Everything that humans do is because of their own self-interest.

It seems that he has actually admitted that PE, if self-interest is identified with acting out one's intent, then it's a triviality. Though disappointing of my opponent to do that, it was pretty predictable. If this was a serious philosophical discussion, this submission would make him a laughingstock. However, I realize this is a debate so it would seem that this argument goes to him. As of now, it's up to my readers. If you are ardent with keeping rigorous rules, then under this definition of self-interest my opponent wins. However, if you feel one has admitted their argument is trivial then you may vote against him. At this point, I will simply demonstrate why we must not be content with a trivial version of PE. I will explain that not only is it unfit as an empirical doctrine (which it purports to be), but that it adds nothing to philosophical discussion - it literally is trivial. Of course, I know many people find a trivial truth to still be a truth, and thus my opponent wins. For those who believe that, I have nothing left to say. It would seem that rigors of debate supersedes serious philosophical discussion, so I won't bother to voice any opposition in this context. ==================== Triviality of my opponent's version of PE ==================== As shown before, if he aligns self-interest with acting out one's interest, then this is NO different from an action. As discussed in the philosophy of action, an action is commonly thought of having an intent, goal, and bodily movement guided by the user (though the last part is contentious, since this would exclude mental events). As you can see, my opponent's definition of PE results in just calling it an action. Therefore, saying selfish actions is redundant - it merely means action. There is NO substantive difference at all. Sure, my opponent may play around and say "corrupt politician" is redundant as well, but he's obviously missing the point. While it's cliche to believe every politician is corrupt, this is obviously NOT the case. My opponent would have to give a great amount of evidence to show every politician is corrupt - there is bound to be at least one legit one. When I mean trivial, I mean it in a technical way - my opponent's version of PE does absolutely empty of factual content. In philosophy, this is known as a tautology. A tautology would normally be acceptable if used in logic, but if it's an empirical doctrine then one can suspect that it's unsuitable. An empirical doctrine that is by definition is unfalsifiable should be thrown away, as argued by Karl Popper and most scientists of today. Therefore, I will extend this type of reasoning into my next argument: ==================== Why the triviality matters, and how it makes PE an unsuitable empirical doctrine ==================== As demonstrated before, my opponent's position by definition has been reduced to saying that the class "self-interested actions" is extensionally isomorphic with the class of actions. I will not show why as an empirical doctrine this is unacceptable. First of all, it should be made quite frank that my opponent is supporting PE. His first round and the resolution clearly claim what PE does, and he voices no opposition to my labeling of his position as PE. As such, it should also be recognized that PE is an empirical doctrine, since it purports to make a claim about human behavior. The problem is that my opponent's version of PE is unfalsifiable. By the way it's defined, there can be no counterexample of an action not motivated by self-interest. If an empirical doctrine is unfalsifiable by definition, then it's unsuitable as an empirical doctrine to start off with. ==================== Conclusion ==================== I can't help but take issue with my opponent - admitting your position is a trivial truth is just unheard of in a serious discussion. But this is a debate, so nonetheless I have offered my reasoning as to why we PE is an unsuitable empirical doctrine.