Altruism is part of our selfishness
altruism: feelings and behavior that show a desire to help other people
(any means are free for discussion)
selfishness: feelings and behavior that profits one's self
(any means are free for discussion)
I will be proving why altruism consists of selfishness (either consciously or subconciously)
While the opposition have to prove why that is not true.
Good luck :P
I've decided to accept the challenge. I'll save my argument for round 2, while I'll use Round 1 as acceptance. With that, let's hear Pro's argument.
Thank you for accepting, PowerPikachu21.
Defining today's motion:
1) If i could prove that there is an element of selfishness (no matter how small) in the acts of altruism, today's motion shall stand.
2) In other words, if my opponent failed to exclude all elements of selfishness, he lost the arguments.
That said, I would like to state my arguments in two main points - Unintentional selfishness and intentional selfishness (in altruism)
A) Unintentional selfishness
1)While volunteers help the needy, they may not always think of their own profit - But they can gain feelings that profit one self - and hence according to definitions -"selfishness"
2)According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, humans are in search for the following : (physiological - safety - love/belonging - esteem - selfactualization) Altruism can fulfill one's needs of esteem and selfactualization (as respect and a sense of satisfaction can be gained)
3)Therefore, as altruism can satisfy one's needs, it caontains profits to one's self, hence selfishness
B) Intentional selfishness
1)There are plenty of people (mostly celebrities) who use altruism as the act of gaining respect/social status from the public
2)For example :A charity created by Rosie O’Donnell, the For All Kids Foundation, doled out $2.9 million in grants last year. But it spent another $1.9 million on overhead
3)Another example: Oprah Winfreynonprofit, Oprah’s Angel Network, which is being shut down, gave away $8.6 million but had a higher-than-normal overhead rate of 37%.
Today i have told you the following two things with evidence:
1)People profits one's self unintentional, subconciously being selfish.
2)People can use altruism as a tool to benefit themselves conciously.
I thank Pro for posting his argument. I will begin my rebuttal.
Thank you for posting, I will start by mentioning definitions, then clearing misconceptions, lastly concluding what myself and my opponent tries to say.
1) In a formal debate, the for side have responsiblitity to list the definitions (see round 1)
the con side accept the challenge.
2) When defining the aim and motion of the topic (altruism & selfishness), I strictly follow the rules in round 1
(part of = a portion of , hence the prescence of selfishness in altruism Alone is enough to support todays motion)
3) However, in round 2 my opponent changes the rules, in order to turn the debate to his favour
It is regrettable that my opponent makes such mistakes.
4) It pains me even more when Con side argues he never accepted the definitions, he could at least put his own definitions in round 1. Instead, he chose to change all the rules after I posted my arguments in round 2,leaving no chance for me to explain.
With that being said let's play by Con's rules, using his own definition and move on to Con's side misconceptions.
There are fatal errors made by Con I would like to mention: The Desire to help others and the Action to help others
1) "People Cannot care about others while caring for themselve" - said Con
Con has fallen into a Black-or-White logical fallacy
Which means humans can only focus on one method only at a time
What he is implying is that all people can either be a saint (thinking others Solely & neglecting themselves)
or be a devil (who only thinks of themselves as the Sole factor) when carrying out their daily actions.
2) However, Con's logic cannot apply to the reality. according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs (which I had mentioned in round 1 but completely ignored by Con). Humans can think of themselves (physiological/safety) and think of others at the Same time (love/belonging).
3) Thats means caring for others while having a degree of selfishness are not contradictory, instead they co-exists all the time.
That's why we have the term moral dillema - which includes balancing one's own needs and others needs.
If we are only able to be Either selfless or selfish (according to Con) - then we no longer need to manage our morality, as our decision is already predetermined - a saint or a devil.
4) Since's Cons arguments lack solid reasoning and even alienates from truth - Today's motion shall stand.
1) "Charities do donations that help other people so they are not selfish" - said Con
Con side didnt even bother to use proof or explain why help others = not selfish
(which is the whole point of this debate whether there is selfish in helping others.)
While I showed that throughout the course of Action and Effect, one can gain benefits while helping others. (Being selfish is intentional/unintentional)
(Another example, Alfred Nobel established Nobel Prize, no longer being accused of treason against France or dynamite accident deaths, but praised as a succesful scientist)
2) Since Con side lacks any sort of proof and effort while I justified my arguments, motion shall stand
Con sides duties
1) Through out his arguments, he Cannot prove there is no elements of selfishness in atruism.
("Charities do donations that help other people so they are not selfish" - said Con)
He simply told us his own viewpoints without even explaining himiself...
2) He Cannot prove why people Must either completely care for himself or completely care for others
(How can I care about others, but also only care about myself, at the same time? It's impossible. - said Con)
Again, simply expressing opinions...Ending the debate with It's impossible.
Pro side duties
1) I had shown elements of self (intentional/unintentional/actions/desires)
2) I had shown how people care for others and themselves
If he cannot fullfil his own 2 duties in the Third Round (as mentioned above), the Cons side argument lacks logic. Pro side wins. Please vote the Pro side. Thank you.
Sorry that I haven't been on for the past 3 days. With that, I'd better examine the final round.
"in round 2 my opponent changes the rules, in order to turn the debate to his favour It is regrettable that my opponent makes such mistakes." Yes, it is regrettable. I noticed the flaw a bit late, however, Pro's definitions are still vague in vavor of himself. Voters should still at least take this into consideration.
"he chose to change all the rules after I posted my arguments in round 2,leaving no chance for me to explain." You could've still said why your defintions are better than my own, sourced definitions. While, yes, I noticed the flaw after accepting, it was still exposed. And Pro never stated why his definitions should be considered over mine, just that I broke the rules. The debate never said when I accepted the definitions. (While, yes, I noticed it too late, and I'm getting repetitive, the flaw still exists, and you should take my definitions over Pro's biased versions)
" "People Cannot care about others while caring for themselve" - said Con" That exact quote does not exist in my argument. I said "How can I care about others, but also only care about myself, at the same time?"
I did not fall into a black/white fallacy. It is already black and white; either you care about others, or you only care about yourself. My opponent has strawmanned my argument; misinterpreting in order to refute.
"If we are only able to be Either selfless or selfish (according to Con) - then we no longer need to manage our morality" While it is true people aren't always selfish or always selfless, we cannot be both at the same time, which was my argument. I never said we're all selfish, or selfless. Some people are selfish, some people are selfless, but never the same person at the same time.
"Since's Cons arguments lack solid reasoning" You should read my arguments more carefully, as well as definitions. I do have solid reasoning, you're just misinterpreting it.
"Con side didnt even bother to use proof or explain why help others = not selfish " Do I have to post the definition? Selfish is described as "lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure", meaning you only care about yourself. Pro never directly contested this definition, or explained why his definitions are better. Therefore, my definitions stand. You cannot help others while only caring about yourself. That's a contradiction.
"Through out his arguments, he Cannot prove there is no elements of selfishness in atruism" This is false. The definitiions alone are reason to vote me. Pro said I broke the rules, but there were no rules stating when it's too late to point out the flaw. It is Pro who failed his burden, with horrible definitions. You cannot car only about yourself when caring for others. Why must I repeat this so many times?
"He Cannot prove why people Must either completely care for himself or completely care for others " But you never said why your definitions are superior, just that I broke non-existant rules! Pro's keeps trying to back me into a corner with his own, vague, biased definitions. At least I sourced mine, so my definitions are credible.
Pro gave himself a BoP check. However, it doesn't stand.
" I had shown elements of self (intentional/unintentional/actions/desires)" UNDER HIS HORRIBLE DEFINITIONS!
"I had shown how people care for others and themselves" UNDER HIS OWN HORRIBLE DEFINITIONS!
Ahem. So, here's why my arguments are better: Definitions. Pro never said why his definitions were superior, just saying I broke rules that never existed. Sure, you can take away a conduct point from me. However, there's no reason to choose a vague definition over a sourced one. Vote Con, people.