Altruism is part of our selfishness

Sorry that I haven't been on for the past 3 days. With that, I'd better examine the final round. Rebuttal: Definition Wars: "in round 2 my opponent changes the rules, in order to turn the debate to his favour It is regrettable that my opponent makes such mistakes. " Yes, it is regrettable. I noticed the flaw a bit late, however, Pro's definitions are still vague in vavor of himself. Voters should still at least take this into consideration. "he chose to change all the rules after I posted my arguments in round 2,leaving no chance for me to explain. " You could've still said why your defintions are better than my own, sourced definitions. While, yes, I noticed the flaw after accepting, it was still exposed. And Pro never stated why his definitions should be considered over mine, just that I broke the rules. The debate never said when I accepted the definitions. (While, yes, I noticed it too late, and I'm getting repetitive, the flaw still exists, and you should take my definitions over Pro's biased versions) Defense: Contradictory Definitions: " "People Cannot care about others while caring for themselve" - said Con" That exact quote does not exist in my argument. I said "How can I care about others, but also only care about myself, at the same time? " I did not fall into a black/white fallacy. It is already black and white; either you care about others, or you only care about yourself. My opponent has strawmanned my argument; misinterpreting in order to refute. "If we are only able to be Either selfless or selfish (according to Con) - then we no longer need to manage our morality" While it is true people aren't always selfish or always selfless, we cannot be both at the same time, which was my argument. I never said we're all selfish, or selfless. Some people are selfish, some people are selfless, but never the same person at the same time. "Since's Cons arguments lack solid reasoning" You should read my arguments more carefully, as well as definitions. I do have solid reasoning, you're just misinterpreting it. "Con side didnt even bother to use proof or explain why help others = not selfish " Do I have to post the definition? Selfish is described as "lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure", meaning you only care about yourself. Pro never directly contested this definition, or explained why his definitions are better. Therefore, my definitions stand. You cannot help others while only caring about yourself. That's a contradiction. BoP: "Through out his arguments, he Cannot prove there is no elements of selfishness in atruism" This is false. The definitiions alone are reason to vote me. Pro said I broke the rules, but there were no rules stating when it's too late to point out the flaw. It is Pro who failed his burden, with horrible definitions. You cannot car only about yourself when caring for others. Why must I repeat this so many times? "He Cannot prove why people Must either completely care for himself or completely care for others " But you never said why your definitions are superior, just that I broke non-existant rules! Pro's keeps trying to back me into a corner with his own, vague, biased definitions. At least I sourced mine, so my definitions are credible. Pro gave himself a BoP check. However, it doesn't stand. " I had shown elements of self (intentional/unintentional/actions/desires)" UNDER HIS HORRIBLE DEFINITIONS! "I had shown how people care for others and themselves" UNDER HIS OWN HORRIBLE DEFINITIONS! Ahem. So, here's why my arguments are better: Definitions. Pro never said why his definitions were superior, just saying I broke rules that never existed. Sure, you can take away a conduct point from me. However, there's no reason to choose a vague definition over a sourced one.