All Human Acts are Selfish

Dear Pro, Thank you for responding to my argument. Coincidentally, I decided to check my account right after you posted, and so am able to provide my argument rather quickly. With that - to the rebuttals! Contention 1: Examples - Your arguments seem to be quickly becoming less and less realistic. Once more, I need only to show that one human action is unselfish, by your definition, in order to win the debate. 1. Being Shot - I guess we are using Abe Lincoln as an example. Please note that Pro's definition of selfish is 'to satisfy one's personal needs or feelings'. The killing of Lincoln did not satisfy any of his personal needs or feelings. Lincoln did not need to die - his policy obviously could, and would continue to, bring the Union and the Confederacy together. Lincoln did not want to die (feelings) either - this is obvious. The bulk of my opponent's argument on this topic basically describes the intentions of Booth and his followers, and in no way shows that any of Lincoln's needs or feelings were fulfilled while he was being shot. As for Mr. Wright, my opponent claims that the man could have 'harmed the person who shot him', or 'done something to cause the perpetrator's family harm'. This in no way whatsoever justifies that Wright was 'selfish' in being shot. As shown by the video evidence, we do know, in fact, that Wright was not defending another when being shot. The shooting of Wright did not justify any needs or feelings of his. 2. Tripping on a Rock - Your statement is absolutely absurd. How would your ankle break if you didn't trip? Tripping is caused by a lack of balance paired with the force of gravity. The rock causes your legs to become unbalanced, destabilizing your figure and causing you to fall. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that shows that tripping is 'instinctive'. Your ankle, in fact, would not break if you did not trip. 3. My opponent is making uneducated, unlikely assumptions about the various possibilities of being punched. My opponent argues that one may be punched because of a previous action he or her participated in - this does not mean that the blatant action of 'being punched' is selfish. We are not looking at the background story - rather, we are looking at the basic action of the contact between knuckles and flesh. The background story is irrelevant. In almost every situation, being hit by another does not satisfy a 'personal need or feeling'. If you really want, I will provide a clear situation for you - I am sitting in a chair outside. Suddenly, somebody I have never met, seen, or interacted with (directly or indirectly) walks up and punches me in the face. Obviously, none of my wants or needs have been fulfilled. Before I move on, I will provide a few more specific situations of non-selfish human actions: 1. Having Cancer - Bob, a newborn baby has been diagnosed with cancer. His having cancer does not fulfill any of his wants or needs whatsoever. Bob does not need to have cancer. Bob does not want to have cancer. Bob, as a newborn child, does not deserve cancer. 2. Being Blind - Bob, a newborn child, is blind. His blindness does not fulfill any of his wants or needs whatsoever. Bob does not need to be blind. Bob does not want to be blind. Bob has done nothing to deserve blindness. 3. Being Tortured - Bob, a newborn baby, has been kidnapped and is being tortured. His being tortured does not fulfill any of his wants or needs whatsoever. Bob does not need to be tortured. Bob does not want to be tortured. Bob, as a newborn baby, has obviously done nothing wrong to deserve torture. Contention 2: Humans are Like Animals You say that if somebody saves another from a fire, he is being selfish. How about the person being burnt? Bob is being burnt. He does not need or want to be burnt. Therefore, Bob's act, according to your definition, is not selfish. Pro states that people only follow the rules to avoid punishment or because of religion. This is blatantly irrelevant to the topic. We are discussing the selfishness of human acts. Many of Pro's arguments revolve around the goodness of humans, not if their actions are selfish or not. Your whole second contention is irrelevant - it discusses whether people are inclined to do good or evil, not whether each specific action of theirs is selfish. I shall now wrap up my argument with one final unselfish act: having a fork stuck in your eye. Bob has a fork in his eye. This fulfills none of his wants or needs. Bob does not want a fork in his eye. Bob does not need a fork in his eye. Conclusion: I thank my opponent, and hope I have provided sufficient arguments that not all human acts are selfish. Once more, I must show that only one human act is unselfish (I have done this) in order to win the debate. Please note that I am unable to rebuke any of my opponent's arguments in the next round, and would do so if I could. Conduct: I have opened and closed each of my arguments by thanking my opponent for his response. My opponent has not done so. Sources: We both provide sufficient sources. However, my opponent draws false content out of his - for example, he states that Hobbes asserted that humans will 'rape and pillage' everything. It states this nowhere in his source. He is making false assertions that he claims are , untruthfully, derived from his sources. I base most of my arguments on common sense and logic, rather than quotes from historical thinkers. Arguments: See above. I have provided logical arguments and rebuttals for each of my opponent's arguments. He fails to do the same, totally ignoring some of the points I have made. Spelling/Grammar: I use the correct spelling and grammar throughout. My opponent misspells words such as 'sinerio', 'inorder', and 'instint'. He also uses various sentence fragments - here is a quote that shows three fragments in a row: 'That we will rape and pillage everything unless we have a threat. This of course being laws and punishment. Otherwise we would end up in chaos and anarchy. '