True Altruism Does Not Exist

My opponent seems to be confusing concern for some supernatural thing independent of biology or logic.He observes that the mother is programmed love the child and gain emotional reward from it but this is irrelevant if the concern she has for the child is selfless in nature. Just because the person is driven to feel the concern does not invalidate the concern's existence. Altruism concern of others independent of one's own needs and this is exactly what the mother feels for her child. It's very rare that the mother would think "oh that baby has my DNA I better keep it healthy!" this doesn't even cross her mind. Whether this is the cause for her selfless concern or not is irrelevant. Just because the basis for the concern is selfish doesn't meant that the concern itself is selfless in practice and theoretically independent of selfishness on its own. You can develop selfless emotions from selfish origins, this is not important.Altruism was only defined, by Pro, as "selfless concern for the well-being of others." it was never extended to mean "selfless concern for the well-being of others originating from self-defeating foundation." This is an entirely different definition and not the one being debated.The argument regarding the father is most amusing. My opponent suggests that risking one's life for another is selfish because of the concern that the father if programmed to feel for the child. Well what if the child is adopted? What if the child is just a student of his and he's the teacher? All are very realistic situations with suddenly no biological motive to them. The issue isn't whether or not the concern is biologically programmed or not, the issue is if the concern exists or not and it does.When Pro stated that "Humans are social animals. We survive not only by doing what's best for us but what's best for the community" this can only be true if each human in the community has a genuine concern for the well-being of others surpassing that of their own immediate needs. Who care if this altruism is due to the instinctive need for self-preservation or not? You only need friends at school so you can survive but that doesn't mean that the concern you feel for them isn't ranking their needs above yours. Concern is purely subjective, so to objectively observe the outcome of selfless concern and conclude that it's selfish is to recognize its existence in the first place. How can you analyze the motivation behind selfless concern for others if you don't recognize the existence of the concern to begin with?My opponent then converts empathy into self-preservation. It is not. You sacrifice your own happiness to stoop to the sadness level of another in order to get the motivation to make them happy. This is selfless concern whether or not that's overall selfish reward from it later on is irrelevant. In that moment, what you are feeling is true altruism, therefore it exists.This is essentially Pro's argument:Because the basis of selfless concern for the well-being of others is a biological instinct for society's well being that happens to result in one benefiting from it, the selfless concern does not exist.This makes no sense. Just because people benefit form being selflessly concerned for others doesn't negate the concern's existence.