Austin Heath Accountable Leadership Debate 2010

For every cause, there is an effect. For every decision made, there is a correlating outcome. The
choices we make today will affect our lives tomorrow. This is a haunting concept, because it
means if we make irresponsible decisions, the results could be unfavorable. This rule, however,
is a two way street. Conversely, it proves that we have the ability to make decisions whose
outcomes will be favorable; decisions that will have positive effects on not only ourselves, but
our fellow citizens. For every cause, we have the opportunity to have a powerful effect. It is
because I believe that competition is the superior method to achieving excellence that I propose
to affirm the resolution, which is:

Resolved: That competition is superior to cooperation as a means to achieving excellence.

To better understand the resolution, let’s define the important terms:

Definitions:
Sources offered upon request:

Competition:
“The act of seeking, or endeavoring to gain, what another is endeavoring to gain, at the same
time” – Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

Cooperation
“The act of working together, or operating together, to one end;” - Noah Webster’s 1828
Dictionary

Superior
“Of higher rank, quality, or performance”

Excellence
“Possessing outstanding quality; remarkably good; extraordinary.” - Randomhouse Dictionary

Value
Today, the value I will uphold is excellence. However, because excellence is a broad term—it is
defined differently in many different situations; politics, law, sports, the economy,—I want to
look at just one specific area of excellence: Accountable Leadership. Accountable Leadership is
defined as “those possessing economic or political powers that are responsible with their actions
and virtuous in their practices”. The concept is simple. If someone holds power, for example in
public office, it is expected of them to act responsibly and with integrity. We elected them to do
a job; not to be involved in scandals, ignore their constituents etc.

1
Austin Heath Accountable Leadership Debate 2010

Criterion
Equally important as Accountable Leadership is how we are going to achieve Accountable
Leadership. I propose a criterion of freedom of choice. Freedom of choice is the right to choose
or act freely within societal and statutory limits.

I’m going to have 2 main points:

1. How freedom of choice demands excellence.

2. How freedom of choice and Accountable Leadership are vital to a healthy society.

So first,

1: Freedom of choice demands excellence:

A: Freedom of choice is competitive:
Home Depot and Lowes. Both attempt to draw us to their stores so that we will buy their
products. Both are concurrently “endeavoring to gain” the same object: our choices. This is the
very definition of competition. In both politics and the economy, the freedom to choose requires
businesses to grapple with one another to gain our choices. Our capability to choose is
competitive.

B: Freedom of choice puts the citizen in charge:

Both our political and economic systems emphasize freedom of choice. This means we are the
CEO. We are the boss. After all, politicians are only victorious if we vote for them, and
businesses can only stay in operation if we buy their products. We decide who stays and who
goes.

C: Freedom of choice demands Accountable Leadership:

Our decisions are determined by excellence. We buy a basketball because it is well made; not
because it is shabby and deflated. This means that if a company or candidate does not practice
Accountable Leadership, if they are not “responsible with their actions and virtuous in their
practices” we can simply take the economic or political power they possess, away from them.
Businesses and politicians must continually meet our demand for excellence.

Which brings us to our second point:

2: Freedom of Choice and Accountable Leadership are vital to a

healthy society:

A: Freedom of choice protects our rights:

The ability to choose our representatives at the local, state, and federal level makes them wary of
disregarding our rights and attentive to avoiding the misuse of power; for if they do, we will
simply vote them out of office. Freedom of choice keeps the rights of the people, in the hands of
the people.

2
Austin Heath Accountable Leadership Debate 2010

B: Accountable leadership helps maintain a healthy society:

We have the ability to elect individuals who are “responsible with their actions and virtuous in
their practices.” The very definition of Accountable Leadership. And because we as Americans
are able to do this, and because we have made good on this ability, we see tyranny and
dictatorship in this country as distant abstracts; not realities. But if the door is shut to freedom of
choice and Accountable Leadership, another will open allowing totalitarianism, coercion, and
despotism into the commonwealth. We must continually be in pursuit of Accountable
Leadership, whether it is through the ballot box or the checkout line, because if we fail to do so,
the tables will be turned. Freedom will become an abstract; tyranny a harsh and brutal reality.

Conclusion:
We are the engineers of our society. We have the capacity to give economic and political power
to those who will use it responsibly. Meaning simple decisions like where we get our groceries
at, who we buy our next car from, and especially who we vote into office next election will
determine the structural soundness of our nation. For every cause, there is an effect. We are the
cause; we must determine what our effect will be.

That is why I stand resolved, that both competition and freedom of choice, are superior to
cooperation as a means of achieving Accountable Leadership, as a means to achieving
excellence.