Individualism is societally destructive

False dichotomy Relative Individualism Pro claims that I have created a false dichotomy between individualism and collectivism, but this is not the case. If you look at my round 1 argument, I clearly pointed out that individualism and collectivism is relative. This would be like claiming that tall and short are a false dichotomy; tall and short are relative terms, as they require a standard to compare it to. If-by-Whisky Fallacy Pro claims that he is not arguing against individualism, yet the resolution he is trying to affirm is that “Individualism is societally destructive”. Pro has continually switched his stance throughout the debate, by using doublespeak. First he claimed he was not advocating collectivism, he was advocating communitarianism, now he is claiming to be pro individualism. Political vs. intellectual collectivism SocioPolitics SocioPolitics is the relation between politics and society. According to the oxford dictionary, politics is the principles relating to or inherent in a sphere, theory, or thing, especially when concerned with power and status in a society. If the definition of individualism is: “a doctrine that the interests of the individual are or ought to be ethically paramount”, than individualism is a sociopolitical doctrine. False dichotomy Intellect and Politics are not mutually exclusive. Government vs Individual mindset Any and all social organizations involve governance, but do not necessarily involve a state. The management of Corporations conducts corporate governance, and the organizers of clubs and fraternities govern their social group. When people hang out in clichés, they usually have some form of government; it could be democratic, or it could be monarchal. If the group has a leader, it is monarchal, but if everyone has a say, than it is democratic. Kettle logic Pro’s arguments are inconsistent. Pro claims that this debate is not about political individualism, yet since round 1 he has made arguments involving political individualism leading to statism. (See Statism) Statism False Dichotomy Once again Pro commits a false dichotomy. Pro claims that a confederation is not more individualist than a unitary state, because a confederation can be a confederation of monarchies or aristocracies. Once again, they are not mutually exclusive. An aristocracy deals with sovereignty over the state, and a confederation deals with the sovereignty of the state. Slippery slope Pro once again claims that individualist revolutions lead to collectivist states, due to the lack of checks. Again, this is a slippery slope fallacy. Revolutions don’t always lead to collectivist states; many revolutions do, but this does not ring true for all revolutions. It depends on how the revolution is conducted. Appeal to Emotion Pro tries to discredit the American Revolution, by claiming those who fought in the revolution were slave owners, and that the American government committed genocide against Native Americans. First off, the Native Americans were not US citizens, and were considered tantamount to a foreign nation. The relationship between the US and Native Americans is irrelevant. Likewise, slaves were not citizens, and therefore the government did not represent them. Slaves could gain citizenship if they were freed, but until than they were considered livestock. Furthermore, many of the founders condemned slavery, even those who owned slaves. Jefferson outlawed the international slave trade, and prior to the revolution he defended freed slaves pro bono, when they were accused of being runaways. The American Revolution was fought by Whig proponents of the country party, who believed Government should serve the people. The loyalists were Tory proponents of the Court Party, who believed the Government should serve the interest of the king. 5,000 African American patriots fought in the American Revolution, and most patriots did not own slaves. Clans Feuds after the civil war Con claims that I did not cite a source for feuds being common after the civil war. I did not think I would have to since, he did not cite a source for his claim. Anyhow, here is a source, from a website about the Hatfields and McCoys. “Several major feuds were fought that never recieved the same kind of national attention as the Hatfield-McCoy conflict. Some much worse. During the decade preceding and for a half-century after the Civil War, a series of feuds swept the hills of Eastern Kentucky like wild-fire. Several times, local government came to a standstill and law enforcement was impossible. State troops were repeatedly called in to protect lives and allow courts to operate. At one point, relations with neighboring West Virginia became so bad over a border dispute, it was feared the two states would fight.” http://fixit24.tripod.com... Here is another source about feuds in Texas “Sometimes these feuds were the result of long-running arguments between two groups of people, especially families or clans, and perhaps may have started decades earlier over the smallest insult.” http://www.legendsofamerica.com... When the interests of their families or clans are placed above the interests of the individuals, it leads to feuds and societal collapse. These feuds could be prevented, if they were not perpetuated by family loyalties. Likewise, individualism could prevent feuding communities. Straw Man Pro claims that I said he was arguing against parents raising their children. This is a straw man, as I never claimed any such thing. I was not arguing against parents not being able to parent their children, I was arguing against the community having a right to help raise another parent’s child. Cities Crime Pro once again ignored my argument; he denied that I gave an explanation, so he would not have to refute my explanation. Pro has respectively ignored my arguments, choosing to deny their existence rather than refute them. It is extremely poor conduct, and very insulting. Rural Individualism According to mental health expert George Doherty, people living in rural areas have a greater sense of “spirituality and individualism”. Doherty states “Individualism, self-reliance and hard work are some of the necessary characteristics for survival in rural areas. In urban environments, reliance on social service organizations, fears of certain groups and corporate organizations is more prevalent. A sense of independence and self-determination is more common among rural than urban or suburban residents” and that “Rural people may not actively seek help or be aware of available services or how to access them. They may think the process is too cumbersome or intrusive.… If a decision is made to apply for assistance, the process may be particularly difficult for someone unaccustomed to admitting need and seeking assistance. Asking for help can be difficult for those who are used to relying on their own resources.” http://digitaljournal.com... Economics Poor Conduct Pro falsely claims I did not address his argument. Pro has been making these false claims throughout the debate, and it is extremely poor conduct. Society Once again, society does not dictate the individual’s beliefs, just as your skin color does not dictate your genes; your genes dictate your skin color. Individuals dictate the beliefs of society; society does not dictate the beliefs of individuals. If every individual within a society improved their own welfare, than the overall welfare of society has been improved. Appeal to poverty Pro makes an appeal to poverty, by claiming the rich should be motivated by charity rather than self-interest. It is not by the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. By serving their own interest, they benefit the community. Onus probandi As the one making the claim Pro has the BOP. In my opinion, Pro has failed to meet the BOP.