Debate on Competition OR No-Competition

In our last class, we decided to hold a debate on whether 'competition is necessary' or whether 'no-competition is a preferred environment'. The students divided themselves into two groups. The two teams were,

Team1 arguing for, "Competition is Necessary and Good"

• Pulkit
• Shriya
• Avinash
• Srinivasan
• Trinath
• Snehashish
  

Team2 arguing for, "No-competition is preferred"

• Kaushik
• Devbrat
• Karan
• Tabish
• Prateek

The debate was intense. The main arguments in favor of 'competition' by Team1 (and moderators) were,

• Pulkit, Trinath: It brings the best in us. This is because we do our best in order to become the best.
  
• Snehashish: It helps in self-motivation. It pushes our inner-self to work hard.
  
• Srinivasan, Avinash: The competition forces us to study hard, and get good marks. In the process, we end up acquiring all the knowledge that we might not have if the competition was non-existent. For example, studying for competitive exam like IIT-JEE is what made us strong in various subjects.
  
• Shriya: Without competition, we would be complacent. For example, when the Indian industry did not have any competition (pre-globalization era), it used to produce sub-standard goods and used to take consumers for granted. But, after it is open, it is forced to raise its standards and deliver better goods to the consumers at a lower price.

The main arguments opposed to the idea of 'competition' by Team2 (and moderators) were,

• Devbrat: In reply to Pulkit and Trinath's argument, Devbrat argued that competition doesn't necessarily bring the best. For example, when we see the toppers in academics, they may not necessarily be the best in the field, and it doesn't completely indicate their knowledge and skills. Also, one might become the best, but in a narrow area and it might also happen for a task not of his choice. He might have competed just for the sake of being better than the rest in something.
• Kaushik: He argued that humans were not horses to be pushed. This lead to a greater debate on whether humans need to be pushed by external factors like 'competition' or can we pushed by ourselves. We discussed more on this in the next class.
• Karan, Tabish: They opposed the point that we become knowledgeable because of competition. The things that we learn are short-term only allowing us to well against competition. After the competition/exam, we forget many of the topics because we didn't use proper strategy to learn because of the pressure of competition.
  
• Prateek: -- Raises ill-feelings. The example that he gave was of two friends who prepared together for an IIT-JEE exam together. One got through, whereas the other wasn't. This created a feeling of discomfort between the two friends. This is a classic example of a case where competition causes one to compare themselves with others, and see who is better, thereby resulting in animosity. Another kind of an ill-feeling because of competition is when someone loses in a competition. That person might have a sense of disappointment and failure because he was not as good at a task when compared to others.
  

Conclusion (from the debate) : Competition and Competing indeed was necessary because it helped us do better. However, one needed to avoid the ill-effects of competition. That is, one needed to resort only to 'healthy competition' and not competing 'blindly'. As one of the debaters pointed out, an even better scenario was to not compete with others, but compete with ourselves. 'Striving for excellence' are the words. That way, we are trying to improve ourselves without comparing ourselves with others. Also, it avoided any disappointments, because we know that we have given our best !