Objectivism is not a logically valid philosophy.

1. Existence a. The law of identity isn't meant to "teach" anything. It's an axiom. It codifies a self-evident truth. Leibniz argued that "A is A" tells you nothing of existence. He was wrong. I established this in Round 2, and Pro conceded it. b. There is no "change in stance". My stance is still that existence exists. I extended in Round 2 that you're misconstruing what existence actually is. You're trying to make it out like some kind of physical object, which it isn't. (1) Pro completely rips my statement out of context. I stated that our GRASP on reality is a product of the human mind. Obviously, our perceiving reality is contingent on a working mind; however, reality's actual EXISTENCE is objective. We perceive and conceptualize that objective reality. I repeat: Our minds GRASP reality, not SHAPE it. His entire argument is based on the premise that the human mind/senses distort reality, and that we cannot grasp das Ding an Sich; however, keeping in mind that Kant used this concept to justify the existence of God [http://socyberty.com...] (something "above comprehension), the whole argument is nothing but an anti-reason ruse. An intellectual cop-out. (2) He absolutely admits the fallacy I've accused him off. He's trying to reify the terms "concept" and "existence" [http://en.wikipedia.org...], and attacks my argument on the presumption that I accept this reification. I don't. A concept isn't a concrete block. It's how we integrate, retain, and refer back to our different experiences concerning reality. Concepts are a product of our direct sensual experience (and rational processing) of objective reality. If his whole case is based on this fallacy, you know who to vote for. (3) "What's logically possible isn't always empirically possible" <-- Remember this statement. Then, review this next statement: "*Logic is based on reality*, all existence cannot be empirically sensed, it exists only in "logic" or what we think is logical." First of all, he has it backwards. Reality is based on logic. The fact that A is A isn't a project of objective existence. Objective existence is based on the fact that all entities have a specific identity. Second of all, his assertion that existence isn't purely empirical is based solely on another assertion that there is some kind of higher, mystical, incomprehensible dimension of reality that no man can possibly access, where logic seems no longer to apply, even though men must still derive all sense of "duty" from such a realm. Third of all, his statement eventually boils down to this: "Even though reality is based on logic, not everything that is logically possible is possible in reality." He's asking you to accept a contradiction, essentially. The only way he backs it up is by arguing about "what we think is logical" - i.e. the failure that is logical subjectivity in an objective reality. So, he wants you to accept a contradiction based on a premise that is itself a contradiction. Finally, in response to his request for proof that existence exists in reality: without the existence of identity, neither of us would be here. It's not that existence exists WITHIN reality. Pro is reversing causality: he assumes that existence exists inside of reality, as a product thereof; however, only with the fact that existence exists - that A is A - is this reality possible. (4) Why should the process of acquiring knowledge be acknowledged as part of the process of acquiring knowledge? I'd say it's self-evident. Kant says the origin of concepts doesn't matter in knowledge acquisition - that acquiring knowledge is irrelevant to the pursuit of knowledge. He focuses only on the ends, ignoring the means employed to that end - that concepts don't just float around, and that humans can't just pick them up, but must form them. Pro, you're once again confusing a priori knowledge and objective truth. Objective truth is something that's true regardless of whether a person knows it. A priori knowledge is recognition of truth based on analysis of concepts (which Kant says requires no experiential validation, despite the fact that concept-formation is contingent on experience). Recall the unaddressed argument that sense and reason aren't independent acquirers/verifiers of knowledge. They're two parts of the same machine. 2. A Selfish Trick He's arguing that, because existence is a property, it doesn't exist. For the sake of argument, let's accept that. The question becomes: do properties exist? Let's say, like Pro asserts, that they don't. Existence doesn't exist. Neither does identity; ergo, neither does my opponent. Nor this debate. The point is: when you accept Pro's argument that existence is only a property, you still vote Con. c. Why is irrationality subjective? He asserts it, but doesn't prove it. If you don't use reason, you're irrational. Period. 3. Ding an Sich a. The conclusion that "all bachelors are unmarried" might be independent of experience; however, both Pro and Kant ignore the means. You're taking just the conclusion, without regard as to the whole process required to draw it, and saying that it's a priori (non-evidential). Refer back to the analogy of starting a race at the halfway point. b. Kant's dichotomy completely drops the context of the conclusions it draws, distinguishing them based on a distinction completely ignorant to the critical processes which would, in effect, destroy the dichotomy, should Kantians accept them. The "meanings" are meaningless if you rip them out context. 4. Selfishness biological a. "Objectivism and Social Darwinism are Individualist theories." Huge deduction fallacy. True premises, false conclusion. Suppose we have a dog and a cat. Cats are mammals. Dogs are mammals. Therefore, dogs are cats. We clearly see that this is untrue. Let's substitute my opponent's terms in. Objectivism is an individualist philosophy. Social Darwinism is an individualist philosophy. Therefore, Objectivism is Social Darwinism. The fallacy is clear. b. Let me ask you something, Pro: what is the purpose of having a code of ethics? Why should man want or need to be moral? See (c). c. Pro, look. In reality, you have one fundamental alternative. Existence or nonexistence. Life or death. If you choose death, fine. If you choose life, you need a way to live properly. For man, this requires a code of ethics suited to his nature as a rational being; ergo, a man's life is the highest value in a proper ethical system; his happiness is the ultimate purpose of his rational pursuits. Individual rights are a way of protecting a man from harm by others. Rights are a function of man's social nature. He needs the right to life, obviously. To liberty, so that he can pursue his interests, and live his life on his terms. To the product of his life, liberty, and reasoning mind: his property. Once you know the function of ethics, it's not difficult to derive a proper code. d. It's very inaccurate to discuss Objectivism in Nietzschean terms. 5. Selfishness? a. See 4a: why members of a certain group aren't exactly the same. b. "My philosophy is the opposite of hedonism. I hold that one cannot achieve happiness by random, arbitrary or subjective means. One can achieve happiness only on the basis of rational values" [http://aynrandlexicon.com...]. c. What is the highest value? d. Slavery requires the use of force to retain slaves. Workers are as free to quit as the employer is to fire them. Beyond your loaded language and negative stigmatization of employers, your argument holds no water. In a free society, there is no sweatshop slavery, no evil capitalist overlords, and no government action against laborers (like the minimum wage, which increases unemployment and brings opportunity costs to laborers who remain employed).