So many things to think about after HOPE! In this post, I want to pose a few questions that I'm wondering about (I'm looking at them from an aff perspective, just to clarify), and topics that HOPE brought up.
1. Definitions of cooperation. I had originally been running with the assumption (or interpretation, call it what you will) that cooperation was simply "joint action," or working together for a shared purpose. Contrast this to competition, which is working against each other for a personal purpose. At HOPE, I heard two new aspects (or shades of meaning) of cooperation that I want to evaluate. One was the claim that cooperation must be voluntary, or else it is coercion. This eliminates criticisms that say cooperation is communist/socialist. I wonder if there can be coerced cooperation. The second claim is that cooperators must all have their hearts in the process, and set aside self-interest. This seems to flow from the idea of cooperation as having a shared purpose. Sean likes pointing out that if cooperators slack off, they are belligerent rather than cooperative. But there's a small problem:
2. People aren't perfect. I saw cooperation being run as a happy kind of family, or team, where everyone does there share of work. And the definitions they use exclude any laziness! To argue against this, I want to say that people aren't perfect, and therefore your definition, or at least your understanding of cooperation is abusive. Or at least that it's abusive to assume selflessness, or altruism, as inherent within cooperation but not competition. But the problem is, that competition and cooperation harm safety, or are unethical in different ways. Cooperation hurts people when the cooperators' action itself is unethical. (They pursue the wrong end.) Competition can be pursuing a worthwhile end (because self-interest isn't always bad) but it can still go too far along that path, disregarding principles of ethics. It seems like competition needs to be halted or held back in its pursuit, whereas cooperation must just be directed rightly. Therefore, perhaps it's not technically abusive to claim that competition without limit is more harmful than cooperation without limit. I think it's shallow to simply say that they both "have a dark side" because the limits needed are of a different nature. And so I don't know how to refute the point. I could be completely missing a major idea, so please! help me understand this better.
3. Specific arguments. Up-and-coming ideas. I feel like I'm advertising new movies or something.
- Rule of Law (Negative case). Can competition function properly if property rights, safety standards, and liberty isn't protected by the law?
- Competition of Ideas (Aff case). Okay, you people reading this blog have already been thinking about this, but I'm mentioning it because Josh baker won HOPE with it. How do you explain to judges the interaction of people competing over ideas (scientists, newspapers, media, etc) versus ideas themselves competing (even if it's in one person's mind)? Is it worth your time to try to discuss psychology and epistemology within an all-too-short round to a possibly-confused judge?
- Impact. (This isn't a case, it's a strategy.) Pulling heartstrings, and talking about the people's lives bettered by the advancements made by either coop or comp seems to be an effective way to go.
- "We're cooperating in order to compete." "The only reason we can compete is cause we cooperated first." What an annoying circle! My advice: decide which came first, the chicken or the egg, and stick to it. Oh, and please remember the word "superior" in the resolution, and define it, at least in your mind. Does superior mean foundational? Does superior mean vital? Just because you need something doesn't make it superior. (Pet peeve)
- Acquiring knowledge. I know that markets compete, but what about the people who put the knowledge into the education or healthcare markets? How are scientists, historians, and authors motivated?
- Winners and losers. I saw it argued that cooperation is superior to comp because comp implies losers, whereas cooperation can be all winners. The only way I know how to refute this is to say that (a) cooperation can be all losers, and (b) companies failing in competition can either work harder or be eaten up by another business. People aren't losers if they're employed by a stronger business. But I see problems with this: (a) ignores the question by placing blame on cooperation, and (b) shows how little I know about economics, and free markets, and companies getting bigger, and the true costs of losing small business.
So that's all I have for now. Please do weigh in on the point about cooperation implying altruism; I'm thoroughly confused by it.
6 comments:
Is it weird that reading this makes me happy I did TP?
The definition of cooperation does not inherently include altruism, but the nature of cooperation and community does - to some extent. Cooperation has to be based on shared values and shared goals, To the extent that people always do what they want, only people who actually value the shared goal of the cooperative effort are going to be involved in the cooperative effort. To that effect, everyone :does: do their share of the work, because (theoretically) their very involvement in the cooperative effort means that they have motivation to pull their share. Simply put, if you have a goal, you :will: work towards it, and cooperative efforts have shared goals.
But that's only in theory, and only if both debaters agree that goal=action. I think there's still al legitimate argument to be made about imperfect people, since everything I said above implies (if not perfect people, at least a perfect process for involving only committed people in the cooperative effort)
Not only that, but to say that cooperative actions are selfless and altruistic is a bit of a stretch. It is still individual goals and values - although shared with others, possessed by the individual - that motivate an individual to be part of a cooperative effort in the first place.
Another argument that I think has place in under that subject is to say that the same principle applies to competition. Goals motivate individuals just as much as they motivate groups, and so - while selflessness and altruism can't be - using their definition to eliminate laziness from your definition of competition is plausible.
Winners and Losers. The argument basically ignores the fact that not every competition is a zero sum game. In addition, there's no real impact to the argument in the first place. If you're running a competition of ideas case, you :want: losers... those are the bad ideas!
"Is it weird that reading this makes me happy I did TP?" Not weird at all, it's how I feel when I'm watching Jonny and Andrew battle out ethanol on the forum. ;P
Thanks for commenting, those are good thoughts.
As for the winners and losers thing, I think the impact uses utilitarianism as the standard. And I quote, "What would you rather, a fight to the death, or a situation where everyone gets an equal cut?" Also, there are no moral standards or qualms about making ideas lose, while preventing people from succeeding is more questionable.
"Preventing people from succeeding is more questionable." This challenges the very foundations of american constitutionalism. Nobody has any right whatsoever to success, only to its pursuit, and competition grants the right to pursuit.
"Pulling heartstrings, and talking about the people's lives bettered by the advancements made by either coop or comp seems to be an effective way to go."
If you'll let the TPer interrupt... isn't that because I can understand it? I love all you LDers, but I never understand more than half of what you say, especially after three days of tournamenting ;). If you pull at my heartstrings, that usually means I can understand what the heck you said ;). I don't know if that's the "right" way to debate, since I'm not an LDer, but that's my 2 cents.
Carry on :)
"Not weird at all, it's how I feel when I'm watching Jonny and Andrew battle out ethanol on the forum. ;P"
I'm winning ;)
Thanks for commenting, Andrew. And, I agree, emotional impact, or just impact at all, makes things understandable and relatable. Yup. =)
Post a Comment