Collectivism ought to be preffered to Individualism

Thank you Kasmic for this debate! Compassion I have provided the argument that collectivists are more compassionate. My opponent’s only rebuttal is that collectivists MIGHT not bomb in the scenario provided. My opponent must defend collectivism as a whole not just some collectivists. This is evident by the burdens analysis. My opponent also objects that it is irrelevant under the framework provided (the framework of utilitarianism). As utilitarianism has already been defined as the belief in doing what is best for the majority we can see how my opponent’s argument is flawed without having to actually refute it. Compassion directly coincides with framework. My opponent’s objection is based on a false premise. Success Of Individualistic Societies I provided a map to show the success of individualistic societies. The only source that my opponent objects to is the source for the map. The problem is that I only used this source for the map regarding individualism. My opponent agrees that the definition of individualism in that source is close to the definition of individualism provided in the debate. It is not to be expected that the source is going to define individualism as the exact same definition that is stated in the debate however the comparable definition means that the map still stands. How it defines collectivism is irrelevant since I only used it to demonstrate individualistic success. I further expanded upon this contention with other sources which my opponent concedes. Metaphysics I began by introducing an argument regarding human contingency and how there is no innate human contingency on each other. My opponent re-states his John Stuart Mill quote. This is evidently an insufficient rebuttal due to the fact that it is merely a quote, an appeal to authority. My argument had an explanation, his did not. A quote is not a rebuttal on its own. It can only be used in support of a rebuttal. The Harm ‘Individualism has negative social repercussions in practice’ My opponent attempted to show that individualism has negative social repercussions in practice (as is made evident by the contention heading). I demonstrated that the case solely rested on assertion. The argument is invalidated because of this. Collectivism Increases The Chances Of Individual Success My opponent argues that collectivism ultimately fulfills the goal of individualism - creating individual success. I raise multiple issues with this contention which cannot be dismissed. I refute by showing the different species of animals and the fact that minority will lose their say. Regardless of whether the contention objective is met, this is a large mitigation and presents problems that cannot and should not be overlooked. Collectivism is a More Objective Version than Individualism My opponent refers to the subjectivity in individualism however the objection that I made was that the people’s opinions may be subjective but the ideology itself is objective. The subjectivity involved in the people’s decision is irrelevant. We aren’t discussing whether people’s decisions are objective or subjective we are talking about where the ideology is objective or subjective which is very different to the claims that my opponent raises in the initial contention. Summary It is clear that I have fulfilled my burden and that my opponent hasn’t. My opponent makes multiple indirect claims that are irrelevant to the debate and to my contentions. The rebuttals made my opponent are vague, indirect and are ultimately insufficient to affirm collectivism. This leads us to the outcome that individualism is affirmed, the resolution is negated and that you ought to vote Con. Thank you Kasmic, once again, for a great debate!