Altruism is part of our selfishness

Thank you for posting, I will start by mentioning definitions, then clearing misconceptions, lastly concluding what myself and my opponent tries to say.A) Definitons1) In a formal debate, the for side have responsiblitity to list the definitions (see round 1) the con side accept the challenge. 2) When defining the aim and motion of the topic (altruism & selfishness), I strictly follow the rules in round 1 (part of = a portion of , hence the prescence of selfishness in altruism Alone is enough to support todays motion) 3) However, in round 2 my opponent changes the rules, in order to turn the debate to his favour It is regrettable that my opponent makes such mistakes.4) It pains me even more when Con side argues he never accepted the definitions, he could at least put his own definitions in round 1. Instead, he chose to change all the rules after I posted my arguments in round 2,leaving no chance for me to explain.With that being said let's play by Con's rules, using his own definition and move on to Con's side misconceptions.B) MisconceptionsThere are fatal errors made by Con I would like to mention: The Desire to help others and the Action to help othersDesire:1) "People Cannot care about others while caring for themselve" - said Con Con has fallen into a Black-or-White logical fallacy Which means humans can only focus on one method only at a time What he is implying is that all people can either be a saint (thinking others Solely & neglecting themselves) or be a devil (who only thinks of themselves as the Sole factor) when carrying out their daily actions.2) However, Con's logic cannot apply to the reality. according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs (which I had mentioned in round 1 but completely ignored by Con). Humans can think of themselves (physiological/safety) and think of others at the Same time (love/belonging).3) Thats means caring for others while having a degree of selfishness are not contradictory, instead they co-exists all the time. That's why we have the term moral dillema - which includes balancing one's own needs and others needs. If we are only able to be Either selfless or selfish (according to Con) - then we no longer need to manage our morality, as our decision is already predetermined - a saint or a devil.4) Since's Cons arguments lack solid reasoning and even alienates from truth - Today's motion shall stand.Actions:1) "Charities do donations that help other people so they are not selfish" - said Con Con side didnt even bother to use proof or explain why help others = not selfish (which is the whole point of this debate whether there is selfish in helping others.) While I showed that throughout the course of Action and Effect, one can gain benefits while helping others. (Being selfish is intentional/unintentional) (Another example, Alfred Nobel established Nobel Prize, no longer being accused of treason against France or dynamite accident deaths, but praised as a succesful scientist)2) Since Con side lacks any sort of proof and effort while I justified my arguments, motion shall stand Con sides duties1) Through out his arguments, he Cannot prove there is no elements of selfishness in atruism. ("Charities do donations that help other people so they are not selfish" - said Con) He simply told us his own viewpoints without even explaining himiself...2) He Cannot prove why people Must either completely care for himself or completely care for others (How can I care about others, but also only care about myself, at the same time? It's impossible. - said Con) Again, simply expressing opinions...Ending the debate with It's impossible.Pro side duties1) I had shown elements of self (intentional/unintentional/actions/desires)2) I had shown how people care for others and themselves If he cannot fullfil his own 2 duties in the Third Round (as mentioned above), the Cons side argument lacks logic. Pro side wins. Please vote the Pro side. Thank you.