Objectivism is valid.

1.Merriam-Webster defines self-reflection as: careful thought about your own behavior and beliefs. By this definition, self-reflection does not require humility and merely requires careful analysis of the self and all that entails, including values and desires that satisfy the existence of the self.2.Merriam-Webster defines desire as: conscious impulse toward something that promises enjoyment or satisfaction in its attainment. This is an emotion.3. Life is not relative. It is an absolute, you are either dead or alive. You cannot be alive but relatively dead or vice versa. The statement that life is mutual is a non-sequitur and requires further elaboration. Life is not a privilege, it is a right, to say that it is a privilege is to imply that it can justifiably be taken by another human to meet their ends. In other words, sacrifice would be moral and altruism, as I posited in round 1, is a logical contradiction and therefore both wrong and evil. Objectivism does not deny life, it demands its existence, to say that by rejecting the importance of the self you are accepting life is illogical as that leads to the justification of sacrifice of the self which means that the self dies to feed that which killed it. Objectivism is opposed to social engineering a.k.a. bio-politics as is demonstrated by Dictate 4 of laissez-faire which rejects political authority in favor the spontaneous order of the free market. Objectivism does not state that "humanity is just chemicals." Under Dictate 3, humanity must be more than just chemicals because it effectively says that every individual is an ends in themselves. Do not confuse Objectivism with Nihilism. From this, it can be seen that there is no double standard. Objectivists care about their existence as individuals and engage with other humans as desired to achieve the end in which all involved benefit.4.Merriam-Webster defines to connive as: to secretly help someone do something dishonest or illegal. It does not at all compute how living for temporary gain constitutes conniving. Furthermore, Con's round 2 claim 4 is completely irrelevant to the debate as it fails to address the validity of Objectivism. Even if the implication is that Objectivism seeks temporary gain instead of long term gain, Con has no evidence to support this. Indeed, the exact opposite would be true as it would be more rational to consider long term profit in addition to short term profit rather than just short term and Objectivism requires rationality as per Dictate 2. To fail to be rational would result in death at the metaphorical hands of reality.5.Again, no evidence is provided that a balance between idealism and realism threatens humanity, nor is there evidence provided that the Universe itself balances the real and the ideal. Furthermore hunger isn't based on imaginary "greed" hunger is quite real. It is based on the desire to live. Furthermore, there is no contradiction since the real and the ideal are not mutually exclusive. The ideal can still exist and be achieved within the realm of reality. Finally, no evidence is provided that the human experience was designed or that Objectivism causes suffering. Indeed evidence exists contrary to both claims, again referring to technological advancement and free exchange as well as the fact that all present historical evidence shows that humanity was not designed but instead just "happened."6."This hunger... ...into the real world," is another non-sequitur, there is no logic, nor is there an apparent point to this statement within the context of the validity of Objectivism. "Keep it inside you," is to say that I should ignore what I desire, that all should ignore their desire that they should be selfless and altruistic, as I have previously stated, this is illogical and evil. Finally, as I have repeated so often, Objectivism does not hurt people as per its prohibition on the sacrifice of individuals.7."Rationalizing... ...or immorality." I completely agree, yet Con has failed to prove that Objectivism dictates that one should rationalize rather than be rational.8.On Con's round 2 point 8, Con fails to explain what is imaginary and so presents another meaningless non-sequitur. Con then proceeds onto two more sentences neither of which are relevant to the question of Objectivism's validity and the final one being an unsubstantiated claim that is incomplete to begin with as what "it" is, is unknown.9.Assuming that "it" in the case of Con round 2 point 9 is the fifth paragraph of Con's round 1 then "it" is a non-sequitur because the statement that Objectivism is the result of hunger not humanity is unsubstantiated and irrelevant to the context of the debate while the subsequent statements in that same paragraph are incredibly vague and unexplained. While it is true that calling this paragraph a non-sequitur does not necessarily affect it, it is important to point out the issue for the sake of clarity in future rounds (assuming Con cares to elaborate) and for the sake of those voting on the final outcome of this debate.10.On Con's round 2 point 10 I would like to point out that Con has not at all demonstrated the double standards of Objectivism and has simply made unwarranted claims. Con also failed to prove that the necessary result of Objectivism is destruction rather than production and that the environment is necessarily destroyed by Objectivism. In fact, evidence shows that if there was no selfishness, the result would be the destruction of the environment rather than the preservation of it. This is called the tragedy of the commons in which participants do not own anything, not even themselves, they do not work for themselves, but are simply sacrificial cows for those collecting the sacrifices. The result is the devastation seen in Zimbabwe where everyone officially owns the land while in reality no one does. The land is on a first come first serve basis. When there is no private property and no prohibition on sacrifice, the incentive is for the first person on the land to use as much of it up as fast as possible because when everyone else arrives, there will be far fewer resources to exploit and no incentive to conserve them or find alternatives. Thus, Zimbabwe is drought and famine ridden when not that long ago, it was the breadbasket of Africa.11.Continuing on Con's round 2 point 10, the claim is made that because one does not last forever and neither does their work, then they are fruitless and thus the opposite of productive. This is a falsehood because to be productive does not require permanence, Merriam-Webster defines productive in numerous ways, none of which necessitate permanence.[1] Finally, the opposite of productivity is not fruitlessness, it is destructiveness, fruitlessness is the neutral in between.12.Con's round 2 point 11) Yes a 10 year old can be an objectivist, a statement that is entirely irrelevant to the debate. Furthermore, it is a matter of politics because the only ones who have the ability to force sacrifice on a massive scale are those with political power, and this includes lobbyists, their employers, and the tyrannical majority. In the absence of the powerful and coercive political agent that is government, it would be impossible for any one person or group of people to force mass sacrifice. To say that Objectivists have no personality is an ad hominem logical fallacy and is thus irrelevant to the question of Objectivism's validity and so must not be weighed in the final decision. Finally, Objectivism does not treat the world as an industry it treats it as a place where humans must live and prosper and in order to do these, one must develop industry. 13.Con's round 2 point 12) I still assert that to be human is to live and to make the most of that experience however, I am unable to understand Con's first sentence due to it's cryptic nature, elaboration would be appreciated. Meanwhile, It is correct that Objectivism holds that humans are of consequence. If this was not the intention of the second statement here then I apologize and request further elaboration.14.Con's round 2 point 13) I should point out that not all business people are Objectivists and that presidents are definitely not Objectivists since they crave political power which as I have previously explained is the means by which sacrifice can be forced upon a population. Furthermore, I would like to see the aforementioned scientific tests so that I can determine for myself the validity of their parameters.15.Con's round 2 point 14)I do not throw "life" into "alpha-bit soup(again, please elaborate)." I do not say that life is the same as industry or machine, but that life is the act of existing and experiencing the world and the only possible means by which both can be achieved is by industry. One only has to look at history to see that in the absence of industry humans can neither live long, nor prosper and can only remain impoverished creatures of instinct struggling to survive. Objectivism is not about trying to survive, it is about trying to thrive and experience as much as possible, the goal is not simply to seek the fullest potential of the human mind, but human life as a whole. Finally, any statements regard the electromagnetic spectrum should be completely disregarded in the final decision as they are completely irrelevant to the validity of Objectivism.