Psychological Egotism is is false

========================== RE: DEFINITION REVISION ========================== She states the following: "I am glad we have a consensus on the definition, however we may have conflicting views on the part of altruism, which I shall be glad to further debate if my opponent wishes to bring it up in the third round." To which I say the following: There is no need as this isn't what the debate concerns. ================================ RE: People can choose randomly, ergo PE is false| ================================ My opponent has opted not to continue arguing in this section of this debate. Since this is my final round (hence I will have no way of further responding), it is only reasonable to conclude that this area remains uncontested and anything additional which my opponent may possible try to add this argument be discounted in the next round. =========================================================================== RE: Decisions of the conscious mind (logic) and the decision of the subconscious (perception) are often quite different. =========================================================================== See above. =================== RE: The case of Jones | =================== My opponent has presented me with a hypothetical situation in which a man known as "Jones" is approached one day by another man (Smith) who had previously stolen his wife a decade in the past, only for his wife to commit suicide. Smith is in need of cardiovascular surgery and Jones just happens to be the doctor conducting the surgery. At this point, Jones seemingly has complete control over whether or not the man who had "stolen his wife and had perhaps ended her life" lives or dies. Jones is in a situation where he would be able to get away with his murder. What my opponent asks of me is "what would Jones do." Indeed, would he follow his subconscious or conscious mind? However, I must say that I find this question as will as this hypothetical scenario to be insufficient in terms of attributing to my opponent's argument. I don't personally know "Jones" nor do I know enough about the situation to know what he would do, if that's what my opponent is getting at. However, what I do know is that he'd follow his subconscious/conscious mind. His decision would boil down to the genetic/environmental influences in his life. For instance, if he was raised to adhere to a certain set of morals and that these morals has constantly remained with him in his life and that he had valued these morals more than anything else, when deciding on whether or not to kill Smith, he mentally appease himself and not kill Smith (this is not to say that other variables could immediately show up to change his method of though as I am just providing an example). The point I am getting at is that it doesn't matter whether or not his decision is based on his subconscious, conscious or both. The fact of that matter is that it being based on either is what this debate is about. The fact that my opponent has limited my choices to the two seems to be acknowledgment of this as being true. In other words, it doesn't matter what my opponent says the answer is (although I don't believe there is an answer we can gather given the utter lack of information) as my case is upheld either way. Now if my opponent ends up using an additional argument or anything which I really had no way of responding to in this round, I ask that you dismiss it without hesitation for the sake of fairness. With that said, I thank my opponent for the debate, thank you all for reading and ask that you all vote CON. Later. :D