself for 500 meters, and compare the results to the previous 500. It is a public matter whether it is an internationally sanctioned race or a scrimmage to see who gets back to the dock first.

In general, we have developed many myths about competition. Alfie Kohn, a well-known researcher in competition, outlines several:

1. Competition is inevitable; it is human nature. This belief is maintained despite the fact that more than half a century ago, Margaret Mead found that competition was unknown among the Zuni and Iroquois Indians.

2. Competition brings out the best in us. Actually, research shows that cooperation raises standards, and promotes higher achievement than competition. Competition may lower standards because it increases anxiety, and prevents us from sharing useful information. Surveys show that successful people, outside of sports, love a challenge, but they are not motivated by winning. Succeeding and beating others are not the same. Many successful athletes do not take their need to win into their personal or professional lives. For example, in a recent interview with Independent Rowing News, Dereck Porter said, "Off the water I wouldn’t consider myself a very competitive person, which is markedly different to when I am on the water."

3. Competition builds character; it strengthens our self-esteem. However, the possibility of being humiliated is always present in competition. Debilitated by anxiety, individuals with low self-esteem lose. Their low self-esteem becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Losing can be so frustrating that it can bring about aggression. How does that contribute to building character?

What about cooperation? I believe that competition is cooperation. Competitors are cooperating to bring out the best in each other. They are cooperating by being be in the same place at the same time and following the rules.

"So what?" you may ask, "Who cares what you call it? I am out there to win."

But how do you know you are out there to win? What does that mean? The desire to win can be harmful if you put winning above excellence, or if you are willing to cheat to win, or if you fear humiliation if you lose, or fear that you will treat a loser as inferior. What if you fear pressure at the top or becoming arrogant and unbearable if you win? What I am saying is that most of us are conflicted about winning. We aren't just "out there to win." We are many things. We are complex. Our "wanting" to win is determined by our competitive culture and its many myths about competition. We can create any scene that we want when we are on the water. We can choose to cooperate, not compete. But we first have to consider our complexity as human beings and the many possibilities open to us. Competition or cooperation is just one simple duality that I hope will help those of you who just want to win to begin thinking about being a creator of the scene rather than a societally determined competitor. I believe that will make you a better competitor, you will perform better, and you will have more fun

someing for finnaly

Competition is indeed good for our adolescents. It builds character and prepares them for life. It teaches them to give their best while learning to deal with disappointing moments if their lives.

Recently I read an article that an area football association would no longer keep score for the games. Their reasoning is the losing team would feel disappointed if they lost. What kind of reasoning is that? How will these children learn that you don't always win but you are a winner if you have tried your hardest?

Our daughter, Laurie, competed in our small town Little Prince and Princess contest when she was 5 years old. The only reason I entered her was the coordinators said they needed little girls because they didn't have any signed up. I prepared her with the knowledge that she may not win but to do her best. It wasn't a big pageant production with the fancy dresses or makeup, as I don't believe in that. They simply collected nickels and answered questions for a judging panel.

On the night they picked the Princess I assured Laurie that no matter where she placed she would be our Princess forever. She did win that evening. This little competition taught her social interaction and built her self-esteem. After a year of parades, she crowned the next Prince and Princess. When I asked if she wanted to compete in the County Fair contest she said no, which was fine by me.

During Junior High school she decided to play soccer. Her team lost repeatedly but it gave her the chance to learn to deal with disappointment. She continued to play soccer for the next two years knowing even when they lost she was doing something she enjoyed and winning wasn't everything.

Also in Junior High Laurie competed in the Snow Princess competition that was open to all the girls in her school. She took First Runner Up both times she competed. Even though I know she felt bad for not winning, Laurie showed her true inner beauty by congratulating the winner and handling herself with grace.

Her next competitions were in High school during the 4th of July celebrations. She competed twice and took First Runner Up the first year and eventually became the Independence Queen during her second try.

These were the last of her Beauty Queen competitions but with each time she competed we could see her grow as a person.

While still in High school she took a photography class for a semester. Laurie had taken a picture in silhouette of a friend. He was simply leaning on a railing at the school with the sun casting him in shadows. There was a contest for a Statewide High school photography classes and her teacher picked 3 of her photos to enter. Laurie never gave it another thought.

We received an invitation to the presentation of awards for photography one day after school. When we arrived we found Laurie had Best In Show. When I congratulated her she said, "Mom, I only got Best In Show and they still had a first place and second place winners." Laurie didn't realize that her award was the best and couldn't believe me when I told her that her picture was the best, hence that was why she was there. In the long run she learned of her love for photography due to a teacher who knew a great picture when she saw it. This would never have happened if not for competition.

This might seem like the ravings of a proud parent and part of that assessment would be correct. However I used these examples to show how competition has molded my daughter into the person she is today. She has confidence and can handle disappointment. Laurie is in the Army Reserves so she has to push herself to meet the standards required during her weekend training. This is not easy but when she fails a PT test she knows she has to push herself harder the next time she has to take the test. There is no giving up.

All youth are not going to be a football player or a beauty queen. But by encouraging them to compete in many different venues they learn the importance of trying new things. If they feel they no longer want to do something then they have other avenues to explore.

Our children compete daily when they play their video games and don't even realize it. Very few throw down the game and walk away out of disappointment. They simply continue until they conquer the difficult level and go on. This is no different than life. We all have had our share of disappointments but we learn to cope and continue on.


Ancient China has a number of sayings about competition. To name just a few (from memory; not claimed to be direct quotes) ....

(1) "Seeking great honor often results in no honor at all".

(2) "The sage seeks only to satisfy the cravings of his belly, and not the insatiable longing of his eyes".

(3) "The wise warrior knows that every victory parade is also a funeral", which can be seen as a metaphor with multiple meanings, including concerns over what military victory (or any form of competition) sets into motion.

It's one thing to teach youngsters that competition is a fact of Nature; it's quite another matter to teach youth to revel and delight in competition, and to seek competition for its own sake. Many adults who encourage competition among youngsters often argue the former to justify the latter, but the latter cannot be justified by the former.

There's nothing wrong with the idea that competition is a part of Nature. The common mistake is in thinking competition is the very essence of Nature; yet, there's far more to Nature than mere competition.

Competition or Cooperation?

You get to the boathouse early so you can grab the best set of oars. You peruse the catalogues for an ever more ergonomic pair of trou. You read about high intensity workouts to improve your strength. You learn all you can about nutrition to boost your energy. But that’s not all: You pass up a night out with your friends so you can make an early workout. You force yourself to endure pain in the belief that it is the only way to get faster. On race day, you are fiercely focused. Having trained so hard and made so many sacrifices, you want to win, not just perform well. You don’t know who will show up to race you or what shape they will be in, but never mind, you want to win — beat them. And you won’t be satisfied if the victory is too easy... so, it’s not just winning that you want, but the opportunity to prove yourself; the challenge of the competition.

But what is competition? Who are we and what are we doing when we are on the water? Competition means my success is your failure. If I obtain my goal, then you don’t obtain yours. It is essentially a "zero sum" game. Competition may be best described as a situation. It’s a situation, in which individuals or teams strive against each other to obtain a goal that only one can ultimately achieve. In rowing, we can distinguish several kinds of competition. Competition can be "direct" or "indirect". A regatta is a direct competition. The participants can gauge themselves against each other throughout the race. Head races and stake races are indirect competitions. The competitors are theoretically racing against the clock, not each other. (Experienced competitors, however, can judge their positions, and make at least part of the race a direct competition, if they choose.) Competition can be "public" or "private". It is a private matter if, when out for a practice row, I spot another rower, and make it a personal challenge to pass him. Or, when I watch my stroke meter and determine to improve on my previous rating. Or, when I time myself for 500 meters, and compare the results to the previous 500. It is a public matter whether it is an internationally sanctioned race or a scrimmage to see who gets back to the dock first.

In general, we have developed many myths about competition. Alfie Kohn, a well-known researcher in competition, outlines several:

1. Competition is inevitable; it is human nature. This belief is maintained despite the fact that more than half a century ago, Margaret Mead found that competition was unknown among the Zuni and Iroquois Indians.

2. Competition brings out the best in us. Actually, research shows that cooperation raises standards, and promotes higher achievement than competition. Competition may lower standards because it increases anxiety, and prevents us from sharing useful information. Surveys show that successful people, outside of sports, love a challenge, but they are not motivated by winning. Succeeding and beating others are not the same. Many successful athletes do not take their need to win into their personal or professional lives. For example, in a recent interview with Independent Rowing News, Dereck Porter said, "Off the water I wouldn’t consider myself a very competitive person, which is markedly different to when I am on the water."

3. Competition builds character; it strengthens our self-esteem. However, the possibility of being humiliated is always present in competition. Debilitated by anxiety, individuals with low self-esteem lose. Their low self-esteem becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Losing can be so frustrating that it can bring about aggression. How does that contribute to building character?

What about cooperation? I believe that competition is cooperation. Competitors are cooperating to bring out the best in each other. They are cooperating by being be in the same place at the same time and following the rules.

"So what?" you may ask, "Who cares what you call it? I am out there to win."

But how do you know you are out there to win? What does that mean? The desire to win can be harmful if you put winning above excellence, or if you are willing to cheat to win, or if you fear humiliation if you lose, or fear that you will treat a loser as inferior. What if you fear pressure at the top or becoming arrogant and unbearable if you win? What I am saying is that most of us are conflicted about winning. We aren't just "out there to win." We are many things. We are complex. Our "wanting" to win is determined by our competitive culture and its many myths about competition. We can create any scene that we want when we are on the water. We can choose to cooperate, not compete. But we first have to consider our complexity as human beings and the many possibilities open to us. Competition or cooperation is just one simple duality that I hope will help those of you who just want to win to begin thinking about being a creator of the scene rather than a societally determined competitor. I believe that will make you a better competitor, you will perform better, and you will have more fun

i got this as addition i think im good now if not plese post ms grey i tell me what i should add
because im shorting my other and i need to also know if this is good

Ty, As I've read through your posts I want you to know how encouraged I am to see the research you are doing for this debate. This will all help you in the long run as you become more fluent in the lingo of these big ideas. One thing I have noticed and I believe you will agree.... Most of your research has a very slanted bias toward the negative side of the debate. I know you have expressed your opinion that the negative side is the side you agree with, however I need to reiterate that becoming a good debater requires you to effectively argue for the resolution too. What will happen on the day of the debate if you flip a coin and find out that you are debating as the affirmative speaker? Are you simply going to concede the win to your opponent?
The people who put a great deal of thought into developing and writing this resolution did so knowing that there is NO clear win on either side of this debate. This resolution is highly debateable and it is your job to understand the best arguments on both sides. If you allow yourself to always lean on the negative side, then you'll be handicapped in the debate.

I also need to let you know that this vast amount of research is only beneficial if you are able to organize and deliver it within the perameters of the timed speeches in the debate round. You will need to build your case and rebut your opponents case in a total of 13 minutes. If you only talk about your case in this 13 minutes the judge will grant the win to your opponent because you neglected to challenge him on his points. Your affirmative constructive speech is only 6 minutes in length. You must follow the outline that I suggested in class and distill some of the key points that you've researched into an organized speech. This starts by choosing a value that encompasses your key arguments. I look forward to seeing develop strong argumentd in support of this resolution.
Thanks
Mrs. Gray

OK I will try that thank you Mrs. Grey. I will try that i thought that would be a bad idea because then the opposite debate basically know what Im saying and then would do a good negative attacking debate a basically rendering those fact useless.I also dint wont to make it to long. but i indeed Ended up making most of it a story . i will hope I will get better at the affirmative. thank you Mrs. Grey.


~Ty

I understand your concern here

Quote :

I will try that i thought that would be a bad idea because then the opposite debate basically know what Im saying and then would do a good negative attacking debate a basically rendering those fact useless.

However to foster learning for all, we can't be protective about our cases. As a new debater it will help you to know what your opponent might say so that you can better prepare a case against them. Your opponent will also have her case posted to the forum, so this will make things even. The real exercise that we are learning is how to communicate persuasively and how to keep this persuasion within the guidelines of a competitive debate. If we all work cooperatively toward this goal, everyone will benefit and walk away with a much stronger understanding of debate. (how's that for supporting the negative case!)

Please be sure to post your affirmative case in the proper thread. All of this research and discussion needs to be presented in the framework that I provided and posted in the Affirmative case thread for the Competition vrs. Cooperation thread. Other students have already started doing so and you can see their examples as well as my comments on their cases.

Quote :

i will hope I will get better at the negitive.

just a clarification, it appears to me you already have a lot of support for a negative case... it seems like you may need to give more attention to developing your arguments for the affirmative case that is due this week.

Thanks Ty,
Mrs. Gray

ok i dint know they will have theres posted too thanks

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0337/philosophers.html this may help

Competition is a way of life all over the world. It is the fuel that
keeps democracy running. By definition competition involves rivalry, a
contest and opposition. It involves striving for the same object
against another person. Is that the way a Christian should follow? My name is Ty Grice and I am the Affirmative speaker for this debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer, and negative speaker for being here today. My value for this round will be SALVATION and for the purpose of supporting this value I present my thesis which is God. In this case I will demonstrate that my value salvation requires us to affirm the resolution which states competition is better then cooperation in a means of achieving excellence. I am going to define a few of the key words in this resolution to ensure that we all understand what this resolution means. this debate Competition is competing against others and Cooperation is teamwork and last but not lest Excellence the quality of being above average or better then average present these definitions as the standard for which you can further understand this debate salvation is the way to heaven. My value is the most important value in this debate round because God is the essence of life and to achieve the ultimate goal of achieving salvation you need salvation
As the affirmative speaker in today’s debate round, I have the privilege of agreeing with the truth of this resolution. In order to win this debate I will show how my value is the most important value to consider when deciding on this resolution. I will show this with my main points.

Not just the act of competing, but the actual attitude of
competition is wrong. The word “competition” is nowhere to be found in
the Bible, but the attitude of competition is roundly condemned in
God’s word.

Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong always taught that we should have the
attitude of cooperation, not competition—a teaching supported by the
biblical instruction that “we dare not make ourselves of the number, or
compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring
themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves,
are not wise” (II Cor. 10:12).


There is no better definition of the attitude of competition than
this. When you really study it, you see competition has everything to
do with comparing yourself with somebody else, measuring yourself by
somebody else and trying to outdo somebody else. It happens at beauty
pageants and sports contests, in the business world and political
campaigns.


This verse plainly tells us to avoid all these behaviors, yet
competition is at the foundation of today’s civilization. This attitude
and practice is cultivated from birth and highly glorified as a
character trait.

Define your enemy and crush him,” some advocate today. “Rip them
up, tear them up,” goes the cheerleader’s chant at football games. That
attitude leads to trying to win at all cost, the results of which fill
the sports news each day. Baseball players, and other athletes, put all
kinds of chemicals in their bodies, with unknown long–term
side–effects, so they can hit a ball further or pedal a bicycle faster.
A girls’ high school basketball coach in Texas has his players run up
the score against their less–skilled opponents, eventually beating them
100–0. A football player chooses to launch himself at an opponent,
tensing his body up and using it as a weapon, in the hopes of “sending
a message.” Ryan Clark, a member of the Super Bowl–winning Steelers
team, did just that against Ravens receiver Willis McGahee in the AFC
championship game in January. Clark later said, “The biggest thing I’m
proud of is not flinching. You get to the point of attack and you have
to have the mentality of ‘It’s me or you. One of us has to go
down.’…there was a point when I could have stopped and waited and tried
to tackle him. But sad to say I just closed my eyes and said, ‘I’ll
wake up when I hit the ground.’” The players collided helmet to helmet,
and were both knocked out in the play. McGahee had to be stretchered
off the field and hospitalized.


The more you study this attitude of competition, the more you can
see that the world has lost its way. When someone is described as
“hard–hitting” or “playing to win,” that is seen as a compliment. These
are valued character traits in this world. But it means he really wants
someone else to lose! Why is that supposed to be a good thing?


Does God want us to have a “winning isn’t everything, it’s the only
thing” attitude? Compare that approach with the admonition found in
Philippians 2:2–4: “Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded,
having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be
done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each
esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own
things, but every man also on the things of others.”


Likemindedness is unity—the attitude of cooperation. In other words,
we care for others and we try to help them. This leads to what should
be our goal: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus”
(v. 5). The mind of Christ involves esteeming others better than
yourself and looking out for each other. You cannot fit competition
anywhere in there.


When we cultivate the attitude of humility and cooperation, we no
longer try to beat an opponent, thus proving our superiority over them.
Will this attitude of cooperation bring about an inferior performance?
Will it produce mediocrity? No! In actual fact, it leads to achieving
excellence, and helping others to do so as well.

The right mindset is this: Do your personal best. If you do, you are
a winner and do not have to measure performance against anyone else’s.
God’s word says it this way: “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it
with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor
wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest” (Ecc. 9:10). If we all do
everything we do with all our might, we do not need to figure out some
way to win at all cost, whether it is in a business venture or in a
game.


The whole point of playing a game is to do your best and have fun.
When you replace the attitude of competition with one of cooperation,
not only are you going to do your best, but you will help others to do
their best too. Then it is more fun for everyone.


In a basketball game, the attitude of cooperation would mean that if
the other team makes a shot, you say, “That was a great shot.” If
somebody is driving toward the bucket for a layup, you do not foul him
to keep him from laying it up. There will not be any in–your–face
celebrations and taunting. Everyone will be included, and there will be
no ball hogging. The attitude of cooperation does away with the pursuit
of personal glory and makes us team players. We all like to play and
work with a team player, so why not be team players ourselves?


If we have the attitude of cooperation and esteeming others better
than ourselves and not comparing ourselves among ourselves, but doing
everything we do with all our might—that will always take us down the
road of cooperation and of achieving excellence.


However, if we have the attitude of I’m going to win no matter what
and that’s all that counts—I am going to outdo you. I am going to be
prettier than you, stronger than you, faster than you, smarter than
you, and I am going to end up on top—that is the attitude of
competition, and that takes us down the wrong road leading to pain and
crushing disappointment, sooner or later. Yet that is the attitude you
see everywhere today.

Now, some might say, “Well, if we shouldn’t compete, how can we bid
on a job?” You simply go and bid on the job. You are not trying to
finagle in under your opponent. You do not even consider him an
opponent. Research the job, consider what you can do and decide on the
best bid you can put in. What would your bid be if you were the only
one offering?


The same applies to purchasing a house. There might be five people
lined up to buy this house. You are not trying to figure out what they
are doing and then outdo them. You go and make your offer.


In other words, whatever we do, whether it is just having fun in a
game, or bidding on a job, or carrying out our responsibilities, if we
think about the attitude of cooperation and doing everything with all
our might and not comparing ourselves with somebody else, we are on the
right track.




Do not allow the wrong attitude to develop. Nothing that we do
should ever be based on the attitude and practice of competition.


God never competes. Jesus Christ never competes. You do not find
competition among the angels or among God’s true and humble servants.
That attitude originated with the god of this world, Satan the devil:
“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how
art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For
thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt
my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the
congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the
heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High” (Isa. 14:12–14).


Satan wanted to become a competitor with the Great God! He wanted to
become like Him and even superior to Him. As the god of this world, His
attitude permeates his system, his civilization, his institutions. And
it is considered a strength. But the Bible teaches a completely
different approach—the attitude of cooperation.


Some scriptures seem to imply competition among Christians: “Behold,
I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy
crown” (Rev. 3:11). Does this mean we are vying against others for
position and authority in the Kingdom? Absolutely not. There isn’t
anybody who can take your crown from you. If you get lackadaisical,
start drifting and fall away, then you will lose your crown. That
responsibility will then be given to someone else to carry out.








Our reward and position in the Kingdom of God is based on what we do
with what we have. This is the Godly principle that Jesus Christ
follows in administering our future: “But he that knew not, and did
commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For
unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to
whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more” (Luke
12:48).

We must do the best we can with what we have because that is
the basis on which God judges us. It is not who is the “best” by some
physical standard: “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge
righteous judgment” (John 7:24). So, the bottom line in what God cares
about and how God reaches His final conclusion about people is not
based on competition at all, but on the attitude of cooperation and
what is on the inside. Are you doing everything you can with what you
have? Are you doing it all with all your might? Are you caring for
others along the way? What is your character like? What is your
attitude? In the final analysis, that is what really counts, and in the
end, that right attitude will completely replace the attitude of
competition.


That famous slogan, “Winning is not everything, it’s the only thing”
is dead wrong. A better way to put it is: Character is everything. And
character is all about the attitude of cooperation and has nothing to
do with the attitude of competition and not to mention that isn't competition also the main cause and can be described as war?

here is a quote affirming what i just said

Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong always taught that we should have the
attitude of cooperation, not competition—a teaching supported by the
biblical instruction that “we dare not make ourselves of the number, or
compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring
themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves,
are not wise” (II Cor. 10:12).

as you may see incentive falls pity to the grand goal of salvation

Thank you, I now stand ready for cross examination.

I finally got it to fit Very Happy thank you so much Mrs. Gray

another http://www.livius.org/gi-gr/greeks/philosophers.html

gl everyone

kompEtITiON is A WAy OF Life ALl OVEr teh WORld. IT Is tEh PhUEL tHAt
keepS deMocRaCY RUnNIn'. 8y dEFINITIOn KoMpEtITion INVoLvES RIVALRy, A
COntEst and OpPOsItIon. it invoLVES STRiViN' PhOr teH saME o8JeCT
A9AinsT AnOtHER PersON. iS TH@ teh WaY a ChRistIan shoulD pHolLOw? MY NAMe IS TY 9rIcE aNd I M TEH AFFirMative SpEeKEr phOr ThiS De8ATE RouND. I woULD LIKe to THANK TEh JUD9E, Timer, And NE9ATivE SPEeKEr PhOr 8EiN' here TODaY. MY VaLUE PHor tHis rOUND wIll 8e salVATIon AND PHoR teH PurPOSe Of SUppORtIn' this VaLuE I preSEnT My theSIs whICH Is 9oD. IN thIS kAsE i WIll demOnStraTE tH@ MY vaLue SALvaTioN rEKwIreS US TO AFFIRm TEH RESOLutION which STatES KOmPetiTiOn IS 8ETTeR THEN kOOpeRAtION IN A meaNS of AchiEviN' ExceLleNCe. i M 9OiN' To DEfINE a pHEW OF TEH Key words iN tHis ResOLUTIOn To ENsuRE TH@ We AlL UNDerstaNd wH@ tHIs resoLuTion mEaNs. This de8aTE KoMpEtitIoN is koMpETIN' a9AinsT OTHERs aNd kOoPeRatiOn IS teaMWOrk And LAST 8uT nOT lEST EXcellEnCe TeH kwaliTy of 8EIN' A8OVE aveRa9e or 8EtTEr THEN aVEra9E pResENt tHeSE DeFINITIonS as tEh stAnDaRD PhOr WHiCH JOO kAN phUrthER UnDeRSTand tHis de8ATe SALvaTiOn is teH waY tO Heaven. my vALUE Is teh mOst impoRTAnt vAlUE in ThiS de8AtE ROUNd KU2 9Od Is tEh esSENCe oF LiFe ANd tO acHIeve Teh ulTIMaTE 9oAL Of AChIeViN' sALvAtion jOO neED saLVAtIon
as teH AFFiRMAtiVe SpEEker in tOday’s DE8AtE ROund, i HAvE tEH prIvILe9e of a9reeiN' wiT tEH TrUtH Of thIS rEsOLuTIon. in OrDeR To WIn thIS DE8aTe i WiLl sHOw hOW my vAlUE IS tEH moSt ImPORTAnt vAlUe To KONSidER WheN decIDiN' on thiS RESoLUtIoN. i WIll Show ThIS wIT My maiN PoiNTs.

nOt JuSt TeH AcT oF kOMPetiN', 8UT TeH aCTUAl AtTitude OF
cOMpETITION IS WRON9. teH wOrD “coMPEtItiON” Is nowHeRE To 8E phouNd IN
tHe 8i8LE, 8Ut tEh aTTITUde OF KOmPeTitIoN Is roUNdLY kondEmneD In
9oD’S WOrD.

mR. heR8eRt w. aRMStrON9 ALways tAu9ht Th@ we SHoUlD haVE ThE
aTTITUDe OF KOoPERatIon, noT KOMPetiTiON—a teaCHIn' SuPPoRTeD 8Y tHe
8i8lICaL instRUcTION tH@ “we daRe NOT makE OurseLveS OF TEh nUM8ER, OR
cOmpAre OURsElVeS wiT soME th@ kOmmENd tHeMselVeS: 8Ut THey mEASUrIn9
THEMsElVES 8Y thEmsElves, And KOMparin' THemSELveS amoN9 theMSELveS,
Are noT wisE” (II kOR. 10:12).


tHerE is NO 8etter DefiniTIoN of teH aTTiTUde oF KoMPetItioN tHaN
thIs. WHen JOo reAlLY sTUdy it, JOO See kOmPeTITion Has EveRYthIn' to
dO wIt KOMpArIN' JooRSelf WIt Some8ody Else, mEASuRin' jOorSElF 8y
soME8oDY elSE and TRYiN' To OUtDO sOme8ODy Else. iT HapPeNS @ 8eautY
PA9eAnTS AnD SpOrts kONtEsTs, iN TEH 8USIness woRlD anD pOlitICAl
cAMpaI9nS.


ThIs verse PLaInLy tELls us TO avOiD All THeSE 8EHaViors, yet
cOMpEtITioN iS @ TEH pHouNDaTioN of toDAy’S civili2AtiOn. THiS aTtitUdE
aNd PracTIce is kuLtIvAteD phROm 8irTH and HI9HLY 9LoRIfieD AS A
CHAracTEr TrAIT.

DEfInE JOOR ENemy AND CRuSH hiM,” Some AdvoCATe tODAY. “rIP theM
Up, teAR THEm up,” 9oEs teh CHeerLEADer’s chANt @ PHoOT8All 9aMEs. THat
AttiTUdE LeadS to TRYIn' TO wiN @ All kost, teh rEsUltS of wHicH phiLL
the sporTs NEWS eAcH Day. 8aSe8ALl PLayErS, and oThEr aTHleTes, PuT aLL
KINdS Of CheMICAlS iN ThEIr 8OdieS, wit unKnoWn loN9–teRM
Side–eFFEcts, So TheY KaN HIt a 8aLL PhuRtHEr Or PedAl A 8iCYCle PHasTer.
A 9IRLs’ HI9H ScHOol 8aSkEt8all koACh IN teXAS HaS hIS PLAYerS run UP
tHE ScORE a9ainst THEIr lEss–skIlLEd oPPONenTS, EVeNtuALly 8eaTIn' tHEM
100–0. A PhOOt8all pLaYER ChooSes To laUNcH HimselF @ A OPPonENt,
tENsin' his 8ody UP And UsIN' iT As A WEaPoN, IN teH hoPES oF “sEnDiN9
a Messa9E.” RyaN ClArk, a mEM8Er of tEH suPEr 8owL–WINnin' STEelErS
Team, did JUSt tH@ a9aINSt RAvenS ReceiVEr WILlis mc9ahee In teh afC
ChAmpionSHIP 9Ame IN jaNUAry. clArk LAteR said, “ThE 8i99est THIn' i’M
proud of Is nOT PhliNcHIN'. joo 9Et tO TEH pOinT of atTack aND joo hAVE
To haVe TEH MenTAlity Of ‘it’s mEH oR JOo. onE Of Us haS to 9O
dOwN.’…thERE WAS a poINt when I KOULd haVE sTOPPED aND wAiTed aNd TrIEd
To tAcKlE HiM. 8uT sAd to say i JUsT CLOsed My eyES and saID, ‘i’lL
waKE up When i HiT TEh 9ROuND.’” TEH PlayERs KOLLided HeLmEt To HElMEt,
And WERE 8OTh KnockeD oUt In teH PlAY. MC9aHEE HaD tO 8e StrEtChErEd
ofF TEH PHIeld AND HoSPiTALI2eD.


tHE moRE JOo StUdy THiS AtTiTude of komPeTiTIon, tEH moRe joO KAN
sEE tH@ Teh wORld HAS LOst ITs WAY. WhEN SOMEOnE Is DesCrI8ed As
“HArd–hiTtin9” oR “pLAYiN' tO wiN,” th@ is sEEN aS A KoMPliMENt. THEsE
are VALUed chaRaCteR TRAits In This woRLD. 8ut It MEANS hE REallY waNtS
SOmeOne elSe tO loSE! wHY iS Th@ supPosEd tO 8E a 9oOD thIN'?


Does 9Od WANt Us To Have a “WiNNIn' iSn’T everYthIn', It’S TEh oNLY
THin9” ATTITUDe? KOMpARe th@ ApPrOAch wiT teH ADmONitIon PHOuNd iN
PhIlIPPiANS 2:2–4: “fuLfil YE MY Joy, TH@ Ye 8E LikEminDEd,
HAVIN' tEh SamE LOVe, 8eiN' oF ONe AcCoRd, Of oNe mIND. let noThIN' 8e
doNE ThrOU9h STriFE Or Vain9lOry; 8ut IN lOwlIness OF miND lET EaCh
esTEem Other 8etteR tHAN ThEmSelVEs. lOoK NOt eveRY mAn on HIs oWN
tHin9S, 8ut evEry MAN alSo oN tEH ThIN9S OF othERs.”


lIkEmindEDneSs is uniTY—tHe AttItUdE Of KOopEratIoN. IN OtheR woRDS,
WE KAre PhOr OTheRS aND We TRy TO hElp ThEM. THiS leADs to Wh@ sHOuLD
8E oUR 9oal: “let tHis MInd 8E in joO, wHICh Was aLSO In chrIST jesUs”
(V. 5). teH miNd oF ChrisT inVOLVEs esTEeMin' othERs 8ETtER tHAN
yOUrSeLF anD LOOkIn' ouT PHOR EacH OtHeR. jOO kAnNOt pHIT kOMPETitioN
ANyWhERe IN thERe.


whEn wE KultIVatE teh aTTItude Of huMIliTY AND KOoperATiOn, WE No
LOn9Er TRY tO 8e@ a OPPoNEnt, tHUS ProVIn' OUR suPEriorItY OVER Them.
wILl tHIs ATtitudE Of KoopERAtIon 8rIN' a8out A InfERior PeRforMance?
WiLL It PrOducE mEDiOcriTY? nO! IN AcTUAL phaCt, IT leads tO acHiEVIn9
excellEnCe, And helpIN' otheRS To dO sO aS wELl.

thE Ri9HT mindSet iS tHiS: Do jOOR peRsonal 8esT. IF joo do, JoO ArE
A winNER AnD do not hAVE TO meASURe pErfOrMance a9AiNst anyone ELse’s.
9Od’S wOrd sAYs IT tHIs Way: “WhAtSoevER THy hanD PhiNdEth TO do, dO IT
witH ThY Mi9Ht; Phor thErE IS No woRk, NOR deVicE, NOR KNowLeD9E, nOR
wisDOM, iN teH 9rave, WhiThEr THoU 9oeSt” (Ecc. 9:10). if we ALL Do
EVerYThIn' WE dO Wit aLL OUr mI9Ht, wE do nOT neeD To pHi9URe oUT sOme
WAy TO WIN @ AlL kost, WhetHer iT iS iN a 8uSINeSs vENTuRe Or in a
9AME.


The WhOLe PoInT of PLAyin' a 9Ame Is To Do joOR 8Est And haVE phun.
WheN joO rEPLAce tEh aTtITudE oF koMpETitiON WiT ONE oF KoOPeraTiOn,
NOt ONLy r Joo 9Oin' TO dO jOOr 8esT, 8uT JoO WIlL HELP oTHeRs tO Do
theiR 8Est toO. THEN IT IS mOrE PhUn phoR eVERyoNE.


iN a 8asKet8ALL 9ame, teH ATtItUdE of kOoPERaTion wouLD mEAN tH@ if
ThE other TeaM MAKEs A sHoT, JoO sAY, “TH@ wAs A 9Re@ shOt.” iF
SOMe8ody iS DriVIN' TOWard tEH 8ucKEt PhoR a LaYUp, JOO do nOT PhOUl him
To KeEP hIm PhroM LAyIN' IT uP. TheRE Will NOT 8E aNY IN–yOUR–FAcE
ceLE8RatIOns aND TaUnTIn'. EVErYone wILl 8E inCLudeD, AnD ThERE wIlL 8E
nO 8aLL HO99in'. tEH aTtiTUdE oF KooPEraTIon dOeS AwAY WIt teH pursUit
oF PeRSoNal 9LOry AnD mAKES Us Team PLAYERs. wE ALl likE TO PlaY aNd
wOrK WIt a team pLAYer, sO wHY noT 8E teAM pLAyERs OUrSeLVeS?


if wE HAVe TEH ATTitUde of KOOPEration And EsTeeMin' oTHErS 8EtTEr
thAN oURSElvEs And nOT KOMpARin' OurSELVeS AMOn9 oUrsElveS, 8uT DoIN9
EVERYTHIn' WE Do wIT AlL OUR Mi9ht—tH@ Will alWaYs tAkE US DoWn thE
road oF KoOPEratIOn aND OF AChiEvIN' ExceLlencE.


hOWeVEr, iF We havE TEH aTTITUDe Of I’M 9oiN' TO win no MATTER whAt
AnD tHaT’s ALl tH@ KOunts—I m 9OIn' TO OUTDO joo. I m 9oIN' to 8E
pRetTIeR Than joO, sTROn9Er thAN joO, PhastER Than joO, sMaRTeR tHAN
you, aNd I M 9oIn' to EnD UP on ToP—tH@ is teh aTTituDe Of
COMpETiTioN, aNd Th@ TakES uS DOwN TEH WRoN9 roaD LeADin' to PAin and
CrusHIN' dISaPpointMeNt, sOOnEr Or LaTER. yET TH@ Is teH ATtITuDE jOo
SEE EVEryWhERe toDAy.

nOW, sOME mi9ht SaY, “WeLL, IF wE ShOulDN’T kOMpete, hOW KAn we 8Id
ON a JO8?” joo SIMPly 9O ANd 8iD on tEh jO8. jOo r noT tRyiN' tO
FINA9Le IN uNder joOr OPponENT. JOo dO nOT EVeN KONSIdeR HIm AN
oPPonEnt. reSeaRCH Teh JO8, KONsIder Wh@ JoO KaN do aNd dECIde on The
8ESt 8iD joo KAn put in. Wh@ WoUlD JOor 8iD 8E if joO wEre Teh onlY
oNe OfFeRIn'?


The SAme ApPlIes TO PurchAsIN' A hOuse. thEre MI9hT 8e pHive PeopLe
lInEd up To 8UY thIS HOUSe. JOo r Not trYIN' to pHi9URE Out wH@ THEy
Are doiN' anD THEn oUtdO THEM. joo 9o aND MakE jOOr OFfER.


iN OTHeR WoRDS, whAteVEr we Do, wHeThEr IT Is JUsT HaviN' pHuN iN a
9amE, Or 8iDdin' On A jO8, Or kArRYIN' out oUR respOnSI8IlItIEs, If WE
tHiNk a8oUt TEH ATtiTuDE oF kOOPErATioN AnD DoIn' EVErythin' wit aLL
OUR Mi9HT and NoT kOmpariN' OurselVes wiT soMe8OdY ELsE, we R on THe
Ri9Ht tRaCk.




Do not aLlOw TEh WROn9 attITudE TO deVELOP. notHin' TH@ We DO
ShOULD Ever 8E 8ASed On TeH attiTUde And PrACticE of koMpeTitIon.


9od nevER koMpeTES. Jesus CHrIST neVer komPeTES. JOo dO NOt pHInD
cOmPETITIon amon9 TEh AN9eLs or AmOn9 9od’S tRUe ANd huM8lE ServanTs.
TH@ ATTITude Ori9InAtED wit tEh 9od OF tHis wOrld, satAN Teh dEvil:
“hOW Art tHou pHalleN phrom heAveN, O LUCiFeR, SON oF teh MoRNIn'! HOw
aRT THoU kuT Down to tEH 9ROunD, whIch dIdsT wEAkEN TEH Nations! PHor
tHoU HaST SAiD iN ThiNe hEart, I will AsceND INtO HeAVen, I wIlL exalt
my thrOne a8oVE TEh stArS Of 9od: I WILl siT alSO UpOn TEH moUNT Of THE
CON9RE9ATion, In tEH SiDes oF TEh nORTH: i wILL aSCend A8OVE ThE
Hei9HtS oF Teh Clouds; i will 8e LIKe tEh MOST HI9H” (isA. 14:12–14).


sataN WAntEd To 8eCome A koMPetitOR wit teh 9rE@ 9Od! he WaNted tO
8ECOmE like Him aNd eVen sUperiOr to Him. as TEh 9oD Of thIs WORld, his
atTITude PermEAtes HIS sYSTEm, His civili2aTIon, HIS inSTiTutions. and
iT IS KONsIdeRed a sTrEn9Th. 8uT TEh 8I8Le TeacHes a koMplEtELy
DIfFerENt appROAcH—the ATTITUdE OF koopErAtIOn.


SOME SCrIPtUREs sEEm tO IMplY KompEtItIoN aMon9 CHRIsTIans: “8eHOld,
I koME kWiCKly: hOlD tH@ pHaSt which THoU haSt, Th@ no MAN tAKe ThY
croWn” (ReV. 3:11). dOes tHis meAn wE r vyIn' a9aiNsT OTHeRS pHoR
positIoN ANd autHORIty IN Teh Kin9DoM? A8sOLUTeLY NOT. There isn’t
aNY8ODY WHo KAn TAkE JooR CrOwN PhROm JOo. If JOO 9Et LAcKadaISICAl,
STarT dRiFTiN' anD pHalL aWay, tHen jOO will LOsE jOOr CroWn. thAT
rEsPOnsI8ILiTy will thEN 8e 9IVEN TO somEonE ElSe TO kaRRY Out.








ouR rEWArD and positIoN in TEh kin9doM OF 9OD iS 8aSEd ON Wh@ wE dO
WiTh WH@ WE have. This is tEH 9odly PRinciPLE tH@ JeSUs cHrISt
folLoWS in aDMInIStErIn' OUR PhUTure: “8UT hE tH@ KNew NOt, ANd Did
cOMmIt tHIn9S WoRthy OF sTRIPEs, sHALL 8e 8eATeN wit pHEW sTriPeS. phOr
unTo whOMSoeVER MUch Is 9iveN, OF hiM Shall 8E mUCH reKwIREd: anD tO
WhOM mEN haVe KOmMitTED MUch, OF hIm THey WiLL aSk TEh mOre” (LUke
12:48).

wE MUST dO tEH 8ESt WE Kan WIT Wh@ WE hAVe ku2 th@ Is
thE 8asIS on WHIch 9OD JUD9ES us. iT iS nOt WhO iS tEH “8esT” 8Y SomE
pHySICAL STANdARd: “jUD9E not aCcoRdIn' To TEh APPEArance, 8uT jUd9E
RI9hteOus JuD9meNT” (JoHn 7:24). so, teh 8OtTom liNE IN Wh@ 9Od KAREs
a8OUT AND HoW 9od ReachES His pHInAl koNCluSion a8oUT pEOplE IS NoT
8aSeD oN KomPeTItiON @ aLL, 8ut On tEh atTITUDe of KoOPERatioN aNd
wh@ iS ON TEH INsiDE. r JOo dOiN' Everythin' JOO kAN wIt wh@ Joo
hAVe? r joO dOIn' IT ALL wIt aLL jooR Mi9hT? r JOO KArIN' phoR
OTHerS aLOn9 TeH WaY? Wh@ IS JOor chArACTeR LIKE? WH@ Is JOoR
ATTITUdE? in teH phInAL ANalYSiS, tH@ Is Wh@ REAlly KoUntS, AnD In THe
eND, th@ Ri9hT AtTitUDe wiLl KOMPLeTELy rePlACe tEh attiTUDe of
coMPEtITioN.


Th@ pHaMoUs slO9an, “wiNNiN' IS nOT EVerYtHiN', iT’S Teh ONLy THIN9”
is DeAD WRon9. a 8etter wAY tO PuT IT Is: ChArActER Is EvERYthiN'. AND
chARAcTER Is ALL a8oUt tEH AtTiTUde oF KOOpERatiON and HAS noThIN' TO
Do WiT tEH AttItUDe of KomPetITIOn ANd NoT to MenTiOn tH@ iS'Nt kOMPeTiTIOn AlsO tEH MAiN kaUSE And kAN 8e DEsCRi8Ed AS waR?

HEre Is a KWoTe AFfirmIN' WH@ I JuSt SAID

mR. heR8ErT w. aRmSTRoN9 ALWAyS tAu9ht TH@ We shOUlD haVe thE
atTItUde oF kOoPeratiOn, not KOMPETiTiON—a TEaCHIN' SUPPorted 8Y ThE
8i8LiCAL iNSTRucTIon Th@ “We DARe NoT make ouRsELVEs OF tEH num8er, or
COMpaRe oURselves wIT Some th@ KoMmENd tHEMsELVEs: 8ut tHey meaSURiN9
ThEmSeLVES 8Y THemSELvES, aND KOMpARIN' theMseLVeS amon9 tHEmsELVeS,
are NoT WIsE” (ii kor. 10:12).

aS jOo maY SeE IncentiVe phaLls piTy TO tEh 9RANd 9OAL OF SAlvaTiOn

THaNK JOO, i NOW STAND readY phor cRoSs ExAMinaTION.

I phINaLLy 9Ot iT to PhIt Very HaPpy ThANk jOO so mUCh MRS. 9ray

Perhaps the first thing to note is that all life is ultimately competitive. For many centuries, biologists have known that the natural tendency of the animal population is to explode, but the limited food supply keeps it in check. (There are also other limiting factors, like space, climate, resources, etc.) Because there are more creatures than food, this means that some will starve to death. Thus, in order to survive, animals must compete for food, killing each other if need be. (1)

The above observation is one of the most firmly proven facts of modern biology. It's implications, however, have been deeply controversial. The 18th century economist Thomas Malthus argued that giving more food to the poor was self-defeating, since it would only expand their population and create more of the same hunger and misery that welfare was designed to alleviate. Malthus therefore argued that welfare programs should be halted. Malthus' proposal sparked a bitter political debate -- the poor charged that he was heartless, while the rich congratulated him for applying science to the issue of welfare. Interestingly, the controversy itself was indicative of the class warfare that rages for society's limited resources.

Likewise, Charles Darwin found the concept of deadly competition important for developing his theories of natural selection and survival of the fittest. Darwin theorized that if animals must compete to survive, then the winners would be those with the strongest traits, which would then be passed on to their offspring. Meanwhile, those with weaker traits would be killed before they could breed, and would be dropped from the gene pool. It is important to note that even if you don't believe in evolution, natural selection indisputably occurs in all other competitive systems. These range from individual firms competing on the free market to individual workers competing for job promotions. Indeed, the fact that natural selection occurs everywhere else is a strong argument that it occurs in biology as well.

Natural selection has developed in humans a natural desire to compete. Those with non-competitive natures would have lost their struggle for survival, and disappeared from the gene pool a long time ago. On the other hand, those with an overly intense desire to compete would have become dead heroes, and likewise failed to pass on their traits. Thus, a reasonable attraction to competition is both healthy and natural.

The competitiveness of humanity has worked itself even into our most basic definitions of the social sciences. Economics is formally defined as the study of "the efficient allocation of scarce resources among competing uses." (2) Politics is defined as the "relations between special interest groups competing for limited resources." (3) War is a violent competition for resources -- especially land -- hence Karl von Clausewitz' famous remark that "War is nothing more than the continuation of politics by other means." Because competitions are won by those with the most power, political science is defined as "An academic discipline which studies power and the distribution of power in different types of political systems." (4) Even though these different fields have taken different routes to reach the same conclusion, the idea that humans compete for limited resources is one that elegantly and coherently unites the social sciences.

The origins of cooperation

But imagine what it would be like to live in a society where each individual competes against everyone else, without any cooperation at all. You wouldn't dare walk outside, for your neighbor could shoot you and take all your property. Nor could you rely on the police to protect you, since law enforcement is a form of social cooperation. In a perfectly competitive world, only the strongest or luckiest would survive.

But what if you were fortunate enough to be one of the strongest or luckiest? After killing off most of society, you would only find yourself among survivors who were highly competent killers themselves, and the terror would start anew. And even if you emerged the final victor, the rewards would be slight… how rich and satisfied can you be when you're a hermit?

All species avoid this bleak scenario through cooperation. Among humans, cooperation can be divided into two categories: friendly and hostile. An example of friendly cooperation is the alliances you join to compete more efficiently against other individuals or groups. A good example is the business firm, where employees take specialized, interdependent jobs and work together to compete on the free market. The result is higher quality products and greater work efficiency than if they competed alone.

Hostile cooperation, on the other hand, is what exists between competitors. This may seem paradoxical, yet there is a good reason why competitors often cooperate with each other: the rewards are greater. For example, if everyone fights for a piece of the pie, then the fight may become so costly that the pie will be nearly gone when it comes time to divide it. It's much better to forget the fight and come to an agreement from the very beginning. An example of hostile cooperation is family members who are contesting a million-dollar will. If they fight for the money too hard, then no one will get any, because it will all go to their lawyers' fees. Hence, it's in their interest to strike a deal.

As with competition, a moderated desire to cooperate is natural and healthy. Those with non-cooperative natures would have very low survival rates, as would those who cooperated so much that they did not look out after their own self-interests in a competitive world. It is for this reason that people take a healthy enjoyment in belonging to a group, practicing teamwork, helping others, etc.

The interplay between competition and cooperation

Nature has divided all life into natural alliances that compete for survival: namely, species. Members of the same species generally do not kill each other in their fight for limited resources, but instead work together to kill members of other species.

However, cooperation within species is not as perfect as it would seem. Even in normal times, there is subdued competition within the group, as members vie for positions of power and status. One famous example is primates, who divide themselves into alpha apes, beta apes, etc. It is interesting to note that among primates, male status is acquired through conflict. Among females, however, the opposite occurs: conflicts are resolved by the female's status. Hierarchies are found in countless species, but they are especially extreme in humans.

Competition within the group becomes more severe as resources become scarcer. When the situation becomes desperate enough, members of the same species are perfectly capable of turning on each other and killing each other. Just one example is the preying mantis, a specie which solves the problem of scarcity by allowing the female to eat the male after mating. Another is the chimpanzee, the closest human relative. From her long-term studies in Africa, Jane Goodall has reported that chimps sometimes divide into tribes, whereupon the larger kills the smaller.

Humans are no different. War is an obvious example of deadly competition within the human species, but most people don't realize that the same continues even during times of "peace." In our competitive economy, those who lack the skills, education, talent or opportunity to compete well become poor. And the poor suffer from death rates that are at least six times higher than the rich. (5) This higher death rate is due to a lack of resources: namely, health care, nutritious food, toxic-free environments, winter heating, information and education, and countless other means and devices that would protect and prolong their lives.

Here, critics may object that the above observation is based on a faulty assumption. We do not live in a zero-sum economy (where someone's gain is necessarily someone else's loss). We actually live in a (slightly) positive-sum economy, where the standard of living is rising for everyone. This is certainly true, but our standard of living grows extremely slowly -- whereas the population pressing against it tries to grow much faster. Therefore it's still quite possible for a positive-sum economy to experience deadly competition for limited resources. To understand this even more clearly, let's look at the larger picture:

Carrying capacity is what biologists call the limited ability of the land to sustain a population. This includes the amount of available food, water, resources and space, as well as the hospitality of the climate, the presence of other predators, etc. Needless to say, the greater the land's carrying capacity, the greater the population it can sustain.

Throughout most of human history, the carrying capacity of the land has been quite low, with humans increasing it only slowly and painfully. They accomplished this by inventing new forms of productive technology, like the plow, the mill, the granary, etc. But growth in productivity was far too slow to accommodate all the humans born into the world. The result was frequent starvation, famine and deadly competition for resources. To resolve this, many societies frequently practised birth control, ranging from abortion to infanticide.

But with the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, the land's carrying capacity soared. Through better science and technology, humans have learned how to tap the earth's resources at an ever growing rate. The result has been a population explosion. It took from the dawn of humanity until the year 1800 for the earth's population to reach 1 billion. But by 1960 it had already reached 3 billion, and by 1998 it will reach 6 billion.

This trend has two ominous implications. First, dramatically increasing the land's carrying capacity may have raised the individual's standard of living, but it has also increased the number of individuals competing for these new resources. Therefore, deadly competition remains a problem.

Second, the earth's resources are ultimately limited, and it is absolutely inevitable that our carrying capacity will one day stop growing, and even shrink. What will happen then? Biologists already know the answer, from their historical observations of species that are hit by shrinking resources. The result will be a sickening plunge in the population, as famine, disease, war and other deadly competition take their toll.

As long as birth control keeps the population below the land's carrying capacity, or humans can somehow increase carrying capacity forever, then deadly competition is greatly reduced. People can live their entire lives without resorting to war, murder, or even subjecting the poor to mortal deprivations. Unfortunately, once the population starts pressing against the land's limited resources again, deadly competition resumes.

The solution that leftists propose is the creation of a sustainable economy. This would involve holding the population constant through birth control, and using resources no faster than they could be replaced. We would then use our abundance and technology to allow everyone a good standard of living. There would be no need to compete for survival, and no need to kill anyone to survive. This would tilt the balance towards cooperation, not competition.

Critics charge that humans are naturally competitive animals -- after all, they evolved that way. To create a perfectly cooperative society, they charge, is both impossible and utopian. This is certainly true, but fortunately, there is a way around it. Competition for survival is only one of the many thousands of ways that humans compete. Humans also fulfill their desire to compete through games, sports, contests, social status, career status, academic status, even mating. Eliminating the need to compete for survival would hardly eliminate the countless other ways that humans compete. Competition could still be used to improve society, even a sustainable one.

The "state of nature"

Many political philosophers -- chief among them John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau -- have attempted to describe what humans were like in their original "state of nature." These accounts supposedly describe humans in prehistoric times, before the rise of modern society. Most important was their attempt to explain the rise of human competition and cooperation. These philosophers felt that understanding the "state of nature" would tell us how to run a more enlightened society.

Most of these accounts were scientifically false (which ought to be obvious even to the non-scientist, since these accounts completely disagree with each other). Nonetheless, they continue to be highly regarded by many modern political philosophers. Here is how the "Big Three" described the "state of nature:"

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679): Hobbes correctly identified that humans were locked in a deadly competition for limited resources. But he misdescribed the "state of nature" as an anarchic, chaotic, individualistic world where people were engaged in a "war of everyone against everyone." Thus, Hobbes believed life in the state of nature was "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short." To resolve this, humans agreed to cooperate for survival, by agreeing to surrender some of their freedom in return for peace and stability. They did this by creating a social contract -- that is, a large group agreement to cooperate and abide by the laws of the government. However, Hobbes believed that this government should take the form of a monarchy, not a democracy.

The problem with Hobbes' account, beyond the obvious one, is that humans have never lived in a chaotic, anarchic "war of everyone against everyone." Group behavior predates the rise of humans -- it exists in nearly all species everywhere. This includes the practice of hierarchy within the group as well. Even in the earliest human primates, paleontologists have found evidence of interdependent, cooperative group behavior. Modern society is merely an evolved form of this behavior.

John Locke (1632-1704): By contrast, Locke's "state of nature" was an idyllic world of freedom, equality and consideration of other people's rights. He wrote that the "state of nature" is governed by a "law of nature," which humans can discover through reason. Through his own reasoning, Locke concluded that humans were "by nature free, equal and independent." Furthermore, natural law obligated that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions."

Locke's writings are beset with numerous contradictions and difficulties. One of these is his view of the social contract. On one hand, he presents the social contract as an improvement over the state of nature. However, it is not clear why individuals would want to leave such an idyllic state of nature in the first place. Locke does admit that the state of nature can easily degenerate into a state of war, which some philosophers claim was Locke's justification for the social contract. However, this would still contradict Locke's claim that the state of nature was idyllic.

As an ideal, Locke's state of nature is certainly laudable, but as a description of prehistoric humans, it is flat wrong. All life is a deadly competition for limited resources, which means that humans must violate Locke's proposed "natural rights" of life, liberty and property just to survive. And even within cooperative groups, the natural feature is hierarchy, not equality. It certainly might be possible to engineer societies that increase cooperation and equality, but such perfect ideals are not to be found in nature.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778): The writings of this French philosopher were meant as a rebuttal to Hobbes and Locke, but Rousseau's arguments were no more scientifically accurate. Rousseau argued that humans who lived in the "state of nature" were solitary and non-competitive. They had no need or desire to compete because their population was small, which made the earth's resources relatively plentiful. Indeed, Rousseau would argue that human competition, inequality and misery only increased as the population and modern society grew. He thus evoked the image of the "noble savage," the individual who lives alone in the wild and is more dignified and content than his socialized relatives. Rousseau thus admitted that there was no reason for humans to flee the state of nature for the social contract. Instead, modern society developed naturally, without anyone purposely creating it to fulfill a conscious need. To Rousseau, modern society did have some good points, but they were offset by as many bad ones.

Again, there is little in Rousseau's writing that would withstand the scrutiny of modern scientists. Early humans were less numerous because their survival technology was primitive, and their death rate was phenomenally high. For hundreds of thousands of years, humans were no more than wandering nomads and hunters and gathers. It was only 10,000 years ago that human technology reached the point where they could settle in one place and begin the Agricultural Revolution. It was this event that solved ancient problems of scarcity and allowed the human population to start building to its current explosion.

Rousseau's "noble savage" is also pure fiction. Sociologists know of several documented cases of feral children (or children raised in complete isolation), and all behaved more like wild animals than humans. They could not speak, reacted to humans with fear and hostility, walked hunched or on all fours, tore into their food like wild animals, were apathetic to their surroundings, and were unable to keep even the lowest standards of personal hygiene. (6) This is a remarkable indication of how much the nobility of humans derives from society, not the inherent traits of individuals.

Despite these inaccuracies, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau have had a major influence on centuries of political philosophers, including the U.S. Founding Fathers. Many people continue to appeal to them as authorities, and view their teachings as particularly enlightened. But if they reached some correct conclusions (like the call for democracy), it was not because these conclusions flowed logically from their mistaken premises. Given their serious flaws, one should approach their work critically