Altruism does not exist.

Con CaseLets start this off with a quote."In Britain, blood needed for medical purposes comes exclusively from people who voluntarily give their blood to the National Blood Transfusion Service. These donors are not paid. They do not get preferential treatment when they themselves need blood, for the National Health Service provides blood free of charge for all those in Britain who need it. Nor can donors be rewarded - or even given a grateful smile - by the patients whose lives are saved by their gifts. Donors never know who receives their blood, and patients never know who gave the blood they receive." [1]Do donors exist? Yes it draws on over a million donors each year. [2]What are their stated motivations? The vast majority of those polled stated altruistic motivations. [3]I don't know how Pro can respond to this, nevermind the countless other acts where individuals have literally ensured their own self-destruction to save others. Take, for instance, the royal Marine who jumped on a hand grenade to save his fellow soldiers [4]. Lets go back to the definition here of altruism:Altruism- The principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of othersHow can that royal Marine or the millions of Britains who have donated blood with no benefits for doing so be charged with acting selfishly? Pro needs a very, very broad definition of the term to satisfy that condition and thus far he has not done so. Pro CaseSelfishness: Pro makes a broad and unsupported generalization ("If there is anything that humanity has proven, it is that every action we as human beings do is met with some sort of selfish reason.") He then goes on to "prove" this with his hypothetical beggar example. Pro claims that even in that case the man is receiving self-satisfaction. However, clearly, Pro is only speculating. This puts Pro in the uncomfortable and untenable position that the millions who donate blood without improved prospects of repayment do so because it makes them feel better. Every one of them. Is this the reported motivation? No. Does this explain the instance of the Marine who jumped on the grenade? Not at all. This first point can be excused as speculation. Philosophy:In claiming that there is no philosophical motivate for non-self interested behavior Pro is literally wiping away all secular and religious morality in one swoop. Again, we see Pro "prove" his point without actually having to do so "Any hypothetical situation can prove that Altruism does not exist in a human moral world, based on the fact that nothing in this world is done WITHOUT a motive." The entire "motive" line of argument is a straw man, the fact that there is a motive does not necessitate that that motive is selfish or that altruism does not exist. Nor does the motive always, or even generally, take the form "I want to."Emotions: "Emotions are self interests" is a completely bizarre definition. If we're going by the typical definitons then Pro's point is non-sensical and even if we grant Pro all of this he only describes it as "deterrence" to altruism, not a factors that completely demolish any prospect of its existence. Additionally, this in no way counters the "marine on hand grenade" example. There is no possible way one's self-interest can be promoted through that. Relationships: Who says you even need to enter into a relationship with the person you're helping? See the blood example. Again, we have these broad claims on Pro's part that are utterly unsupported ("Along the same lines, almost all of our actions are driven by selfishness and narcissism at least in part. Hence, altruism is a lie.") Minds: This claim is actually enormous, and Pro needs to provide neurological evidence for it but of course fails to cite even one study. Again, just because humans have motivations does not mean those motivations are necessarily selfish. That said, Pro basically concludes his argument with a restatement of his broad, unsupported conclusions that apparently hold for every human being who lives or who has ever lived.Summary: Pro never even considers the case that individuals can completely demolish themselves for a higher purpose. Pro repeatedly tries to stretch the meaning of selfishness here to even having motivations which is a complete distortment of the argument. Pro repeatedly makes sweeping claims about humanity that he cannot, or ever hope to, corroborate. I have provided definitions where individuals have made sacrifices for strangers with no prospect of a benefit and cause direct harm to themselves. These would appear to fit the definition of "altruistic" acts despite Pro's utterly unsupported insistence that every human action is selfish. I urge a Con vote. [1] Peter Singer, "The Expanding Circle" p. 133[2] ibid p. 134[3] ibid p. 133[4] http://ge-Cross-Marine-would-jump-on-hand-grenade-again.html...;