Objectivism is valid.

The concern of this debate shall be the validity of the philosophy of Objectivism. Objectivism is the philosophy that is intended for use as a guide in every day life and dictates four things: 1.There is an objective reality that exists independent of human perception and desires, i.e. facts are facts.2.The means by which this reality must be perceived is reason. This is because reason is the only means by which data input through our senses can be translated into meaningful information.3.One must always work for the benefit of his/herself and never to the detriment of others. I like to call this the non-sacrifice principle or NSP while many other Objectivists refer to it simply as the virtue of selfishness.4.The best means by which the previous three dictates can be achieved is through laissez-faire capitalism. This is a system in which individuals must deal with one another as tradesmen working toward mutual benefit through voluntary exchange. A system in which there is no room for the rejection of that which is rational for those who commit such acts will face the full consequences of their actions at the metaphorical hands of reality. The case for the validity of Objectivism is as follows.1.Evidence has thus far shown that the laws of physics cannot be undone or changed in any other way. Thus, Dictate 1 is validated. Facts are facts and wishing that you could "fall up" instead of down, for example, will not cause you to do so.2.Because reality is an absolute, it must be perceived through a system of absolutes. This system is reason, or logic. Something is either true, or false, never both. Similarly, you are either injured or you are not, never both. Just as "A" cannot lead to "C" unless it first proceeds to "B," a human cannot live without first supplying oxygen to his/her cells. Thus, Dictate 2 is validated.3.The only alternative to the NSP, or selfishness, is the "virtue" of selflessness (hereafter VoS) which is illogical. The VoS is illogical because it dictates that one must always sacrifice of the self, i.e. be selfless. However, it stands to reason that where there is sacrifice, there is someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there is someone being selfless, there must be someone to receive the sacrifice and thus be selfish. Thus, by being moral, under the VoS, one feeds that which is immoral under the VoS. In other words, good feeds evil and thus perpetuates it under the VoS and logically that which perpetuates evil must also be evil leading us to the conclusion that under the VoS, by being good, one is evil. This is a contradiction which cannot exist. On the other hand, the NSP is perfectly consistent and in accordance with reality. Thus Dictate 3 is validated.4.Finally, laissez-faire, the system in which government has no say in the economic decisions of individuals, is logically the system that will best satisfy the previous three dictates because it maximizes both individual liberty, and personal responsibility, both of which are necessary to rational actions in accordance with both reality and the NSP. If my opponent has any questions they may be posted in the comments instead of the rounds for the sake of staying within the character limit. My opponent may ask as many questions as is convenient and at any time that is convenient.I ask my prospective opponent to at least consider taking this debate and in the event that my challenge is accepted I shall look forward to my opponent's round one arguments.