. . . Ha! YOU'RE GOING DOWN, BEEM0R!

We have agreed that all objects act, since we are using my opponent's definition of act. However, as I pointed out last round, not all things consciously act. For instance, when a rock 'exists' this is not a conscious action, even if it is an action. My opponent's first order of business in his closing round is to argue against this. He attempts to show that even inanimate objects act consciously. == Consciousness To support this, he brings up the United States of America. He claims that "presidents and rulers of countries constantly refer to it as if it is conscious or as if it is a person." First of all, my opponent has failed to support this assertion. I, for one, have not been hearing politicians constantly referring to the United States as conscious. Further, even if it is true that politicians refer to it as conscious, that does not mean it actually IS conscious. Based on the definitions given by dictionaries, it does not seem that the United States of America. But hey, let's look at the off-chance that the United States could be considered 'conscious.' It would only be considered conscious because it is made up of conscious entities. In fact, if it was to be considered conscious, we would not be referring to the mass of land currently known as the USA, but rather to the collection of people who make up this nation. A rock, on the other hand, is not conscious, and cannot be by any standard. I've brought up many times what 'conscious' means - it means 'aware.' Something without awareness, such as a rock or a nebula, cannot consciously act, since it can never be aware of its actions [or using the other definition, it can never deliberately act, since it has no will]. So that is it for the first order of business - consciousness. Only things with awareness and/or a will can consciously act. This includes certain organisms [like humans], and arguably also includes societies of said organisms [like the USA]. However, it cannot include a rock. My opponent's only argument that it could is that individuals with a conscious could speak for the rock. Note, however, that this would not be the rock consciously acting, it would be an individual consciously 'speaking for' the rock, whatever my opponent means by that. == Self Interest Being Involved My opponent next tries to argue that self-interest is involved in all actions. I myself have already admitted to being interested in the whole of existence. This simply means that every object that exists has my interest. However, interest is very different than self-interest, as I have already pointed out. I am self-interested in myself, but I am not self-interested in anything else. However, my opponent has tried to argue that since I am interested in everything, and I am interested in myself, my interest in myself is therefore involved in my interest in every other thing. This is simply not true. First, let me remind anyone who doesn't know english what 'involved' means. http://www.merriam-webster.com... First, it can mean complicated. This obviously isn't what is meant by the resolution. However, if it was, then this would be simple for me. Self-interest is never involved in this sense, it's always quite simple. But alas, context means that this is not the definition we want to use. "Being affected or implicated" is the definition. Thus, my opponent is trying to argue that every action by any thing either affects or implicates my own self-interest. This is simply not true. Most actions by other things do not affect my self-interest. My self interest would be exactly the same whether that nebula on the other side of the universe existed or not. And of course, here's the definition for 'implicate.' http://www.merriam-webster.com... The definition in question is the first one, a fact that is obvious as it specifically mentions the fact that it is a form of involvement. "to involve as a consequence, corollary, or natural inference." And of course, none of those fit. My self-interest is not a consequence of a nebula on the other side of the universe, it is not a corrolary of it, and it isn't a natural inference that one would draw from a nebula on the other side of the universe existing. And thus, I have shown that it IS possible to not consciously act without self-interest being involved. A nebula on the other side of the universe does it, a ham sandwich on a taiwanese peasant's table, and many other things do it all the time. I have negated the resolution in the fullest sense. Thank you for reading, and vote wisely.