The Sylvan Olympics debate considered the following motion:
This house values taking part more than winning.
The debate took place on Monday 5th August. Himangi proposed the motion and Helena Wardle opposed it.
The proposition arguing that we should value taking part more
The proposer opened by saying she would not strive if she wanted to win everything. We have the context of the Olympics. Winning does not drive all the vitality of life – we learn from our failures. We can’t have a guaranteed victory. The Olympics promote peace, via sportsmanship and diplomacy. The idea of winning drives self satisfaction, fame and motivation. However, competitive psychology can lead to an unhealthy obsession with winning. External pressure can come into play, for instance that China expects its athletes to win gold medals out of patriotism.
Yet failure is a learning experience. Edison valued the process of discovery more than the results. The desire to win at all costs leads to an increase in unsportsmanlike conduct. Focusing on the process and improving your performance encourages better sportsmanship and an incentive to grow. The British sprinter Derek Redmond tore his hamstring during a race and limped across the finish line, determined to finish what he started. Focusing on winning only can backfire, leading to choking during the performance. The question is, who can analyse their shortcomings better?
The opposition against the Olympics debate motion
The opposer started with a YouTube video from Nike showcasing excessive competitiveness, that asks ‘am I a bad person?’ – a deliberately ‘provocative start’. She posed the question: when did winning become so negative, and is this what it takes to win today? You need dedication and borderline insanity to win. However, this leads to cheating, burn out et cetera. However, we should not devalue wanting to win. In work, on a daily basis we set goals and achieve them, in other words win. We were born to pursue and achieve goals. Sports have striving to win as their essence, and winning provides moments of joy – even tears of joy or relief. The Olympics would turn into chaos otherwise, with just anyone participating.
You learn when you don’t win. Others have talent and practice more. You learn to lose gracefully after striving to win, and while being determined, you should not tie your self worth to one event. Athletes have millions of fans, and perform for their benefit. South Africa’s 1995 world cup win, with Nelson Mandela presenting the trophy to the white captain – would that have happened with a loss? Olympic athletes make sacrifices and overcome obstacles to reach the top of their sports. People apologise for being competitive, yet wanting to win is natural. Failure leads to creative solutions and serves as one of our best teachers. Edison relentlessly drove to succeed and win the race to create the light bulb. Valuing taking part diminishes losing as well. Losing fosters character, and we should not teach the next generation simply to turn up.
Floor speeches from the audience of the Olympics debate
Floor speakers brought their own perspectives to the debate. We do need strivers. Baron de Coubertin, whose quote inspired the motion, said to take part in every endeavour, struggle and fight well. We could take this that winning is not important, yet we can also value both outright winning and winning by taking part and trying. For example, the challenge of synchronised diving. Novak Djokovic valued winning the Olympics more than any of the major tennis titles he holds the records for, which led to a competitive and exciting final.
At the same time, can we translate the Olympics into everyday life? All Olympians are winners in their respective sports – for any of us, getting to the starting line would be a win. As a bad loser, I also feel the buzz from winning as second to none. On Strictly Come Dancing, bad dancers make it to week three, though do receive feedback. I like to win, even in debates. David Cameron lost the Brexit referendum and then walked away. Depending on your opponent, winning can be more or less valuable. The Olympic athletes have a major financial incentive. Yet all this year’s men’s 100 metre sprint came in under 10 seconds, a win for sports. To sustain the Olympics, they need paying spectators.
The opposer’s rebuttal
In rebuttal, the opposer picked up on de Coubertin, saying the interpretation is why she is against the motion. We would not have participation without the desire to win, and the athletes push themselves and each other. The spirit derives from winning, not taking part. The winning mentality requires dedication. Djokovic was the underdog in his match – what drove him was not just taking part, but the drive to win – and he dug deep to put his best game forward to win. Winning needs better PR, and we should teach people to want to win. Bad losers, I’m one of them. This applies to our daily lives and business, and winning should be above participation.
The proposer’s closing speech
In closing, the proposer pointed out that any individual would want to win the Olympics. Four elements make up this phenomenon: appreciation, validation, motivation and self satisfaction / fame. Yet all provide only temporary benefits. If we put a high value on winning, a loss in athletics or business would lead to a downfall and stagnation. That impact will depend on how the person can handle the loss. If the opposer wins, she will want to put effort in – however, if I lose, I will still work on it. The inner opponent can also drive us. I’ve had to face tough debaters, and have been practising. Kobe Bryant inspires me, he has missed 14,000 basketball shots, and does not feel overawed by winning. Focusing on winning does not guarantee the mental capacity to take the downfall. A focus on taking part will be sustained.
Result: the Olympics debate motion did not carry
In the final vote, the Sylvans concluded through the debate that we should not value taking part more than winning.
Please see summaries of earlier Sylvan debates here.