On balance, Collectivism is preferable to Individualism

Thanks to Lannan for his argument!R1) Humans are SelfishFirstly, this line of argumentation succumbs to both of the pre-emptive objections I put forth last round in the 'ethical justification' section: just because humans *are* selfish doesn't mean they *should* be selfish, and if we take into account the observation that no one human being is objectively superior to another, we see that we must value all of their self-interests equally (i.e. collectivism) rather than resort to a system which is completely based in the subjective whims of humanity (i.e. individualism). Either one of these objections serve to knock out individualism's ethical basis, and thus its philosophical soundness as a whole.I can also cross-apply my first & second arguments, here. If collectivism leads to a higher chance of individualistic success, and individualism often leads to a more dangerous environment for the individuals themselves, then it is in every individual's best interests to form and live in a collectivist society. So even if psychological egoism is true, collectivism is preferable.The most outstanding problem, however, is that there is no reason to believe that humans are actually inherently selfish. As Con has presented it, psychological egoism is merely a hypothesis, substantiated only by conjecture and a few appeals to authority (Freud & Hobbes). There is a significant difference between conclusively demonstrating that selfishness is the primary motivator of all human actions and speculating that selfishness *could* plausibly serve as a motivator for many human actions. Given the extent of egoism's absolutist claims, Con needs to do the former, yet he has only done the latter. Moreover, there are some human actions which cannot reasonably be explained as being selfishly motivated. Consider the following example: "Private McGinnis, of Knox, Pa., was killed in a Baghdad neighborhood on Dec. 4, 2006, when a grenade was thrown into the gunner"s hatch of the Humvee in which he was riding... Private McGinnis had enough time to jump out and save himself but instead dropped into the hatch and covered the grenade with his own body, absorbing the fragments. He was killed instantly. All four of his fellow soldiers were saved." [1]. To suggest that this action was selfishly motivated is simply absurd; there was virtually nothing that the self-sacrificing soldier had to gain from losing his life. Postmortem honor gives him no tangible benefits (because he's too dead to enjoy it), and considering the extreme pressure and time constraints present in his situation, it is highly unlikely that he had the leisure to utilize such foresight in making his decision. Hundreds and thousands of self-sacrifices such as this have been committed throughout history, and each and every one completely defies egoism, instead indicating that humans do have an intrinsic sense of empathy which motivates altruistic actions. R2) Individualism and the hard workThe point of Pro's argument here is a bit unclear. He seems to be relying on the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville to try demonstrating that the individualistic values of the early United States are what made it successful. In other words, it's a case study of sorts. However, looking over his argument, we don't actually see any real attempt being made to negate the resolution-- it neither serves to attack collectivism nor to promote individualism. For example, Con presented Tocqueville's definition of individualism: "'a calm and considered feeling which disposes each citizen to isolate himself from the mass of his fellows and withdraw into the circle of family and friends; with this little society formed to his taste, he gladly leaves the greater society to look after itself.'" However, this definition of individualism doesn't really contradict collectivism at all. As long as the individual is still willing to take measures to benefit the collective when necessary, the individual is perfectly free to form a 'little society' of his own for the purposes of providing himself and his loved ones with greater personal satisfaction. Introversion doesn't imply individualism. Con goes on to praise the merits of early American citizens: "in the US people took chances and defied society's discouragement to take chances to better the economy and better the world as expected by you in a democratic society." Yet again, this doesn't reject collectivism or support individualism. If anything, it only supports collectivism, with its mentions of how citizens are supposed to 'better the economy and better the world.' Moreover, democracy is inherently collectivist because it seeks to take into account the will of the majority-- it values the best interests of society as a whole. The only part where he even vaguely attempts to support individualism is in his final paragraph ("Tocqueville argues... decissions make it important"). However, that entire paragraph is nothing more than a series of unsubstantiated ideological claims which already assume that individualistic ideals are valuable, and are backed up by nothing more than appeals to authority (Tocqueville & Emerson). Moreover, his Tocqueville quotation only relates to people who are *already* wealthy and self-sufficient. Obviously, in the real world, the majority of people are not fortunate enough to live in such a state of prosperity, so that whole line of argumentation is inapplicable and should be dismissed. CONCLUSIONCon's attempt to justify individualism from psychological egoism simply has too many holes in it for us to accept it; not only can all three of my opening arguments be cross-applied to favor collectivism, but psychological egoism is also very likely to be outright false. Con's second case (not really sure what else to call it...) can scarcely even be considered an argument, as it barely does anything to negate the resolution, and the few places where it does attempt to do so are plagued with bare assertions and circular logic. The resolution remains affirmed.[1] http://www.nytimes.com...;