Individualism is societally destructive

Thanks to my opponent. I'll start by countering his arguments in negation, and then rebuilding and clarifying mine.Neg caseRelative individualism I assume my opponent was just using this for clarification as he gains no positive advocacy here. I do want to however stress that there is a distinction between an individualist government and an individualist society, and it's foolish to conflate the two. As we are both more or less libertarians if the discussion came down to what the government should be like and should do, my opponent and I would almost be entirely in agreement. It should almost without exception leave people to their own devices. The discussion however is not on what policies ought to be enacted--indeed my most important argument is a scathing rejection of political collectivism! The debate is on the effects and merits of individualism as a philosophical principle, or a state of mind. Not on government actions. Of course society is just an aggregate of individuals, the debate is not about whether people should be viewed as individuals but rather as individuals, should people value individualism over communitarianism. Clans My opponent argues that family/clan rivalries can sometimes become deadly. Sure. The first problem with his argument is that he does a really poor job of quantifying/weighing his impacts. Con gives you no way to weigh this, he doesnt explain why the dangers of clan rivalries should be prioritized over my arguments and he doesnt even tell you how many people will die from this. The only example he cited claimed 10 lives, compare this to the death toll following the growth of state power after the liquidization of natural/communal authorities (an inevitable consequence of individualism) which is astronomically greater. Secondly this criticism only follows for collectivism taken to its extreme. Of course when individuals are willing to murder and die for some clan its a bad thing, but this is more the exception than the rule. If it wasnt, it wouldn't be so famous. If you look at my arguments you'll see that I explicitely reject collectivism when taken to its extreme, all I argue is the importance of authorities outside the state that are destroyed by individualism. Third TURN: Cons argument shows us how loyal people were to their clans and families a mere century and a half ago, strengthening my argument about the decline of the family. As explained extensively in my case, virtues so prevelant in a family-oriented culture such as honor and justice, along with the family unit checking the power of the state have almost completely disappeared after wave upon wave of individualist thought entered the landscape.Economics Micro vs. MacroCon brings up an interesting argument that we cannot study aggregate behavior without first knowing how individual behavior works. This is true, but does absolutely nothing to gain him any ground. At most for Con this argues for individualism in economic policy making (no link to the actual resolution which is all about society), but in reality this is circular reasoning since we're debating individualism as a principle and the principles held by people drive their behavior. Individuals can and do behavior differently when they live in communities with they know closely and/or care about compared to individuals they dont know/who's interests they ignore. The invisible hand This, again, is merely an argument for economic policy-making. Moreover it's entirely non-topical. The fact that an economic system which allows people to do what they want with their money is better than one that doesnt allow this is simpl irrelevant to what an individualistic state of mind does to a society. His only attempt to answer the actual resolution is a brief assertion that in all things if everyone acts in their own self interest it will be best for all, but this is on its face absurd. Uncontroversially if the wealthy acted in the interest of their communities instead of themselves the world would be a better place. This is not to say that the government ought to compell them to do so, but if those individuals had the frame of mind to put other interests above their own or at least to consider them (NOT something that occurs under individualism), they would be more likely to help others.Compare my arguments with Cons shaky analysis and non-topicality.Aff case StatismCon either misunderstands of misrepesents much of this argument. The logic of the argument, that the destruction of natural and local authorities by individualism leads to political collectivization, has been basically untouched. Con accuses me of the tu quoque fallacy, but the problem is that I am not and never have been arguing for the kind of collectivism that individualism leads to. Con accuses me of making a slippery slope fallacy because apparently "the rise of a collectivist state can be prevented." without explaining how. For why the breakdown of communities inevitably leads to the rise of the state, see almost everything I said in R2. Con also misunderstands the argument about the French revolution, the reign of terror was only possible *after* the destruction of natural authorities that checked the power of the state. All these dangerous ideologies I argued against were indeed incredibly collectivist--that was the whole argument! In the name of individualism and natural rights the Jacobins destroyed the power of the nobles, and what happened should be viewed as inevitable.Despite his extensive analysis of the fascists and communists, this argument should basically be viewed as entirely dropped and therefore conceded since I wasnt arguing that these ideologies were individualist, rather that individualism set up the framework allowing their rise. Con doesnt even attempt to address the logic of the arguments, just arguing against a straw-man.FamilyCon makes no real response to this argument. All Con argues is that communities can't raise children. First of all, pretty much every sociological/psychological analysis will show that raising children is also a communal affair--as the old saying goes, it takes a village to raise a child (if we want the child to be an upstanding, non-hedonistic citizen that is). Individualism seeks to "liberate" people from their families. The American Conservative writes that inthe 19th century when individualism was being implemented[1]: "All any college student learned of social science and sociology from the nineteenth century to World War I was a theory of social relativism, the linear “evolution” of society through the nineteenth century, the need for challenging all social institutions including the family, and the possibility of continued improvement through the destruction of accepted values." Con totally drops the argument that individualism has changed the view of the family and hence the societally good obligations and values individuals held in a strong family-oriented society and the negative effects of a self centered state of mind, extend this.CitiesCon argues that a lot of crime is due to diversity, not a lack of community. Despite not explaining how diversity equates to crime (compare this to my argument where I explicitely explained why cities have such high crime rates) and dropping my argument on why it is the stripping of the individual of their sense of obligation to family and community that causes much of this, Con is still gains no ground. He bizarrely argues that cities filled with individuals who are essentially anonymous are less individualistic than rural areas where everyone knows everyone and long family histories and kinship ties go back generations (societies that have existed both in the past and the present) when this is simply logically incoherent. Con seems to be arguing against political collectivism, but unfortunately when the natural means of authority are destroyed authority can only come from the state. Turn his advocacy against him here. Vote Pro. 1. http://tinyurl.com...;