Individualism is societally destructive

While I appreciate my opponents willingness to debate and his quick replies, I can't help but feel many of his replies were gross misrepresentations of my argument, strawmen or simple misunderstandings. As such as I go through the round and explain why you should vote Pro I'll also be clarifying things, turning first to my case. Political vs. intellectual collectivismBefore anything else the false dichotomy con tries to force me into needs to be brought up. As anyone reading my arguments can tell, I'm not arguing against individualism in the sense of government actions but rather philosophically. That was the entire point of the debate from the outset, to "[show] sociologically the inevitable effects of such an individualistic state of mind. " (R1). That Con repeatedly tries to force the debate into the realm of government actions shows either a complete misunderstanding or a deliberate strawman and either way ought to be ignored. Aff caseStatismCon again completely drops this, simply arguing that local authorities are individualist. No. This is his fundamental misunderstanding--I'm not advocating political collectivism, all I'm doing is explaining what happens to a society when its natural authorities are liquidated by individualism. Make no mistake, local aristocracies and family ties and all the other involuntary, compelling and intricate social fabrics that exist are not individualist at all. Indeed a community that forces an individual via social norms and expectations to conform to it is not by any standard individualist. Con has dropped the specific warrants behind this argument throughout the debate--that when people "liberate" themselves from natural authorities and destroy the social fabric that exists there is no check to stop the rise of statism. Irionically ndividualism, so dedicated to the freedom of the individual, unknowingly lays the framework for the rise of an oppressive state. The impact of hundreds of millions dead via government falls firmly onto me, this impact outweighs everything else and you can affirm right here. Con only responds by bizzarely arguing that a revolution started and fought by aristocratic, wealthy, slave owning men who instituded a republic where only the landed men could vote was individualist and that a government which almost immediately committed genocide against the Native Americans and taxed individuals was not oppressive. The American revolution was only semi-individualist, uncontroversially the main goal was not to tear apart the bonds that tie people together, but rather to break the bonds with England. As such the majority of the social fabric--the landed gentry, the power and influence of the noble families, the communities-- remained intact. Predictably the government that emerged after tearing apart part of the natural social fabric was only semi-oppressive compared to the French. This proves my point, compare the American and French revolutions and you can see clearly the differences in magnitude in individualism and, consequently, the state that emerged. FamilyCon has literally dropped most of this. Extend the decline in civic virtues, and extend the argument that the family is the most important social unit and individualism specifically targets the family. Cons responses are weak; first he argues that feuds were apparently very common despite not giving any statistics or reasoning other than the patently false claim that most soldiers in the civil war fought against their neighbors. Nevertheless, this impact is vastly outweighed by the positive impacts of the family that Con doesnt dispute--I conceded from the outset that sometims family loyalties can turn deadly and be bad, but con doesnt even attempt to weigh this. He doesnt tell you why this rare occurrence needs to be valued above all the good things coming off of the family unit (probably because its quite obvious it shouldnt be). This argument is more or less a red-herring, it does nothing to refute the majority of my advocacy, and he also makes no response to my turn of th argument. Con then strangely argues that if individuals selfishly put themselves above their families and communities they somehow become less selfish and entitled, but this is plainly false. Individuals with the mindset of "do everything it takes to succeed" and have no obligations outside themselves will have much less of a problem taking the benefits the state offers via theft in political collectivism (something I am arguing against). That Con seriously asserts that I'm advocating communal parenting shows how much he misunderstoof this argument. The argument was that the community also has a role in raising the child, not that the parents should have no role. This is a strawman. CitiesCon still makes no explanation for why diversity causes crime despite claiming that he has. Extend my analysis. Con doesnt try to even address this argument at all except to say that since he thinks rural areas are more individualist they are, and to concede that "people in rural communities are friendlier, and are more likely to help one another. .. "(R3). He doesnt even address the sense of community I explained and again defers to political actions as the means of measuring philosophy. Individuals in a city are essentially anonymous. They have the absolute freedom to do virtually whatever they want outside of crimes because no one can judge them. There is no sense of community and no obligations. .and Con argues that this is anything but indivualistic? How absurd. I've clearly won each of my arguments. Vote Pro. Neg caseSociety vs government Con delves into semantics, arguing that somehow if a state is a confederation it isnt a state. Either way he doesnt argue any impact here at all, so ignore this. Ignore also his arguments about communitarianism--I cited communitarianism for its emphasis on the ties an individual has to the community, not its policy recommendations. EconomicsCon simply argues that economics proves human behavior and therefore we need individualism. Con however drops the argument that his reasoning is circular and that principles govern action. Moreover he doesnt impact this at all--how does it possibly outweigh my arguments? He also makes the uncommonly silly argument that "Individuals make up the community, so it is individuals who determine the wants and needs of the community. " but we all know that individuals putting themselves before the community in their economic demands would NOT fulfill the wants and needs of the community, just the selfish interests of the people in it--not the same thing. This strengthens my arguments about how individualism tears apart the community. The Invisible hand argument is also silly. That con seriously asserts that the world is better off because the wealthy hoard money and buy vacation homes while other people are starving to death and losing their property is very telling of just how dangerous the ideology he is advocating is. I disagree with Con that the only way individuals get rich is by ignoring their communities and families and focusing soley on themselves--an individual motivated to gain wealth so he can share it with the community is also acting in his interests, his interests are just different and the motivation to gain wealth is still there. Con doesnt explain at all why individualism is needed for this, in days gone by where the community was a far bigger player in peoples lives business and businessmen still existed. Theres no warrant to the claim that economic production would stagnate if tjhe rich voluntarily decided to help others with their money. Con has barely any advocacy at all. My rebuttals to his arguments are virtually untouched and he fails to really impact them in any quantifiable way. Compare this to my case where Cons objections fall flat and the impacts are clear.