At Emory, we compete as a means of evaluating our ability to execute a technique, or priniciple, or whatever. In a more true definition, we are checking ourselves for competency executing a technique, or priniciple, or whatever. We may play judo, we may set up a sparring scenario or we may simply allow nage a number of techniques to apply against uke without uke's prior knowledge. All of these situations provide some means of critically evaluating technical skill executing a technique. I am convinced good aikido works in these scenarios, so if our aikido breaks down...keep training I suppose.
I love that kind of training because I get to see which students excel at striking, or grappling, or being obstenant, or being aggressive, or whatever - I learn something just watching...

Competition has a winner and loser because we choose to recognize those classes. Nobody ever got an award for 42nd place in anything, but it is a class distinction just as first, second, or third place. Competency is a descriptive quality which draws upon recognizing one's ability to [at minimum] adequately perform a qualitative function. I strive to achieve competency in everything I do; if I excel at something, I may choose to compete against others to evaluate my level of competency.

Who would ever want to be uke if we distinguished winners and losers in aikido?