Altruistic behavior is impossible. (psychological egoism)

I will start with the end as it is easier. :) You have presented an argument related to some neurological explanation of Psychological egoism. However, you are misleading our audience, if any (ok, it's true, you are suppose to do that in a debate, but so am I suppose to discredit your arguments :) ). You have quoted the wikipedia page about Psychological egoism which of course supports the Psychological egoism theory, but it does not do it objectively. If you take a look at the respective passage of wikipedia, you will see that the only claim for which they use a reference is that "as empathy increases our inclination to act altruistically increases" - note 25. The rest have no reference. Moreover, if you click on mirror neurons and you go to the wikipedia page about the mirror neurons you find the following info: "In humans, brain activity consistent with that of mirror neurons has been found in the premotor cortex, the supplementary motor area, the primary somatosensory cortex and the inferior parietal cortex.[6]". As you see this information has a reference to a certain bibliography. So mirror neurons are involved within: premotor cortex - on wikipedia it is indicated as having a role not fully understood in moving and understanding moving; the supplementary motor area - seems to play a role with the direct control of movement; the primary somatosensory cortex - is the location of the primary somatosensory cortex, the main sensory receptive area for the sense of touch; the inferior parietal cortex - the parietal lobe integrates sensory information among various modalities. None of these have any relationship with empathy - they have to do with our senses and our movement. I am not contesting that maybe some new research sustains your affirmation, however, what you used as an argument is not justified and is misleading. But it actually doesn't make to much of a difference - I will move now to the first part of your argument which is more interesting. I will not comment on your affirmation referring to the burden of proof. I tend not to see debates so deterministic: I don't see a debate as a way to impose my point of view or as a way to convince my opponent of anything, I see them as an opportunity to learn. Sometimes from a debate, or even a simple a discussion, even if you don't believe what the other says, so the info that you actually get from the other person is of no importance to you in itself, you still get the valuable info that other people see things different from you. Understanding that other have different views, makes you understand how little you might know, it makes you question your beliefs and thus raise above your preconceptions in a tentative of embracing a larger, more comprehensive view of the world. Or to put it otherwise, it makes you wiser. That's why I am debating, for wisdom, and not to be right. So I will not even discuss who has the burden of proof (unless you propose a new debate specifically on this topic). But I will take your challenge to talk about altruism (I am not using the word "explain" on purpose). Again I have to point out that you have not given me any chance: you have asked me to explain what altruism "means using reason and logic" but in the very next paragraph you are explaining why I won't be able to do it. :). But that won't stop me either. In all your argument, and actually the previous one also, you are making an assumption which is wrong in my opinion: the fact that everything has to be logical and rational. I will not debate this much, as it is not the purpose of this debate, but I do believe that there is a superior level of knowledge, a level of knowledge and wisdom that defies the common logic. Of course, such a system cannot be explained using logic...it is above logic. It is the kind of wisdom and view of the world that maybe the shamans, the shaolins, Dalai Lama and others had only in a very small part, and that actually Saints had in a larger part. It is the kind of wisdom that made martyrs in religion. It is the kind of wisdom that made Saints act differently and still correct in identical situations. In this level of wisdom, the determinism specific to our logic differs or sometimes is missing. I don't know much about this level of wisdom as I am far from it, but I believe in it...and this wisdom, this view of life, this different logic explains who people can be good for no apparent reason. I think the best way to call this superior level of perception is "love" and probably Saint Paul is the best to read in this regards. I will stop arguing on this now, as we are getting further away from our topic. We are not discussing why people are altruistic, we are discussing if they can be, and I think I have done my share of sustaining this. You still have to answer a questions from my previous argument, P.S.2, and you actually seem to be diverging with your arguments from the point that we are trying to make.