Psychological Egotism is is false

Hello all. Thanks to my opponent for offering this debate. I look forward very much to debating him. I'm generally wary of Wikipedia so I would like to amend the definition, which, currently is: Psychological egoism or egotism is the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. It claims that, when people choose to help others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly or indirectly, from doing so. according to Wiki I hope my opponent will allow the removal of 'even in what seem to be acts of altruism' as I find this contradictory. 'Altruistic' according to Merriam Webster is 1 : an unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others 2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species This seems to contradict the Psychological Egoism definition, which states that all individual actions are selfish, or based upon self-interest. Now, I shall disprove my opponent's argument that Psyhological Egoism is true, according to his syllogism. I shall do this with the example of an everyday experience, one which I'm sure most have seen, if not taken notice. Two girls are about to play a game of tennis singles. To determine the order of serves, one girl (let's call her Abby) offers to twirl her raquet. On the butt of the raquet (like most t) there is a letter which could be read two ways, either a 'p' or a 'd' or a 'w' or an 'm'. Abby's opponent, (Beth), will pick one letter. Beth picks 'd'. She does not have a specific reason for chosing, yet this is a completely voluntary action, one she knew (if not consciously, subconsciously because she has undoubtably played before and the practice is a common one) beforehand but has no specific reason for chosing one or the other. Abby has the raquet reading 'p' or 'd'. She asks her opponent to chose a letter, p or d. Beth choses 'd'. Abby twirls the raquet on its head and eventually it falls to the ground, showing one letter. It is a d. Therefore, Beth will choose whether she serves or returns first. In this simple example, Beth has chosen based not on satisfying the subconscious and conscious mind because there is nothing in there which stimulates her decision. In the next game, she may choose 'p' or 'd' again. She probably has no clue which now. The syllogism assumes that the subconscious and consciuos mind work together to form a concrete decision ( doing what IT wants to do). However, the decision of the conscious mind (logic) and the decision of the subconsious (perception) are often quite different. Here is the case of Chad, a boy who has not studied for his Health Safety exam. He is lost on the first question. Question #1: What is the best way to get back to shore after being caught by a riptide? a) Swim in a directly perpendicular line towards the shore b) Swim parallel to the shore c) Swim at a 90 degree angle towards the shore d) Swim at a 45 degree angle towards the shore e) Stay afloat until a turtle swims by and jump on its back for a safe ride to the shore. Now, Chad knows from his lessons 'teaching to the test' that the best answer would be C. However, he is thinking back and it doesn't seem to ring a bell. His conscious is saying, C, his subconscious is disagreeing. Therefore, the mind does not agree and Chad must choose between the two. He is not satisfying IT as a whole, he must make the free individual decision on which way to go, and therefore is not doing what IT wants to do, because it is impossible. Thank you to my opponent for this interesting topic. I look forward to his response.