Altruistic behavior is impossible. (psychological egoism)

I would like to talk about burden of proof. As this was my first debate I never stated who the burden of proof is placed on so we do share it. But who should it really be placed on? It is hard to decide who the burden of proof is on as it is a weird topic to deal with. Altruism can be a hard word to clearly define or explain what it really is. I think that I can prove that the burden of proof is yours.If I tell my younger sister that she has cooties she will immediately reply that she doesn't. That burden of proof is on me as I made the claim without and reason or evidence that there are such things as cooties. I made the claim first and so the burden of proof is always on me right? No. Just because someone makes the first claim does not mean the burden of proof is on them. Lets use the same situation but I make 2 claims this time. I say she has cooties and that I am better than she is and I have no cooties. Who is the burden of proof on for the second claim?Before modern science it was completely logical to console in a religion for belief in a world and life that had no explanation. Nobody could contest the logic of religion as there was no evidence to prove another way for being here on earth and alive. It is really mind blowing what life is when you think about it. But the point is that people make basic assumptions off the observations they make. An extremely famous assumption was that the earth is flat. If someone today tried to tell me that I would laugh at them but 500 years ago I could not blame someone for using that as there understanding with there lack of information.Now with that point made, altruism, quite simply, Is a label that is placed on something that we can not quite understand. And I can not blame people as they have a lack of understanding. In all of your arguing you have not explained or shown or proved what altruism is or how it is backed up by reason. Your only argument is that they just simply 'want' to help someone out without any logical reason. Or just simply because I am a good person. Now let me ask if you are up to the challenge of explaining what that means using reason and logic.When you claim that someone 'wants' to do something just to help someone you are making the claim that someone 'wants'. It is such a simple word with a simple definition that is usually basically understood before we even start school.Want: have a desire to possess or do (something); wish for. - https://www.google.com... If you believe that we have free will or you don't, logic would clearly explain that you can't commit an action without wanting to do something. (Or being forced to do something which is irrelevant as we are talking about the choices we make and our intentions.) So basically you cannot do something without wanting something. and you can not want something done without wanting something in the outcome i.e. personal gain, Pleasure, or avoidance of pain.With that being said I have placed a logical reason behind every action without using a label such as altruism that only signifies a lack of understanding. The burden of proof is seemingly pushed on to you and I am curious as to what your reply will be to attempt to push the burden of proof back onto my self if it is even possible.Moving past using simply just logic, Psychological egoism can be explained neurologically. "Neuropsychological studies have linked mirror neurons to humans experiencing empathy. Mirror neurons are activated both when a human (or animal) performs an action and when they observe another human (or animal) performs the same action. Researchers have found that the more these mirror neurons fire the more human subjects report empathy. From a neurological perspective, scientists argue that when a human empathizes with another, the brain operates as if the human is actually participating in the actions of the other person. Thus, when performing [seemingly] altruistic actions motivated by empathy, humans experience someone else's pleasure of being helped. Therefore, in performing [apparent] acts of altruism, people act in their own self interests even at a neurological level."- http://en.wikipedia.org... I apologize for only copying and pasting but it would have took a while to put in my own words anyway and the argument is still the same but not mine. I don't completely agree with this argument or better to say I don't necessarily take my facts from it but I made this argument because it is none the less true. I theorize that we don't do bad things because of fear of persecution not just legally but socially and it has led to us trying to gain small satisfaction through empathy. Analyzing the statistics of rising levels of depression in the U.S support my theory although they may not be directly related I think it is a strong argument.I have run out of characters but this still supports altruism being impossible. Good luck in your argument.