As a complete view, Psychological Egoism is false.

My opponent's argument is part semantics, and the other part just a weak point. =====Counterarguments===== "Now, to set the parameters:" ---->You do not set the parameters. I, BEING THE INSTIGATOR, has set the parameters. You can not expect to come into a debate and start changing the rules and placing down the definitions. As I have stated in my opening round, I used the term WELFARE. "So your trying to tell me that I'm saying that altruistic acts are ultimately selfish? " ----> If you're arguing FOR psychological egoism, then you HAVE to argue this. Otherwise, you will be conceding your side, duh. "For someone to accurately fit the definition of "selfish", they cannot give any consideration to others. " ---->According to the definition of welfare, which I have placed down and you haven't attacked in the first round, you don't have to be fully concerned with yourself to be considered "selfish" or "concerned for your own welfare". "Someone can be concerned with themselves without being selfish. " ----> Selfish doesn't mean to be fully indulged in yourself like some brat you see on TV. Selfish, or welfare, can also mean self-interest. Think of the denotation, not the connotation. If in any way you act partly because of some benefit you personally want to gain, then by definition that is an act out of consideration of your OWN WELFARE. This also means SELFISH. Do not play word games when the terms and definitions have already been set. >>>Example of soldier jumping on grenade<<< Yes, we can conceive of examples of soldiers jumping on grenades because they feel "welfare from other's welfare". However, simply conceiving of a possible scenario does not make that an absolute necessity. How do you know that ALL soldiers who jump on grenades or other acts of self-sacrifice are life this? You have not shown why EVERY soldier or EVERY person who commits a split-second act of self-sacrifice do so because they gain welfare from other people's welfare. Surely, some people do that - and by definition that's selfish interests. But can you say EVERYONE has? No, you have not yet shown so and thus my example still stands. =====Conclusion===== My opponent has tried to place his own definitions of selfishness and then twist it into a word game. I have already placed down term, which is welfare, in the opening round. Selfishness/welfare does NOT mean you have to completely indulged in yourself, that's just the popular connotation when you say "he's a selfish person". People who give money to charity because they feel good from that are by definition acting out of SELF-INTEREST. My opponent then proposes to my counterexample of the soldier by saying perhaps that solider did so because he gains welfare or personal peace knowing that his fellow soldiers will be safe. However, he has NOT shown that this is an absolute necessity for every case of self-sacrifice. Because we can conceive of a situation that involves self-interest, this does NOT mean that every similar situation has to be the same. Can I not conceive of a situation of when a soldier did so out of purely altruistic reasons? Why not, my opponent has not shown otherwise. Finally, my opponent has failed to attack my example of the circular logic of psychological egoism. Either it's because he's out of time, or because he can't refute it, I have no clue.