Humans are selfish by nature, and always do what is in their own best intrest.

This is an impossible stance no matter how you look at it. When you say something is "always" one way, that is an impossible burden to fulfill. I am picking up one main contention from you. That is that every action we commit is ultimately fueled by our own self interests. Example(a) you give money to someone for self satisfaction(b) you help people out to make yourself feel betterAll of these are probable and logical explanations as to why someone may commit an act that is not at first glance selfish. The issue with your stance is that if any action since the start of time was committed with the intent of going against that specific persons self interest, then the resolution that is presented is false. It is difficult to find an action that may be considered to be purely altruistic but it is possible.The claim at hand is that every act is and always will be committed with someones best interest at mind. Pro is essentially choosing to defend Egoism Egoism - Egoism can be a descriptive or a normative position. Psychological egoism, the most famous descriptive position, claims that each person has but one ultimate aim: her own welfare[1]There are also different types of this psychological, rational, and ethical egoism. All of this entails that every action or every choice we make ultimately is chosen because it benefits us. There is a great deal of circular logic, or repetitive logic when someone address' this. They initial theory and the conclusion are the same thing. (a) everyone desire satisfaction(b) satisfaction of what (c) Satisfaction of their desires(d) Desire of what(e) of their satisfactionThis cycle continues forever. Gyges Ring AnalogyIf you found a ring, that allowed you to commit any act or do anything you wanted would you do it?Would you rape a woman because it brought you sexual pleasure? Would you kill someone because you do not want to see them again? Would you kill someone because you need their money? If you can say no, that is a counter argument in itself. There are acts one could commit that would be in ones self interest, but because of the harm it could bring to others that person may not commit the act. "Egoism argues that not only ought one to pursue one’s own interests but, that caring for others is ethically rejected unless one assigns self-value to the action. This means that one’s emotions of compassion and empathy for those less well off than us or those incapable of providing some benefit to us, should be discouraged. Though this is not a logical objection, it is perhaps an objection which arises from “common human feelings” which seem not only natural but also admirable to many. "[2]In ClosingEgoism could be false and has a higher probability of being false than being true. If any action were ever truly altruistic then the resolution is false. That means as I stated earlier that if any action ever committed since the start of time was done in someones self interest, or without us assigning self value to the act then the resolution is also false. Take into account the gyges round analogy. That is the most rational way to look at egoism. If an action could ultimately benefit us, but we chose not to commit the action because it could harm another then we have in a way shot down the resolution as well. We have chosen not to commit an act and have did something that is not in our own best interest. I have shown how egoism can be faulty due to circular logic, probability, and that assigning self value to every action can be faulty. The most logical conclusion to believe is that someone could possibly and has possibly committed an act that is not in their best interest. Ask yourself the same questions that I asked above and see for yourself[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] http://www.cabrillo.edu...