Objectivism is valid.

Rebuttal of Con Round 31.Con has not proven any contradiction. Con has not proven my actions to be irrational and rationalized rather than rational and correct. Yes I am arguing semantics but not to "elude" my "fallacies," I am doing it because Con has demonstrated a deficient understanding of the English language.2.Emotion and compensation are not mutually exclusive. To enjoy is to experience joy which is both emotion and compensation.3.Life is not relative, Con is attempting to obfuscate the issue in claim 3. The mental and physical are one. The mental requires the physical to exist, the mind is real. If it is not real then it cannot exist. Con is denying the existence not only of the intellects of myself and every other human being, but also his/her own intellect which is illogical as one must first accept that the mind exists before one can use it. The only contradictions here are presented by Con.4.See previous Pro arguments as Con still has failed to provide evidence or logic to support this.5.Con says that we are surrounded by evidence that the real and ideal must be balanced yet fails to provide any examples. This is akin to telling Columbus that evidence of microbial life is all around him and expecting him to accept it without showing him said microbes under a microscope. Simply saying the evidence is there without actually showing it does not constitute upholding BoP. Further, there need not be a conflict between the real and the ideal as they are not mutually exclusive. While the ideal for some may be living in a jungle, for others, such as Objectivists, the ideal is to experience the most of what one values while still alive.6.What one desires is the result of facing why one feels empty. In order to desire something one must first know what one values, how much, and what one lacks, and how much. Furthermore, desire does not constitute psychopathy, again, Con demonstrates a deficient grasp of the English language, even when the term has been previously and explicitly defined.7.Con makes no logical or evidential arguments on point 7 and has merely populated the paragraph irrational ad hominems and straw men which have absolutely no relevance to the question of the validity of Objectivism. Point 7 is full of baseless claims many of which have been repeatedly disproven by Pro and never rebutted but only repeated by Con.8.Yes people are real, but so are desires, if the most basic of these human desires are not satisfied, then people cease to exist. As I said at in the very first round, one must first breath and provide oxygen to the cells before one can live. Again, the Universal canvas continues to be cryptic and therefore unanswerable and irrelevant. Finally, I do not project my insecurities and issues into the world because I have no insecurities to project and my issues are my own that I do my best to keep to myself until their ultimate resolution at which point they become entirely irrelevant.9.Con claims that I have no personality and yet fails to prove this. Yes I am analytical but the alternative is to be irrational which would only result in the destruction of myself and others around me. It is not Objectivism that perpetuates the welfare state that feeds upon the countless productive to give to more numerous and more voracious unproductive, many of whom have been trapped by the actions of still more powerful tyrants who seek control over human life so that they may sacrifice it to themselves. Finally, to be analytical does not constitute simply reacting but rather the opposite, that which simply reacts does not consider the long term consequences and only moves to avoid immediate danger or to reap immediate reward, that which simply reacts feels its way through its very short and miserable life. This would be an amoeba. That which is analytical however knows to conserve its resources in the present to reap greater reward in the future. It analyzes the issue before leaping headlong into it and come out the better for it. What Con describes is the opposite of analytical, Con describes a purely emotional life form.10.Point 10 is riddled with baseless claims and meaningless language. Con has not upheld BoP for the claim that Objectivists destroy environments and emotions or that they are psychopaths. These claims have also been previously been disproven by Pro. Con uses the term one-dimensional to describe Objectivists which in context is absolutely meaningless, it does not say that they are right or wrong, good or evil, but that they are like a line. Furthermore, Con creates yet another straw man by saying that Objectivists think that selfishness is good but only for them. If Con would once again read Dictate 3 it should become evident that the absence of sacrifice is an ethic that applies to all people and does not constitute the destruction of other humans. As I have elaborated previously, all involved in a voluntary transaction benefit, Con has not rebutted this but simply ignored it.11. Assuming that Con's round 3 point 11. refers to my round 3 point 11, then Con is incorrect, nothing in Con's point 10 proves the truthfulness of productivity requiring permanence.12.First, the statement that my way of living is terrible is yet another ad hominem and is still unsubstantiated for lack of logic and evidence. Second, I only affect those who wish to be effected, those who do not wish to work or live with me simply have the option of disengaging their activity with me and leaving me alone with the demand that I reciprocate.13.No one here said that making the most of one's experience involved playing make believe.14.Con demands that I do "my own research" yet the BoP rests upon Con as Con is making the claim that businessmen and presidents are sociopaths. This demand is akin to telling Columbus that microbes are real and then sneering at him that if he wants proof he has to look for them. Furthermore, Con's remark does not disprove the other aspects of my rebuttal on point that not all businessmen are Objectivists and there have never been any Objectivist presidents.15.Human life is not designed, it happened. As I already said, there is significant fossil evidence that proves the theory of evolution by random mutation and natural selection. Additionally, Objectivism shys away from conflict rather than seeking it out. Furthermore, Con claims that the universe before life was designed and implies that evolution was guided, but provides no evidence of such an occurrence nor reasoning as to why anything would go to the trouble to consciously create reality. Furthermore, the question of life's design is wholly irrelevant to the validity of Objectivism. Finally, Con concludes with a final ad hominem claiming that I and other Objectivists believe that the universe revolves around them and their army of contradictions and double standards. This is yet another baseless claim and has again, been previously disproven by my rebuttals as to the alleged contradictions and double standards and the fact that Dictates 1 and 2 require that Objectivists hold reality as central, and not themselves. In the words of Ayn Rand herself, "Nature to be commanded, must be obeyed." In other words, to perpetuate one's self, one must first accept the laws of physics.16.I would like to remind those viewing this that the question of the validity of Objectivism has gone entirely unaddressed by Con who has only made baseless and cryptic accusations of other human beings so the vote should by all logic, default Pro. Finally, I would like to point out to Con that many of his/her accusations were directed in the wrong direction. Perhaps if Con were as rational as I hoped he/she was at the beginning of this debate then he/she would look at his/her previous accusation and see his/her metaphorical reflection. I do not make this statement lightly and had hoped for a more polite opponent, but in the interest of improving my opponent for the future, I must make this one ad hominem observation. This final statement is not an argument so do not regard it in the final decision, it is a message to Con.