Altruism is Real. True Selflessness Can be Found.

Ah, but a mistake made is a mistake made. The definition is already out in the air, and it is too late. Voters, please realize that because the definition was there, it is considered defined that way. I will be addressing humans later. Burden of proof: I'd like to point out that because Con started this debate and has not specified that I should have the burden of proof, it is assumed that Con has the burden of proof. Because the resolution states that altruism is NEVER possible at ANY circumstance, that means Con has to prove that no matter what, there's always a selfish motive behind everything. Con has not proved that. The most he/she can do is try to prove my examples wrong. On the flip side, that means if I can prove just one instance of true altruism, then I win because I have refuted the resolution. "Yet, I do not wish to waste the round. " I do not wish to waste the round either. Next time, define altruism with only the first. But it is too late in this context. 1. Okay, I'll take this. Remember, I only need one example of altruism to win this debate. This response only removes Chimpanzees and dogs, though. 2. This argument did not make sense. Con is trying to say that because the animal's actions are beneficial to the community, it's not altruism. Is Con trying to disregard the definition that was used in response 1? The definition says "but is beneficial to others of its species". Others of a Baboon's community is part of its species. The Baboon and meerkat's actions benefit others of its species, not itself. That is exactly the definition. This response does not stand. Secondly, even if this response did stand, it only applies to Baboons and Meerkats. There are several more. Please disregard this response because it's clearly illogical. 3. First, let's not get into evolution, because that's scratchy business. I do not believe in evolution, but this would become a debate about evolution rather than altruism. So with this alone I ask that you disregard this response. Secondly, My response is the same as the one to 2. It is beneficial to the whole, but not to the actual animal doing so. It is altruism. I conceded 1, but 2. and 3. were illogical. 1 only took out Chimps and dogs, so all of the rest of my examples still stand. Please do make an effort to see my argument from a human standpoint You can't reverse your definition. But I'll bring up an argument about humans as well anyways. I only need one example to disprove your resolution. "try to refrain from copy and pasting off of wikipedia as your argument. " Why is that? Is evidence not allowed in a debate? I should say that evidence is preferable. Secondly, I copy rather than type it out because that ensures I do not change the meaning of what was stated in the article. In keeping with my promise, I bring up the argument about humans: 1. Jesus. Jesus was fully God and fully human. Dying on the cross was an act of altruism. What benefit did it bring to him? None. This alone is enough to prove there is such a thing as altruism. But, if you truly wish a "regular" human, here you go: 2. Humans in general Humans do acts of altruism every day! All around us there is altruism. Here are just a few of the many examples: a. Giving money to the poor. How does this benefit the giver? b. Acts of love. When a husband comes home having spent his last money to buy some roses for his wife, how does this benefit him? c. Saving another's life by risking your own. Take for example a man who dives into the street, tackling another to save him from an oncoming truck while putting his own life in danger. What could there possibly be of benefit to the savior? All of these are examples of altruism. But there are thousands more. A printer breaks down which man A does not use. But he takes the time out of his busy schedule to fix it for men B, C, and D, not because it benefits them but because he is helping others. Voters, as you can see, I have shown many an example of altruism. Con simply cannot refute the fact animals do sarcrifice their own good for the good of others. This alone is enough for me to win the round because Con defined altruism as human and animal, whether it was a mistake or not is irrelevant. It's like saying "Oops, didn't mean to read that evidence, because it destroys my case! " and trying to argue that because it was a mistake the other team can not use it against you. Also remember that my opponent has the burden of proof. Remember back to your Geometry class when you had to PROVE something? Let's say you were proving the Pythagorean Theorem. You could not prove it by simply using 3, 4, and 5 as the sides of the triangle. No, you had to prove it with variables. In other words, ANY number plugged into these variables WILL work. Con can not prove the resolution simply by giving examples of seeming altruism but actual beneficial motivation. In fact, Con can not even prove the resolution even if he/she was able to adequately refute ALL of my examples! Con must actually prove with solid logic or good evidence that in ALL cases, human and animal, altruism never has existed and never will.