Competition in not necessary for learning: (against 1) I strongly oppose the motion.
Competition drives innovation.
Competition improves quality.
Competition increases choices.
Competition spurs people to 'do their best'.
Do you think that we should behave like ostriches that when they see a threat they put their heads in the sand to avoid confrontation? In my opinion, eliminating competition from schools is a misguided attempt at ensuring that no one's self-esteem gets trampled. But the ‘real self-esteem’ is built by achieving ‘small victories’- and that is where competition serves a purpose. Everyone wants to win no matter how small the victory. We engage in competition every day with ourselves, with other students and even some of our family members. So competition in life is inevitable. Competition is a ‘powerful motivator’ so it can let a person strive, to master himself, do things that they weren't able to do and reach ‘higher standards’. Also there will always be limited numbers of good colleges and jobs that are high paying -thus there is a natural competition in the ‘practical world’ due to such incentives. Competition helps the students to push themselves harder! I strongly believe that high expectations should be set in education. People tend to work down to the level of mediocrity, unless they are challenged. Using competition carefully can help to encourage students to do more than they knew they were capable of. One of the goals of our educational system is to prepare students for life outside- classroom; therefore, competition should be a part of the learning process. This concludes my debate and I hope my opponents will now be having second thoughts. Thank you. I would say yes competition is necessary for learning. It drives people to better themselves and ultimately leads to the growth of civilization. http://www.shaunrosenberg.com/10-reasons-why-competition-is-a-good-thing
Please join StudyMode to read the full document