You are on page 1of 12

Joshua Mirth PARADE, Wisconsin

Complete Negative Flex Case

Table of Contents
Complete Negative Flex Case....................................................................................................................1
Values:..........................................................................................................................................2
Excellence...........................................................................................................................2
Resolutional Analysis...................................................................................................................3
Contentions..................................................................................................................................4
Innovation...........................................................................................................................4
Competition → Corruption.................................................................................................4
Motivation – Duty..............................................................................................................4
Efficiency............................................................................................................................5
Strength...............................................................................................................................5
Governmental cooperation necessary for human rights.....................................................5
Bipartisan Politics can solve for human rights...................................................................6
Separation of powers is cooperative...................................................................................6
NR Blocks:............................................................................................................................................7
Innovation....................................................................................................................................7
Corruption from Competition......................................................................................................9
Strength......................................................................................................................................10
Democracy.................................................................................................................................11
Bipartisanship.............................................................................................................................11

1{12} Complete Negative Flex Case


Joshua Mirth PARADE, Wisconsin

Values:

Excellence
[Basic Definition] Excellence is defined as “the state of possessing good qualities in an eminent
degree” - Webster's New International Dictionary, 3rd Edition, Unabridged. In the context of the
resolution, we are to compare competition and cooperation to determine which one does more to make
us excellent, which one maximizes our good qualities.
[Resolutionality] Excellence is the highest goal in today’s debate round because it is the goal the
resolution is based on. You as the judge are not casting a ballot based on whether you prefer
competition or cooperation. The resolution states we must examine which is better in light of which
method best leads to excellence. Excellence is key in today’s debate round and should be the focus
and goal of the debate.
[Best Value] Excellence is the highest value in today's debate round because of its universal applicability.
We want to be excellent not only in [opponents value], but in all areas of our life. Therefore, we should
compare competition and cooperation on their ability to make things better overall, and not just in one
area. The value of excellence is the best way to express this, and should be the highest value in today's
debate.

2{12} Values:
Joshua Mirth PARADE, Wisconsin

Resolutional Analysis
+X (Motivation not means)
Do you want to find a cure for cancer?
Have you found a cure for cancer?
So even though you are motvated to find a cure for cancer, you still hasn't gotten it done?
A means is a way of getting something done, correct?

Competition and cooperation are both tools we can use to further our goals. We should compare
various characterestics of competition and cooperation to see which is a better tool.

To start off, I'd like to take a look at the resolution, and just clarify what it is we need to prove in this
debate. The resolution asks which is a superior means of achieving excellence, competition or
cooperation. I'm going to show that cooperation is a better and more useful tool, or means, toward that
end, by presenting several of the unique benefits of cooperation. In each of my examples, I'll show that
when the amount of cooperation is increased, more excellence is achieved, concluding that cooperation
is superior to competition as a means of achieving excellence.

NR
An environment is not a means. In these examples, competition is the environment in which people are
acting, but it is not the forces of competition, the striving against one another that produces excellence,
it is the cooperative forces.

3{12} Resolutional Analysis


Joshua Mirth PARADE, Wisconsin

Contentions

Innovation
In 2004, Dutch economists Rene Belderbos, Martin Carree and Boris Lokshin conducted a study of
over 6,000 firms in fields relating to technology, to determine the role cooperation played in
innovation. Their results are as follows <quote>"[C]ooperation [is] instrumental in creating and
bringing to market radical innovations, generating sales of products that are novel to the market, and
improving the performance of firms. The findings provide qualified support for the notion that
cooperating firms are engaged in higher level innovative activities. This holds unequivocally for firms
collaborating with universities and competitors"1.</quote>
These findings provide empirical support for the idea that cooperation, which fosters the sharing of
ideas, technology, and resources, best allows for innovation to happen. Putting more minds, and more
ideas, together, helps us innovate. Competition, however, encourages secrecy, thus hindering such
innovation.
[136]

Competition → Corruption
[Despite it's benefits] competition has a serious side effect which we should not overlook. In the race
to be the first, the best, the cheapest, competitors will often violate principles of ethics. If a task can be
accomplished better in an unethical way, and that benefit is greater than the cost, why not?

Examples of this are seen most prominently in developing countries, where employees, including
children, often work long hours in sweatshops and bribery of government officials is rampant.

Harvard economics professor Andrei Shleifer writes2 <quote>"[C]orruption spreads when markets are
competitive. When a firm's competitor can reduce his taxes through corruption, he can pass on his
savings to consumers. In a competitive market, then, every firm must itself pay bribes or go out of
business. The keener is the competition, the higher is the pressure to reduce costs, and the more
pervasive is corruption."</quote> Any benefit of competition, then, must be weighed against this cost.
[156]

Motivation – Duty
We should value cooperation because it infuses us with a sense of duty, motivating us to do better and
become excellent. When we work with others we develop relationships with them, and desire to
succeed not only for our own benefit, but for that of everyone in the group. This is particularly evident
in athletes participating in team sports. For example, Ohio State quarterback Terrel Pryor, when asked
why he put in so much off season training after an injury said, because <quote>“I don't want to let my

1Rene Belderbos, Martin Carree, Boris Lokshin, "Cooperative R&D and firm performance", Katholieke Universiteit
Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Applied Economics, Naamsestraat 69, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium, Universiteit Maastricht,
The Netherlands, 2 October 2004
2Andrei Shleifer (*Department of Economics, Harvard University), "Does Competition Destroy Ethical Behavior?", The
American Economic Review, Vol. 94, No. 2, January 3-5, 2004 (May, 2004), pp. 414-418, American Economic Association,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3592920
Accessed: 31/03/2010 22:08

4{12} Contentions
Joshua Mirth PARADE, Wisconsin

team down.”3 </quote> One of the most powerful ways to be motivated to become better is through the
sense of duty cooperation with others inspires.

Efficiency
...is a benefit of cooperation. When people work together, they can work on different tasks at the same
time, and can use their different skills to work much faster. The best example of this is the line
assembly process. Developed by the Ford Motor company between 1908 and 1915, the assembly line
changed the way cars were built. Instead of taking each step one-at-a-time on a singly vehicle, the
assembly line allowed all the different stages of production to take place simultaneously on different
cars. This meant that many more vehicles could be produced, and at far lower prices. Specifically
because of a more cooperative approach to car manufacturing.
[110]

Strength
In 1959 American journalist and author on racial equality John Howard Griffin was asked what the
biggest problem facing African Americans was. His response: “Lack of unity.”4
Well, a few years later, with the start of the civil rights movement, African Americans had found that
unity. By cooperatively organizing sit-ins, boycotts, and other protests, those fighting for civil rights
achieved the strength necessary to succeed. Without a cooperative, unified attack on segregation, the
protesters clearly would have failed. This is a fundamental benefit of cooperation, “Unity is strength”,
(to quote Aesop) and strength allows us to achieve excellence.
[102]
[↓Liberty/Human Rights specific contentions]

Governmental cooperation necessary for human rights.


The best way to ensure that human rights continue to be protected is through government, established
and run by the people themselves. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that
<quote> “[T]o secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed.” </quote> The cooperation that respect for the law and participation
in government entails therefore protects human rights. And it is thus no surprise that the most
cooperative form of government, democratic government (aptly described by Abraham Lincoln as
“government of the people, by the people, for the people”) best protects human rights.
[112]

3Tim May (Journalist), “Ohio State football: Spring's no break”, The Columbus Dispatch, Sunday, March 29, 2009
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/sports/stories/2009/03/29/osufb_3-29.ART_ART_03-29-09_C3_UFDCIO4.html
4“What do you see as our biggest problem Mr. Griffin?" Mr. Gayle asked
“Lack of unity.”
“That’s it,” said the elderly man who ran the cafe. “Until we as a race can learn to rise together, we’ll never get
anywhere. That’s our trouble. We work against one another instead of together.

John Howard Griffin, Black Like Me, page 32.

5{12} Contentions
Joshua Mirth PARADE, Wisconsin

Bipartisan Politics can solve for human rights


[I've already referred to the Civil Rights movement, but now] let's look at the actual passage of the
Civil Rights Act to see how cooperation in government furthers [civil/human] rights. The 1964 Civil
Rights act, the legislation that finally outlawed racial segregation and gave equal voting rights to
minorities, was initially filibustered upon it's presentation to the senate by several southern Democratic
Senators. The act was not passed until the bill was revised in a bipartisan manner by two republican
and two democratic senators. Competition between parties actually hindered the spread of civil rights,
whereas cooperation furthered them.
[105]

Separation of powers is cooperative.


Competition means striving against someone for a goal. The different houses and branches of
government don't do this. If you really think about what they're doing, they are taking turns evaluating
a piece of legislation on grounds of its costs, its benefits, and [theoretically], its constitutionality. This
may be off-handedly described as competition, but the practice really is cooperative. The branches
work together and have to come to an agreement as to whether legislation is worthwhile. It is a
cooperative structure, and it helps protect our rights.
[See cooperation in government and society brief]

6{12} Contentions
Joshua Mirth PARADE, Wisconsin

NR Blocks:

Innovation
Quotes:
“Great discoveries and improvements invariably involve the cooperation of many minds. I may be
given credit for having blazed the trail, but when I look at the subsequent developments I feel the credit
is due to others rather than to myself.” ~ Alexander Graham Bell

"If I have seen far, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants" ~ Sir Isaac Newton

[Socrates speaking]...I think that Homer was very right in saying that "When two go together, one sees
before the other," for all men who have a companion are readier in deed, word, or thought; but if a man
"Sees a thing when he is alone," he goes about straightway seeking until he finds someone to whom he
may show his discoveries, and who may confirm him in them ~Plato, Protagoras 348

Cutting-edge terms cooperate on R&D


Luis Miotti, Frederique Sachwald, "Cooperative R&D: why and with whom? An integrated framework
of analysis", University of Paris, France, November 26, 2002
The propensity to cooperate on R&D is higher for firms that draw the most on scientific
resources to innovate, as opposed to firms further away from the technological frontier.

Vertical R&D cooperation is an integral part of innovation


Luis Miotti, Frederique Sachwald, "Cooperative R&D: why and with whom? An integrated framework
of analysis", University of Paris, France, November 26, 2002
Suppliers and clients play an important part in the innovation prcess as they can contribute
crucial information of technologies, users' needs and markets. Hence, innovation requires
vertical interactions and communication flows. The latter may be more important in some
sectors and may be organised in different ways, but the general need is quite pervasive. Vertical
R&D cooperation is thus hypothesized to be an integral part of the innovation process,
especially so now that firms tend to focus on a smaller set of businesses. Bresnahan (1999)
emphasises this feature in the case of the computer industry by forging the notion of "co-
invention" involving buyers and sellers.

{note: vertical cooperation means between firms and buyers, or non-competing firms. horizontal
means between firms}

R&D Cooperation has a significant impact on innovation


Luis Miotti, Frederique Sachwald, "Cooperative R&D: why and with whom? An integrated framework
of analysis", University of Paris, France, November 26, 2002

7{12} NR Blocks:
Joshua Mirth PARADE, Wisconsin

In both equations, R&D cooperation exhibits a significant positive impact on the propensity to
innovate. R&D cooperation thus appears to be efficient in terms of innovation.

Two forms of cooperation and their positive effects


Luis Miotti, Frederique Sachwald, "Cooperative R&D: why and with whom? An integrated framework
of analysis", University of Paris, France, November 26, 2002
Hyphothesis 7a: Vertical cooperation positively influences the propensity of firms to introduce
new products.
Hypothesis 7b: Cooperation with public institutions increase the capability of firms to conduct
research at the technological frontier and to patent.
...
The equations clearly support both Hypothesis 7a and 7b.

R&D cooperation is motivated by technology seeking, not market access.


Luis Miotti, Frederique Sachwald, "Cooperative R&D: why and with whom? An integrated framework
of analysis", University of Paris, France, November 26, 2002
Overall, technology seeking emerges as a major motivation for R&D cooperation. Bayona et
al (2001) who have studied the case of Spanish firms based on a similar large survey, have also
underscored the importance of technology access, rather than market access, as a determinant
of R&D cooperation.

Innovation involves multiple actors pooling technology to improve


Wolfgang Becker and Jürgen Dietz, University of Augsburg, Germany, "R&D Cooperation and
Innovation Activities of Firms: Evidence for the German Manufacturing Industry"
In principle, innovations are not based on activities of a single firm only. Most innovation
activities involve multiple actors. The development of new and improved products rather
requires an active search-process involving several firms and institutions to tap new sources of
knowledge and technology (De Bresson, 1996; Nooteboom, 1999; von Hippel, 1988).
Exchange of information and resources with different partners are important factors in the
innovation process. By this, firms become more and more dependent on the know-how of other
companies and institutions. Firms that engage in innovation activities are aware of the necessity
to establish R&D cooperation to obtain expertise which can not be generated inhouse. Such
cooperations are defined as collaborations to achieve a common goal that is to develop new and
improved products (technologies). 1 Within a more or less durable constellation of agreements
between two or more partners, assets and activities are pooled, and combined. Thus,
technological capabilities to develop product and process innovations can be improved. The
importance of R&D cooperation has risen steadily as a consequence of growing complexity,
risks and costs of innovation (Coombs et al., 1996; Dogson, 1993; Hagedoorn and
Schakenraad,

[Used in contention] Cooperation instumental to innovation, unequivocal support for cooperating


firms engaging in higher level innovation

8{12} NR Blocks:
Joshua Mirth PARADE, Wisconsin

Rene Belderbos, Martin Carree, Boris Lokshin, "Cooperative R&D and firm performance", Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Applied Economics, Naamsestraat 69, B-3000 Leuven,
Belgium, Universiteit Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2 October 2004

"The results confirm a major heterogeneity in the rationales and goals of R&D cooperation, with
competitor and supplier cooperation focused on incremental innovations improving the
productivity performance of firms, while university cooperation and again competitor
cooperation are instrumental in creating and bringing to market radical innovations, generating
sales of products that are novel to the market, and hence improving the growth performance of
firms (Klomp and Van Leeuwen, 2001). The findings provide qualified support for the notion
that cooperating firms are generally engaged in higher level innovative activities (Tether, 2002).
This holds unequivocally for firms collaborating with universities (e.g. to get access to basic
research) and competitors (to allow R&D for risky projects), but not for firms engaged in
‘vertical cooperation’ with suppliers and customers. If the latter types of cooperation are also
partly focused on more ‘radical’ innovations, than there is no evidence in our analysis that these
efforts have an overall impact improving firms’ performance in bringing novel products to the
market."

Corruption from Competition


Long run competition doesn't solve.
Andrei Shleifer (*Department of Economics, Harvard University), "Does Competition Destroy Ethical
Behavior?", The American Economic Review, Vol. 94, No. 2, January 3-5, 2004 (May, 2004), pp. 414-
418, American Economic Association, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3592920 Accessed: 31/03/2010
22:08
These arguments about long-run competition are not compelling. While public opinion may
exert pressure in the long run, in the short run people want cheaper shoes, and most do not care
who makes them. Emerging-market sub-contractors refusing to hire children, counting on the
tide in consumer sentiment for adult-made [products] shoes, surely cannot survive. Likewise,
firms that do not manipulate their earnings or compete for glamourous executives might not
survive as independent entities long enough for reality to intervene. Finally, universities that
eschew commercialism may find themselves too far be- hind academically to catch up.
Competition may take too long to work, and even in the long run it need not work to promote
ethical values.

Competition between firms --> child labor


Andrei Shleifer (*Department of Economics, Harvard University), "Does Competition Destroy Ethical
Behavior?", The American Economic Review, Vol. 94, No. 2, January 3-5, 2004 (May, 2004), pp. 414-
418, American Economic Association, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3592920 Accessed: 31/03/2010
22:08
Under many plausible scenarios, the pressures of competition bring children into the labor force.
If hiring children is cheaper than hiring adults (even taking into account differences in
productivity) and a firm hires children, it can reduce prices. Its competitors must then hire
children also, or be driven out of business (or, in a less extreme world, their willingness to pay
for not hiring children declines when profits fall).

9{12} NR Blocks:
Joshua Mirth PARADE, Wisconsin

Competition between families in society --> child labor


Andrei Shleifer (*Department of Economics, Harvard University), "Does Competition Destroy Ethical
Behavior?", The American Economic Review, Vol. 94, No. 2, January 3-5, 2004 (May, 2004), pp. 414-
418, American Economic Association, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3592920 Accessed: 31/03/2010
22:08
On the other side of the market, if parents in one family can compel their children to work and
thereby advantage themselves in competition with other families (for food or for status), then
competition among families forces more children into the labor force. Either of these two forces
of competition (on the demand side or on the supply side) would bring children into the labor
force.

Ethics based on cooperation prevent child employment


Andrei Shleifer (*Department of Economics, Harvard University), "Does Competition Destroy Ethical
Behavior?", The American Economic Review, Vol. 94, No. 2, January 3-5, 2004 (May, 2004), pp. 414-
418, American Economic Association, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3592920 Accessed: 31/03/2010
22:08
Likewise, the ethical norm against the employment of children is driven in part by the more
general concern with abuse of the weak by the strong. When ethics promote social cooperation,
ethical behavior and efficient behavior typically go together.

[Used in contention] Competition spreads corruption and bribery.


Andrei Shleifer (Department of Economics, Harvard University), "Does Competition Destroy Ethical
Behavior?", The American Economic Review, Vol. 94, No. 2, January 3-5, 2004 (May, 2004), pp. 414-
418, American Economic Association, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3592920 Accessed: 31/03/2010
22:08
[C]orruption spreads when markets are competitive. When a firm's competitor can reduce his
taxes through corruption, or can import by paying lower bribes rather than higher tariffs, he can
pass on his savings to consumers. In a competitive market, then, every firm must itself pay
bribes or go out of business. Even if the proprietor has some rents, his willingness to pay for
ethical conduct declines as his profits do, leading him to bribe. The keener is the competition,
the higher is the pressure to reduce costs, and the more pervasive is corruption. Corruption with
theft has one additional competitive advantage: both the official and the briber benefit, and
neither has any incentive to report the bribe to the police. In contrast, corruption without theft
raises costs, and hence the potential briber has an incentive to complain.

Strength
A2: they used non-cooperation: .
“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the
penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in
reality expressing the highest respect for the law.” - Martin Luther King, Jr., answer of a reporter's
question while in prison.

10{12} NR Blocks:
Joshua Mirth PARADE, Wisconsin

Strength Extenstion
The Father and His Sons ~ Aesop's fables
A FATHER had a family of sons who were perpetually quarreling among themselves. When he failed
to heal their disputes by his exhortations, he determined to give them a practical illustration of the evils
of disunion; and for this purpose he one day told them to bring him a bundle of sticks. When they had
done so, he placed the faggot into the hands of each of them in succession, and ordered them to break it
in pieces. They tried with all their strength, and were not able to do it. He next opened the faggot, took
the sticks separately, one by one, and again put them into his sons' hands, upon which they broke them
easily. He then addressed them in these words: "My sons, if you are of one mind, and unite to assist
each other, you will be as this faggot, uninjured by all the attempts of your enemies; but if you are
divided among yourselves, you will be broken as easily as these sticks."

Democracy
Democracy cooperative
Sanford A. Lakoff, “Democracy”. (Boulder, CO: Westview Publishing, 1996), 166,
http://books.google.com/books?id=U7ANGzb2O-
wC&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=democracy+requires+cooperation&source=bl&ots=sJzeaN67zs&s
ig=nz4WN8rgr9K9t70yqkVlzPnPf7M&hl=en&ei=sHlXSu7uK8WktwfGioHeCg&sa=X&oi=book_resu
lt&ct=result&resnum=5.
Democracy “requires cooperation in the pursuit of social goals,” says Sanford Lakoff of Harvard
University.
262 Million killed by nondemocratic governments in 20th century.
R.J. Rummel, “Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War.” The University of Hawaii.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/.
According to R. J. Rummel (Rudolph Joseph Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the
University of Hawaii), 262,000,000 people were killed in the 20th century at the hands of their own
government.
Fewer than 2% of wars are between democracies.
R.J. Rummel, “Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War.” The University of Hawaii.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/.
Between 1816 and 1991, there were a total of 353 wars between countries, yet fewer than 2% of these
wars occurred between two democracies. That means almost no democracies have gone to war against
each other in the past 175 years, a testament to the correspondence between democracy and human
rights.

Bipartisanship
Details on the Civil Rights Act.
Notes from taking an American history course this year
The 1964 Civil Rights act, the legislation that finally outlawed racial segregation and gave equal voting
rights to minorities, was introduced by President John F. Kennedy in June of 1963. It passed the House
[of Representatives] in February of '64, but then was filibustered by Democratic Senators Robert Byrd
and Richard Russel, from West Virginia and Georgia, respectively. For 54 days the bill was

11{12} NR Blocks:
Joshua Mirth PARADE, Wisconsin

filibustered. It took Senators' Everett Dirksen (Republican from Illinois), Thomas Kuchel (Republican
from California), Hubert Humphrey (Democrat from Minnesota), and Mike Mansfield (Democrat from
Montana) bipartisan cooperation on a new bill to get passed the filibuster and pass civil rights
legislation.

12{12} NR Blocks:

You might also like