Psychological Egoism is correct

Pro finally got around to addressing my arguments in this round, so I'll see if I can defend my contentions against his critique. But before I do, let me say something the difference between altruism and egoism. Altruism is when you act out of concern for the interest of another person. Egoism is when you act out of a concern for your own interest. Psychological egoism is the view that all of our actions (even the ones that appear on the surface to be altruistic) are motivated by what we take to be in our own self-interest. Granted, sometimes we don't what's best for us, but that's why I included the "what we take" part. If psychological egoism is true, then there are no altruistic acts.Now to my contentions.First contention: There are no good reasons to think psychological egoism is true.By "good reasons," I mean reasons that give us strong warrant for thinking psychological egoism is true. My strategy was to bring up typical arguments pschological egoists make, as well as the arguments Pro made, and show why they are not good reasons. Pro could've undermined this contention by bringing up a good reason, but I don't think he's done that.One way psychological egoists attempt to show that even apparently altruistic behavior is self-interested is by pointing to the benefits of acting that way. For example, if I help an old lady across the street, I avoid guilt, and I feel good about myself. I said that while psychological egoists can point out these benefits, they cannot show that these benefits are what motivated the behavior to begin with. Pro responded in this round by saying this is a "weak criticism of psychological egoism." But it's not a criticism of psychological egoism at all. Rather, it's a criticism of one of the major arguments for psychological egoism. Remember the contention I was defending at this point was that there are no good reasons to think psychological egoism is true. It is in the second contention that I show that psychological egoism is false. I suspect Pro misunderstood my argument here. What Pro should've done is attempt to show that the benefits of otherwise altruistic acts are what motivate the acts or that we can look at the benefits of our acts to determine what motivated them to begin with. As it is, he didn't make any attempt to defend this argument I was responding to.I also pointed out in the first round that "unless we could look at every choice that every person has ever made, we're not in a position to say that the motivation behind each of those choices was self-interested." Again, Pro didn't really respond to this point even though he quoted it. Instead, what he did was assert (not argue) that it is human nature to act in self-interest. He came dangerously close to conceding the debate when he said, "Perhaps on rare occasion a human is able to overcome its nature and rewire itself into operating in a fundamentally selfless way," but then followed it up with, "I don't think that is the case. . ."Recall that I have already conceded that we all act in self-interest. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether all of our acts are motivated by self-interest. Pro has not shown that.Since Pro hasn't offered any good reason to think psychological egoism is true, my first contention stands unrefuted.Second contention: There is good reason to think psychological egoism is false.I used a thought experiment to defend my second contention. In the thought experiment, we imagine a person who has a choice between two alternatives that offer the same psychological benefits, but one is more financially beneficial than the other, the person still chooses the option that benefits himself the least because in spite of whatever psychological benefits he gets, his real motivation for acting is the interest of others.Pro's response is just a failure to understand how a thought experiment works. He simply said that such a scenario would never happen and questioned why such a pill would ever be free. But it's irrelevant whether the scenario would ever happen or not. It's a thought experiment! It's meant to help us think through an issue. Even if there never is such a pill, it shows that when people buy life insurance policies, they do so out of a concern for the interest of others, not themselves. You need the pill to exist in order to make that point. You just need to know what the person would choose if the pill were available, and that is enough to make the point. That refutes psychological egoism.ConclusionSince Pro made no good arguments in support of psychological egoism, and since he was not able to refute my argument against psychological egoism, the resolution has been undermined.Thank you for coming to tonight's debate.