Objectivism is valid.

Rebuttal of Con:1.Objectivism is not "a mental poison" created by the inability to self-reflect. Indeed, Objectivism necessitates self-reflectance because in order to be selfish, one must first know what will satisfy the self. This knowledge can only be gained by self-reflectance. 2.Objectivism does not treat people as machines to achieve the "heartless" needs of the Objectivists. To treat another human as a machine is to treat them as something to be owned and exploited by another human being. In other words, Con's claim is that Objectivists demand the sacrifice of other humans without sacrificing themselves. However, referring back to the NSP, to demand sacrifice is to be anti-Objectivist and irrational. Heartless implies that Objectivists must be incapable of experiencing emotion are indeed themselves only machines. This is not true, because if Objectivists were truly emotionless, they would be unable to experience desire for anything and thus would not have a concept of selfishness. Selfishness is in its essence desire and nothing more. Furthermore, the word heartless is used here as a substitute for an argument. Con doesn't make a statement about whether the desires of Objectivists are right or wrong, but that they are heartless. "Heartless" is merely an inaccurate adjective that is of no consequence in this debate as it fails to answer the question of the validity of Objectivism.3.Con says that Objectivism has no respect for the sole purpose of living and yet fails to define said purpose. As for Objectivism on the sole purpose of living, is should be obvious from Dictate 3 that the purpose of living is to live and enjoy living. Every human is an end in themselves, not a means to the ends of others.4."The objectivist cannot survive... ...but a machine." See Pro Rebuttal of Con point number 25.Objectivism does result from a lack of balance between realism and idealism. This is because the two are not mutually exclusive and need not be balanced, but "harmonized" so that under realism, one accepts reality and deals with it accordingly but in dealing with it, one still attempts to achieve the ideal within the realm of reality. Furthermore, to say that in not balancing realism and idealism, one automatically "thinks like a machine" is preposterous. This is because there is no other way to think but like a machine. Where one does not think, one feels, where logic is not used, it is replaced by emotion. The only kind of thinking is machine thinking.6.To take what exists in the mind and to make it a reality by intelligence and will does not necessitate the creation of a rift. There is absolutely no logical or empirical foundation for this claim. Furthermore, the nature of said rift is not explained leaving a vague and unassailable "almost argument" which, unless further elaborated, has no weight in this debate and is inconsequential. Furthermore, to take what exists in the mind and make it a reality, does not necessitate destruction. Significant evidence exists to prove my claim. The best example is technological innovation. Everything from the inexorable march toward higher efficiency raw materials extraction and use processes to this HP I am now typing on existed only in someone's mind at one point but was later made a reality or "projected onto limited structures." This process is actually quite productive and beneficial to human life.7.Taking everything for granted does not constitute being angry, it constitutes being irrational. The statement, "When we have anger, we can deal with it safely inside our head - or, we can take that anger so we can project it unto this consequential world by taking everything for granted," is a non-sequitur and is entirely irrelevant to the question of Objectivism's validity.8.The statement that Objectivists are the result of hunger and not humanity and that they are destructive is unsubstantiated by either logic or evidence. Furthermore, there is evidence that Objectivism is constructive rather than destructive. Again returning to point 6 regarding technology, the majority of these innovations were the result of selfishness and people using their reasoning minds to change reality. The ultimate result was a better life for those who designed the technology, those who selfishly sought to sell their services as producers of the final physical products, and those who were similarly employed in other industries and could participate in an exchange for the final physical products of the technology. In other words, all involved were selfish and all involved benefited from this selfishness. Such is the nature of any free exchange. The exchange would not occur unless all parties involved believed they would benefit.9.Again, Con presents another non-sequitur regarding transcendent forms and is vague about the actual meaning, thus there is no argument here and such statements should not be weighed in the final decision.10.Objectivists are not nothing, they are people and while it is true that they feed, the feed only by virtue of the fact that they are productive. They produce something that other people want and so exchange these products for the products that other people create and are also desired and up for sale. Thus, Objectivists are neither vampires, nor black holes.11.If it was true that Objectivists were always wrong and simply made excuses for themselves, then it would also be true that they would seek others on which to place the blame for their failures, they would then demand sacrifice from these scapegoats justified as a demented form of "justice." Thus, Objectivists would have to be in political power as this is the only place from which one can force sacrifice from other human beings. As it is we find the reality to be the exact opposite. Objectivists do not seek to create scapegoats or ask for sacrifice, Objectivists do not hold political power, Objectivists are often among those sacrificed to those who demand it. Objectivists seek simply to live and let live, to leave the irrational alone, and to be left alone by the irrational. To say otherwise without proof is to be incorrect.12.Objectivists do not abandon the essence of humanity for hunger because they are one and the same. To be human is to live and to live happily. A prerequisite for live is hunger, or more precisely desire. Desire to live which in turn begets the desire to breath, drink, eat, and be happy. Absent desire, there is no life.13.By the definition of Objectivism I provided in round one, Objectivists cannot be psychopaths. [1]The definition of a psychopath is one who exhibits antisocial and impulsive behavior in conjunction with a lack of empathy. Objectivists cannot be antisocial because by the NSP, they are prohibited from taking action that demands sacrifice from others and are required under laissez-faire to face the consequences of irrational and destructive behavior. They cannot be impulsive because to be impulsive is to be irrational which Objectivism also prohibits, additionally, there are consequences for irrational behavior. Finally, Objectivists can still empathize with other humans, the use of logic, does not eliminate the need for emotion(see earlier arguments).14.A recurring theme in Con's round 1 arguments is that Objectivists project their need for life into reality. In all these instances, it is implied that the need to live is immoral because it necessitates consumption of other humans. By this logic, living in and of itself must be evil. Such a claim is illogical because in order to say that life is evil, one must first be alive, thus creating a contradiction. This is akin to a determinist trying to convince someone else that they do not have free will when in the process of doing so, they must accept that the non-determinist has the free will to choose to become a determinist.Extension of Pro Case:Pro's round 1 definition of Objectivism and validation thereof were not addressed by Con and unless they are addressed in subsequent rounds, must be considered valid in the final decision.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...;