neg case and support

8/9/2019 Neg Case and Support

1/12

Joshua Mirth PARADE, Wisconsin

Complete Negative Flex Case

Table of Contents

Complete Negative Flex Case....................................................................................................................1

Values:..........................................................................................................................................2Excellence...........................................................................................................................2

Resolutional Analysis...................................................................................................................3Contentions..................................................................................................................................4

Innovation...........................................................................................................................4

Competition Corruption.................................................................................................4

Motivation Duty..............................................................................................................4Efficiency............................................................................................................................5

Strength...............................................................................................................................5

Governmental cooperation necessary for human rights.....................................................5Bipartisan 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.................................................................................................................................11Bipartisanship.............................................................................................................................11

1{12} Complete Negative Flex Case


2/12


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 makeus excellent, which one maximizes our good qualities.

[Resolutionality] Excellence is the highest goal in todays 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 todays 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:


3/12


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 comparevarious 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 thisdebate. 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 againstone another that produces excellence,it is the cooperative forces.

3{12} Resolutional Analysis


4/12


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 "[C]ooperation [is] instrumental in creating andbringing 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 firmscollaborating with universities and competitors"1.

These findings provide empirical support for the idea that cooperation, which fosters the sharing ofideas, 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 "[C]orruption spreads when markets are

competitive. When a firm's competitor can reduce his taxes through corruption, he can pass on hissavings to consumers. In a competitive market, then, every firm must itself pay bribes or go out ofbusiness. The keener is the competition, the higher is the pressure to reduce costs, and the more

pervasive is corruption." 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 askedwhy he put in so much off season training after an injury said, because I don't want to let my

1Rene Belderbos, Martin Carree, Boris Lokshin, "Cooperative R&D and firm performance", Katholieke UniversiteitLeuven, 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?", TheAmerican Economic Review, Vol. 94, No. 2, January 3-5, 2004 (May, 2004), pp. 414-418, American Economic Association,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3592920Accessed: 31/03/2010 22:08

4{12} Contentions


5/12


team down.3 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 sametime, 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, theassembly 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 thebiggest 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

[T]o secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powersfrom the consent of the governed. 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, 2009http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/sports/stories/2009/03/29/osufb_3-29.ART_ART_03-29-09_C3_UFDCIO4.html

4What do you see as our biggest problem Mr. Griffin?" Mr. Gayle askedLack of unity.

Thats it, said the elderly man who ran the cafe. Until we as a race can learn to rise together, well never get

anywhere. Thats our trouble. We work against one another instead of together.

John Howard Griffin,Black Like Me, page 32.

5{12} Contentions
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/sports/stories/2009/03/29/osufb_3-29.ART_ART_03-29-09_C3_UFDCIO4.htmlhttp://www.dispatch.com/live/content/sports/stories/2009/03/29/osufb_3-29.ART_ART_03-29-09_C3_UFDCIO4.html


6/12


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 tominorities, 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 evaluatinga 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


7/12


NR Blocks:

Innovation

Quotes:

Great discoveries and improvements invariably involve the cooperation of many minds. I may begiven 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 hemay 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 frameworkof 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 requiresvertical 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


of analysis", University of Paris, France, November 26, 2002

7{12} NR Blocks:


8/12


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


of analysis", University of Paris, France, November 26, 2002Hyphothesis 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 frameworkof 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 alsounderscored 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 Jrgen 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 ofknowledge 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 othercompanies 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 agreementsbetween 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:


9/12


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 theproductivity 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 offirms (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 invertical 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 themarket."

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/3592920Accessed: 31/03/201022:08

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 thetide 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 thateschew 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


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/3592920Accessed: 31/03/201022:08

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 hirechildren 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:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3592920http://www.jstor.org/stable/3592920http://www.jstor.org/stable/3592920http://www.jstor.org/stable/3592920


10/12


Competition between families in society --> child labor




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 forcesof competition (on the demand side or on the supply side) would bring children into the labor

force.

Ethics based on cooperation prevent child employment




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



[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 canpass 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 withtheft 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 inreality expressing the highest respect for the law. - Martin Luther King, Jr., answer of a reporter's

question while in prison.

10{12} NR Blocks:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3592920http://www.jstor.org/stable/3592920http://www.jstor.org/stable/3592920http://www.jstor.org/stable/3592920http://www.jstor.org/stable/3592920http://www.jstor.org/stable/3592920


11/12


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 failedto 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 itin 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 assisteach 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&sig=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 20 th 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 owngovernment.

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 thesewars 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:


12/12


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:

neg case and support

Documents