Altruism is Real. True Selflessness Can be Found.

"Merriam Webster defined the word Altruism as said above. It is inappropriate to pick and choose what suits me out of the definition. In Round 1 however, you will see no mention of animals. If I had wished to argue that, I would have made a mention of it in Round 1 other than what was stated in an alternative definition." I agree it wasn't exactly your intent. But it was defined as such, and therefore we must argue it that way. As I said, next time use the definition you want. Secondly, you said "It is inapropriate to pick and choose what suits me out of the definition". That means you can't pick just humans. You just proved that we have to include animals. "As I said to you in regard to animal examples: I would attempt to "refute at least a few of them" which is exactly what I did. Your entire argument is built upon 15 examples which were derived from a source other than your own brain. I am not willing to go through each one individually and explain to you why it is incorrect in my view, yet you obviously havent either. If you had read my rebuttle in Round 2 or even "your" own examples, you surely would have realized that there is something wrong with them." Voters, do you see a logical rebuttal of my examples? No. Just an illogical argument saying that there is something wrong with them. I already argued for my examples in the last speech and because my opponent did not actually rebut my argument, they are conceded and I win on that point. Again, since my opponent has the burden of proof, this alone is enough for me to win. Secondly, my opponent is claiming that I did not read my examples. How can Con claim this? It's illogical that I wouldn't read them. It's like quoting evidence that you don't even know the content of. It would be dangerous for me to do so. Of course I read them. If you are so willingly going to sweep evolution under the rug, than so will I in respect to Jesus and his divinity. This is simply a belief. Fair enough. I don't even need this example because of the animal acts and the human ones which I'm getting on to. Acts of altruism First, Con has the burden of proof, not me. Con is trying to make me prove my arguments, when Con is supposed to prove just the opposite. You see, Con completely dropped my argument about Burden of proof. That means Con agrees that he/she has the burden of proof. My opponent is, in essence, conceding that he/she has lost. Do you see any PROOF that humans cannot commit acts of altruism? There is merely speculation that there are many reasons why the person might have done it. No proof. This alone is enough to vote against Con. But, let's move on. a. (1) There are plenty of ways to feel good about yourself. This is a harder way to do so. Why would a human give money to someone if he could do an easier act for this? Plus, Con has not proved that humans never give out of charity only. (2) How is giving a few dollars to a poor person going to make you famous? If you gave millions or thousands, yes, but not just a few dollars. Plenty of people in their lifetime have done so. (3) Rarely would someone do this to "make up for past wrongs". What kind of wrongs can you make up for by giving someone some money? (4) Not all people are religious. b. (1) I actually knew this would be the response. Con, since you have the burden of proof and you admitted it, prove to me he DID. Plus, giving your wife flowers isn't at all going to make her do much for you. Maybe a kiss on the cheek which would have been delivered anyways? (2) Cross-apply (1) of a. Giving all of your last money to do this is not an easy way to feel good. (In fact, the bad feeling you will get from hunger and the lack of money to buy yourself some goods would OUTWEIGH any tiny good feeling you might receive. Overall it's not a net benefit for the person giving it). c. (1) When you see a car about to hit someone, do you think "Hmm.. I might go and save the guy's life since I"ll be remembered as a hero!" Nope. You 1. Don't have time to think that. 2. You would be considered an outcast for doing that simply because you want to be remembered as a hero. Plus, you rather live than die and be remembered. It makes no difference to you if you're remembered once you're dead. It's obviously not a motive one would use. I admit that if it did not put your life in risk, that motive is possible. But no one (or at least VERY FEW) people would put their life in risk to save someone just so they can be remembered as a hero. You see, I have refuted each statement with logic. And just apply to each one the fact that Con has the burden of proof. He/she can't just tell me to prove it, because my opponent must prove just the opposite. Think about it. There are MILLIONS of people on earth who have done some of these things. Are you inclined to believe that all of them have done it to be remembered as a hero, to feel good, to be famous, or for religious purposes? Of course not! It is clearly illogical, and Con has not proved it. Printer example: Cross-apply everything above, point by point: (1) Impress a girl -- I said men, not women. (2) Make more money -- Con is trying to say that such a simple act will give someone a raise? Sorry for the sarcasm, but "Yeah right!" (3) Feel good -- Not much of a feel good here. It isn't even moral. Cross-apply everything I've said about this. (4) Religious -- 1. What does fixing a printer have to do with religion? 2. Not everyone is religious. (5) Santa Claus be good -- Please tell me Con is joking. Remember, Con hasn't proved any of these and they're illogical anyways. 1. "There are countless examples of motive that you have ignored. Perhaps you should have reverted back to Wikipedia for your answers." 2. "Pro has failed to show me that such an act exists. " 3. "When it simply comes down to it, the topic over which the debate was designed was avoided by Pro until the last possible moment and then, when a response was finally given, it contradicted my very first sentence of the entire debate! Pro has failed." To all of these: Now Con, in desperation, as gone to the ad hominem? Point by point: 1. On the other hand, there are countless examples Con has ignored. No comment on the "wikipedia" joke. 2. On the other hand, Con's burden is to show that such an act does NOT exist in any scenario. That's not my burden. 3. Con's intent was probably towards humans (of course there is no way to know for sure), but whether or not it was is irrelevant. Con defined altruism, and animals were in the definition. Con can not change what he/she wrote. Oh, and by the way, the first definition of altruism wasn't specific to humans anyways. Here's a wrap up of the round: Con conceded that the burden of proof falls upon her/his shoulders. In essence, Con conceded that you should vote for Pro because my opponent has not at all proved that altruism is impossible in all circumstances. Secondly, Con did not refute all of my animal examples. These are enough to show that altruism exists. I only pursued this since the definition 2 talks about animals. Third, there are millions of people who have done the acts that I described above. I've shown how AT LEAST one has had to have done it without looking at his own potential benefit. Lastly, think about it for yourself. Have YOU ever done something without thinking of the benefits for yourself? Do you think anyone else has? Because I have shown how altruism does exist and Con has not shown it does not (remember the Geometry proof example) please vote Pro. I would ask that when voting you cast aside personal bias on the issue so as not to mar the decision on the actual debate. The top two buttons do not award points and they are related to what your opinion is. But the rest, I hope, you will treat fairly and vote for whoever fulfilled their burden better. If Con did, by all means vote Con. But I believe that Con did not and that I, Pro, did. Thanks.