Objectivism is not a logically valid philosophy.

1. Existence a. My opponent concedes that the law of identity does, in fact, give you information about existence. His initial argument is that, "according to Gottfried Leibniz, these "truths" tell you absolutely nothing about anything in existence." My opponent is contradicting his initial stance. b. (1) Our grasp on existence - on identity - is a human conception. The FACT that existence exists - that identity is a fundamental component of reality - is NOT. Man's ability to perceive and conceptualize reality (through the focus of his senses and of his mind, respectively) allow us to grasp reality - NOT shape it. (2) My opponent is mistaking concepts as some kind of intermediary between reality and mankind; he's presuming that there's a "real" reality beyond our perception, our senses and faculty of reason, and then some kind of intermediary between the two - an amorphous distortion of the "real" created and delivered by our perceptual faculty. Reality exists as it exists. Man's senses and faculty are how he interacts with it. He's telling me, to paraphrase Rand, that I'm blind because I see, deaf because I hear, and deluded because I use my mind. (3) Pro's entire argument is based on the presupposition that I believe existence to be a tangible object - some amorphous entity which humans identify as "existence"; as I've explained, existence is identity. Identity, as a fundamental "law" of reality, necessarily exists (otherwise, we wouldn't). Also, he argues that contradictions can occur in the mind; this isn't true. He assumes that what's logically possible isn't always empirically possible, and vice versa. This is another presumption that reality isn't based on logic (that A is A, A can't be non-A, etc.); the fact is, humans must necessarily possess (and operate) a logical faculty to comprehend a logical universe. To paraphrase Francisco d'Anconia in /Atlas Shrugged/: whenever you arrive at a contradiction, check your premises. One of them is bound to be incorrect. Whether in one's mind or in reality, A can never be non-A, since neither can operate in the absence of logic. In short, identity is independent of the human mind - not a product of it. (4) According to Objectivism, one can only know something if one has, indeed, experienced it. While the statement that 2+2=4 is an objective truth, independent of man's mind, man does not know such things by default, given that concepts are products of experiences integrated by reason. The concepts of 2, 4, and addition don't just float around for any man to catch - they must be discovered by the mind, since they reflect an objective truth independent of that mind. We revisit the false dichotomy established by Kant (which Pro fails to address) between the rational and sensual faculties. Neither is an independent acquirer of knowledge. They work together. The focus of the senses - perception - results in specific sensory experiences, which are integrated, stored, and comprehended by the faculty of reason. To say that one can know something a priori is to say that concepts exist independent of any experience, and that reason alone is capable of deriving objective, conceptual knowledge in a void. Recall my analogy of starting halfway through a race, disregarding the distance up to that point. Kant is disregarding part of the knowledge-acquisition process, thereby establishing the aforementioned dichotomy. 2. A Selfish Trick The first actual argument is his assertion that A is A, but that Existence doesn't Exist; recall, however, that existence is identity - being something with specific, limited, defined properties. Identity, as a fundamental fact of reality, exists. If that fact was absent - if it did not exist - then neither would reality, nor my opponent nor I. Your alternative is existence or nonexistence - merely because existence is irreducible does not make it nonexistent. By the way, as a quick note: Although Objectivism credits Aristotle as a man of great intellect and logic, not all Aristotelian propositions and conclusions coincide with Objectivist ones. Pro already agreed that the law of identity does provide information about existence (see above). c. He admits that my argument is true, and fails to attack it rather than asserting irrelevance. He asked how reality can exist independent of the mind, and I told him. 3. Ding an Sich a. My opponent is fallaciously equating a priori knowledge with objective truth. A priori truth, according to Kant, is a truth that you can verify without having to experience it; *A PRIORI KNOWLEDGE RELIES ON A FORM OF VERIFICATION.* All known truths are reliant upon experience. Kant ignores the origin and formation of concepts as relevant to knowledge-acquisition, even though the acquisition of knowledge IS concept-formation. Objective truth is independent of man's mind, and requires no human verification. It simply IS. Both a priori and a posteriori knowledge, on the other hand, require some type of human verification for the truth to be recognized and understood by the human verifying it. His examples prove my point that he is misusing the concepts of a priori knowledge and objective truth. That all bachelors are unmarried, that 7+5=12, and that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line are all objective truths. I agree to that. However, those aren't a priori knowledge, since one has to understand the concepts of numbers, addition, mathematical equations, the definition of a bachelor (recall that definitions aren't the same as concepts), and the definition of unmarried, ALL of which are based solely on experiential knowledge; I repeat: concepts don't just float around for any random person to absorb. All concepts, and their definitional limits, must be discovered by the human mind's integration of perceptual, experiential data. The "insight" is just a personal attack on Rand. 4. Selfishness biological? a. First of all, I would like to ask on what grounds Pro equates Objectivism to Social Darwinism. b. Given that selfishness is concerned with one's own interests, and one's own life is the highest value (since other people have no ethical or metaphysical claim to a person's life, freedom, or the product of his mind), pursuing one's own rational interests and values, as a means of maximizing his life and his enjoyment of it, is a man's highest ethical purpose. If a man wants to live, Objectivism shows him how to make the most of it. c. What do you mean by "Objectivism has no Objective right to be true"? Being consistent with the facts of reality isn't a right. You either are or aren't consistent with those facts. d. Objectivism never states that you "must" do anything. It doesn't make commandments. It states that, since man needs ethics for his survival, his life must be his ultimate standard. From there, Objectivism shows you how to make the best of your life. 5. Selfishness? a. So, Objectivism = EE because they're both on the same list of individualist philosophies according to Wikipedia? b. "Assuming that the Objectivist principle of pursuing what makes man feel good is true..." Objectivism isn't Hedonism [http://aynrandlexicon.com...]. You don't violate rights if you want yours respected. Period. c. O'ism holds life as the highest value, and happiness as the highest purpose. It tells you to pursue only rational goals, and that rationality is the only way to interact with reality. Not sure what else to say. Also, the name "Objectivism" is based on the idea of objective reality. d. Both the worker and the boss agree to a voluntary arrangement which is mutually-beneficial. They trade value for value. There's no "slavery", despite my opponent's rhetoric about some kind of vague "indirect" slavery. See: [http://aynrandlexicon.com...] e. Yes. According to O'ist Ethics, you shouldn't accept the unearned. Ever.