The Instigator
Pro (for)
8 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Objectivism is valid.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 723 times Debate No: 60427
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)




The concern of this debate shall be the validity of the philosophy of Objectivism. Objectivism is the philosophy that is intended for use as a guide in every day life and dictates four things:

1.There is an objective reality that exists independent of human perception and desires, i.e. facts are facts.

2.The means by which this reality must be perceived is reason. This is because reason is the only means by which data input through our senses can be translated into meaningful information.

3.One must always work for the benefit of his/herself and never to the detriment of others. I like to call this the non-sacrifice principle or NSP while many other Objectivists refer to it simply as the virtue of selfishness.

4.The best means by which the previous three dictates can be achieved is through laissez-faire capitalism. This is a system in which individuals must deal with one another as tradesmen working toward mutual benefit through voluntary exchange. A system in which there is no room for the rejection of that which is rational for those who commit such acts will face the full consequences of their actions at the metaphorical hands of reality.

The case for the validity of Objectivism is as follows.

1.Evidence has thus far shown that the laws of physics cannot be undone or changed in any other way. Thus, Dictate 1 is validated. Facts are facts and wishing that you could "fall up" instead of down, for example, will not cause you to do so.

2.Because reality is an absolute, it must be perceived through a system of absolutes. This system is reason, or logic. Something is either true, or false, never both. Similarly, you are either injured or you are not, never both. Just as "A" cannot lead to "C" unless it first proceeds to "B," a human cannot live without first supplying oxygen to his/her cells. Thus, Dictate 2 is validated.

3.The only alternative to the NSP, or selfishness, is the "virtue" of selflessness (hereafter VoS) which is illogical. The VoS is illogical because it dictates that one must always sacrifice of the self, i.e. be selfless. However, it stands to reason that where there is sacrifice, there is someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there is someone being selfless, there must be someone to receive the sacrifice and thus be selfish. Thus, by being moral, under the VoS, one feeds that which is immoral under the VoS. In other words, good feeds evil and thus perpetuates it under the VoS and logically that which perpetuates evil must also be evil leading us to the conclusion that under the VoS, by being good, one is evil. This is a contradiction which cannot exist. On the other hand, the NSP is perfectly consistent and in accordance with reality. Thus Dictate 3 is validated.

4.Finally, laissez-faire, the system in which government has no say in the economic decisions of individuals, is logically the system that will best satisfy the previous three dictates because it maximizes both individual liberty, and personal responsibility, both of which are necessary to rational actions in accordance with both reality and the NSP.

If my opponent has any questions they may be posted in the comments instead of the rounds for the sake of staying within the character limit. My opponent may ask as many questions as is convenient and at any time that is convenient.

I ask my prospective opponent to at least consider taking this debate and in the event that my challenge is accepted I shall look forward to my opponent's round one arguments.


Objectivism is when humanity takes their life from the inside and spits it outside via projections (the ability to transfer information from inside to outside). This is to say that objectivism is a mental poison created by the inability to self-reflect, hence why "selfishness" becomes the result of it.

The poison may not self-reflect, but it certainly self-contradicts itself by treating people as machines to achieve their heartless needs, while demonstrating they are a hypocritical machine that has no respect for human emotion or the sole purpose of living.

The objectivist cannot survive without treating people like objects and toys - this is to say that the objectivist is not a human being, but a machine. What causes the brain to think on a machine level? The inability to balance out the two sides of their psyche: realism and idealism.

The objectivist projects their life's survival point from an unlimited canvas (their mind) to limited structures (money and materials), which in turn creates a rift that leads the rift-maker to their own undoing. 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.

The objectivist is the result of hunger - not humanity. They live like a destructive black hole, rather than the transcendent forms that managed to make it out of the black hole, such as the Sun, the Planets, the Stars or other objects that took form after billions of years in trial and error.

The objectivist can be described as dark matter, which is to say that the objectivist is nothing - they feed, and feed thinking the next time they'll be satisfied when in reality the hunger becomes wider and wider, like a black hole becomes wider and wider. The objectivist shares many characteristics with the behavioral traits of a black hole.

The objectivist rationalizes, instead of reasons. This is to say that they are wrong; their mind knows they are wrong, but they will not consciously admit they are wrong, so they live their life making excuses for their actions.

The objectivist abandons the essence of humanity for hunger (that can never be satisfied) - there's nothing else that needs to be said on the matter.

The objectivist is the the non-living; it cannot live, it cannot become anything more than a hole that causes everything else problems. Objectivists are psychopaths; vampire-like creatures that suck the life out of everyone and everything because in the end, they are projecting their need for life from the inside without consciously realizing it.
Debate Round No. 1


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 2
5.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. That's not self-reflecting. That's remembering what satisfied you. Self-reflection requires self-humility. You cannot both.

2. Desire is not emotion - desire is the result of lacking emotion. Desire is the need to feed when we are not happy.

3. Life is relative, mutual and a privilege that requires responsibility and consequence. The objectivist denies life by living a lie, inside a make-believe socially engineered agenda that exists solely because the objectivist is he fell into the illusion within the illusion of humanity: "if humanity is just chemicals, what's the point?", therefore the objectivist is resorting to double standards by not caring about humanity, while feeding off one of humanity's chemicals.

4. Living for temporary gain instead of lifetime gain is not surviving, it's conniving. These people that you cause to suffer with your man-made rules and systems specifically for imaginary gain and temporary substance will always remember the pain, while you will forget your own gain.

5. If you do not balance idealism and realism, you are threatening humanity and the design of its experience, hence why the Universe, itself, has a balance between realism and idealism. It's a contradiction to want realism, when your hunger is based off of feeding on an imaginary system created by greed, in which realistically causes people to suffer.

6. This hunger you have is a personal trait - it's not for you to spit out into the real world. Keep it inside you, nobody gets hurts. It's that simple.

7. Rationalizing your actions does not mean it is any less of a contradiction or immorality.

8. It's all imaginary. All I see is buffoons playing make-believe by taking already existent functions of the Universe and passing it off as their own. Again, objectivists take it all for granted.

9. What makes it a non-sequitur? Calling it one does not affect it in the least.

10. Rationalizing your actions as being productive is the last thing you'd want to do right now after I just demonstrated your contradictions and double standards that cause people to suffer and eliminate the sole environment of our nature and habitat for what? Imaginary systems for temporary gain. There's a reason why the cosmic sea is bigger than an air bubble; the air bubble never lasts forever, therefore your actions not lasting forever is a sign of fruitless behavior, which is to say you are the opposite of productivity.

11. An objectivist can be a 10 year old boy in a random family household. It's not a matter of politics - it's a matter of having no personality and treating the world as an industry.

12. To be human is to experience inconsequentially. Everything an objectivist does is consequential, but excused as consequential by the objectivist.

13. You are rationalizing your actions again. Business people and presidents have already proven to have high anti-social rates by scientific tests.

14. You are rationalizing your actions by defining what "life" is by throwing it into your alpha-bit soup. Life is not about industry or machine - it's about transcending from industry and machine to further understand the potential of the human brain. People are born in red, blue and green electromagnetic waves on Theta, this is to say that being an objectivist, is to be the lowest form of humanity, since survival is the root of humanity, not the apex of humanity. Therefore radio waves argue against you.
Debate Round No. 2


1.Merriam-Webster defines self-reflection as: careful thought about your own behavior and beliefs. By this definition, self-reflection does not require humility and merely requires careful analysis of the self and all that entails, including values and desires that satisfy the existence of the self.
2.Merriam-Webster defines desire as: conscious impulse toward something that promises enjoyment or satisfaction in its attainment. This is an emotion.
3. Life is not relative. It is an absolute, you are either dead or alive. You cannot be alive but relatively dead or vice versa. The statement that life is mutual is a non-sequitur and requires further elaboration. Life is not a privilege, it is a right, to say that it is a privilege is to imply that it can justifiably be taken by another human to meet their ends. In other words, sacrifice would be moral and altruism, as I posited in round 1, is a logical contradiction and therefore both wrong and evil. Objectivism does not deny life, it demands its existence, to say that by rejecting the importance of the self you are accepting life is illogical as that leads to the justification of sacrifice of the self which means that the self dies to feed that which killed it. Objectivism is opposed to social engineering a.k.a. bio-politics as is demonstrated by Dictate 4 of laissez-faire which rejects political authority in favor the spontaneous order of the free market. Objectivism does not state that "humanity is just chemicals." Under Dictate 3, humanity must be more than just chemicals because it effectively says that every individual is an ends in themselves. Do not confuse Objectivism with Nihilism. From this, it can be seen that there is no double standard. Objectivists care about their existence as individuals and engage with other humans as desired to achieve the end in which all involved benefit.
4.Merriam-Webster defines to connive as: to secretly help someone do something dishonest or illegal. It does not at all compute how living for temporary gain constitutes conniving. Furthermore, Con's round 2 claim 4 is completely irrelevant to the debate as it fails to address the validity of Objectivism. Even if the implication is that Objectivism seeks temporary gain instead of long term gain, Con has no evidence to support this. Indeed, the exact opposite would be true as it would be more rational to consider long term profit in addition to short term profit rather than just short term and Objectivism requires rationality as per Dictate 2. To fail to be rational would result in death at the metaphorical hands of reality.
5.Again, no evidence is provided that a balance between idealism and realism threatens humanity, nor is there evidence provided that the Universe itself balances the real and the ideal. Furthermore hunger isn't based on imaginary "greed" hunger is quite real. It is based on the desire to live. Furthermore, there is no contradiction since the real and the ideal are not mutually exclusive. The ideal can still exist and be achieved within the realm of reality. Finally, no evidence is provided that the human experience was designed or that Objectivism causes suffering. Indeed evidence exists contrary to both claims, again referring to technological advancement and free exchange as well as the fact that all present historical evidence shows that humanity was not designed but instead just "happened."
6."This hunger... ...into the real world," is another non-sequitur, there is no logic, nor is there an apparent point to this statement within the context of the validity of Objectivism. "Keep it inside you," is to say that I should ignore what I desire, that all should ignore their desire that they should be selfless and altruistic, as I have previously stated, this is illogical and evil. Finally, as I have repeated so often, Objectivism does not hurt people as per its prohibition on the sacrifice of individuals.
7."Rationalizing... ...or immorality." I completely agree, yet Con has failed to prove that Objectivism dictates that one should rationalize rather than be rational.
8.On Con's round 2 point 8, Con fails to explain what is imaginary and so presents another meaningless non-sequitur. Con then proceeds onto two more sentences neither of which are relevant to the question of Objectivism's validity and the final one being an unsubstantiated claim that is incomplete to begin with as what "it" is, is unknown.
9.Assuming that "it" in the case of Con round 2 point 9 is the fifth paragraph of Con's round 1 then "it" is a non-sequitur because the statement that Objectivism is the result of hunger not humanity is unsubstantiated and irrelevant to the context of the debate while the subsequent statements in that same paragraph are incredibly vague and unexplained. While it is true that calling this paragraph a non-sequitur does not necessarily affect it, it is important to point out the issue for the sake of clarity in future rounds (assuming Con cares to elaborate) and for the sake of those voting on the final outcome of this debate.
10.On Con's round 2 point 10 I would like to point out that Con has not at all demonstrated the double standards of Objectivism and has simply made unwarranted claims. Con also failed to prove that the necessary result of Objectivism is destruction rather than production and that the environment is necessarily destroyed by Objectivism. In fact, evidence shows that if there was no selfishness, the result would be the destruction of the environment rather than the preservation of it. This is called the tragedy of the commons in which participants do not own anything, not even themselves, they do not work for themselves, but are simply sacrificial cows for those collecting the sacrifices. The result is the devastation seen in Zimbabwe where everyone officially owns the land while in reality no one does. The land is on a first come first serve basis. When there is no private property and no prohibition on sacrifice, the incentive is for the first person on the land to use as much of it up as fast as possible because when everyone else arrives, there will be far fewer resources to exploit and no incentive to conserve them or find alternatives. Thus, Zimbabwe is drought and famine ridden when not that long ago, it was the breadbasket of Africa.
11.Continuing on Con's round 2 point 10, the claim is made that because one does not last forever and neither does their work, then they are fruitless and thus the opposite of productive. This is a falsehood because to be productive does not require permanence, Merriam-Webster defines productive in numerous ways, none of which necessitate permanence.[1] Finally, the opposite of productivity is not fruitlessness, it is destructiveness, fruitlessness is the neutral in between.
12.Con's round 2 point 11) Yes a 10 year old can be an objectivist, a statement that is entirely irrelevant to the debate. Furthermore, it is a matter of politics because the only ones who have the ability to force sacrifice on a massive scale are those with political power, and this includes lobbyists, their employers, and the tyrannical majority. In the absence of the powerful and coercive political agent that is government, it would be impossible for any one person or group of people to force mass sacrifice. To say that Objectivists have no personality is an ad hominem logical fallacy and is thus irrelevant to the question of Objectivism's validity and so must not be weighed in the final decision. Finally, Objectivism does not treat the world as an industry it treats it as a place where humans must live and prosper and in order to do these, one must develop industry.
13.Con's round 2 point 12) I still assert that to be human is to live and to make the most of that experience however, I am unable to understand Con's first sentence due to it's cryptic nature, elaboration would be appreciated. Meanwhile, It is correct that Objectivism holds that humans are of consequence. If this was not the intention of the second statement here then I apologize and request further elaboration.
14.Con's round 2 point 13) I should point out that not all business people are Objectivists and that presidents are definitely not Objectivists since they crave political power which as I have previously explained is the means by which sacrifice can be forced upon a population. Furthermore, I would like to see the aforementioned scientific tests so that I can determine for myself the validity of their parameters.
15.Con's round 2 point 14)I do not throw "life" into "alpha-bit soup(again, please elaborate)." I do not say that life is the same as industry or machine, but that life is the act of existing and experiencing the world and the only possible means by which both can be achieved is by industry. One only has to look at history to see that in the absence of industry humans can neither live long, nor prosper and can only remain impoverished creatures of instinct struggling to survive. Objectivism is not about trying to survive, it is about trying to thrive and experience as much as possible, the goal is not simply to seek the fullest potential of the human mind, but human life as a whole. Finally, any statements regard the electromagnetic spectrum should be completely disregarded in the final decision as they are completely irrelevant to the validity of Objectivism.


1. You're contradicting yourself, rationalizing your actions and arguing semantics to elude your fallacies. This is not "careful" consideration of your behavior.

2. Desire and enjoyment is not an emotion; it's a compensation!

3. Life is relative, hence why we live in a real world, but live in different minds that are not so real. Your entire actions are based on non-real traits, yet your reasons are based on reality - you're contradicting yourself.

4. What you do is not rational, hence why you have to "rationalize" it.

5. There's no evidence? There's evidence all around you! You become too much of a realist, you turn the world into an industry that threatens our humanity. You become too much of an idealist, you turn the world into a jungle that threatens our humanity. Man need to control their inner machine and inner animal, or humanity will be lost forever.

6. What you desire is the result of you not facing the reason why you feel empty. This is called being a psychopath. You are the exact opposite of a person, so you have no say on what a person is.

7. Temporary gain. Based on psychological issues which cause you to feel bland and empty. Existential crisis turning into a global crisis, there's just no reason for anybody to rationalize this! It's clearly harmful to you and everyone around you. It's clearly wrong, hence why you continue to bend the definition of life to suit your ideas, when your ideas are the result of hunger, contradictions and rationalizations... This is a delusional motive to have.

8. People are real - your desires are imaginary. You cause long term effects on the real world's face, with traits that are solely psychological, but because you projected it unto the world, you're using this Universe' canvas for your insecurities and issues!

9. You have no personality. You live analytically. This is not being anything but reaction - a machine!

10. Objectivists destroy natural environments and natural emotions for binary reasons that are based entirely on psychopathy. They are one-dimensional, selfish and contradicting themselves by not wanting someone else to be selfish and take away their own happiness they selfishly make by causing everything else destruction and misery! In other words, when it comes to people like you "It's just business", when someone else beats you at your own game and takes your business, "I'll do anything to get my business back! Anything!" Contradictions and hypocrisies is the sole foundation of objectivist systems.

11. I just destroyed this accusation in '10'.

12. There's a butterfly effect. Do not tell me that you do not affect people with your terrible way of 'living'.

13. Making the most of your experience does not involve playing make-believe.

14. Do your own research. I'm never going to fight sources with someone that argues semantics.

15. You're wrong. The human life is specifically designed to get away from colonizing, industrializing and fighting among ourselves! We have multi-faceted tools that can analyze the Universe through and through. You are basing your experience on the lowest sound waves imaginable! You do it for 'survival'; red is the lowest form of humanity. Sound waves destroy your ideas naturally and intrinsically. The entire evolution before human existence was created so humans could exist! Remove bacteria, we die. Remove fungi, we die. Remove plant, we die. Remove fish, we die. Remove animal, we die. Remove any element, we die. Do you not comprehend the Universe's design? Or are you too busy revolving the world around yourself throughout your army of contradictions and double standards?
Debate Round No. 3


Rebuttal of Con Round 3
1.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.


You have admitted to arguing semantics, which is to twist words into your falsifiable favor - this is rationalization - rationalization is the result of knowing what you did was immoral, wrong, erroneous... therefore everything I have said stands!

Your twisted definition for life isn't going to change the fact that you are the lowest form of humanity (red frequency wave (survival); you contradict yourself; your entire position defeats itself, hence you want happiness by cheating other people and this planet's environment for your gain because "it's just business", but when another objectivist beats you at your own game, it's now "please give me back my business!" - all that pain, all that loss, all that destruction for your blatant psychopathy will not be tolerated at all!
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Message me when it's time to vote on this.
Posted by YellowPandaBear 3 years ago
@KhalifV Considering I am unfamiliar with these two terms you are probably correct, but I would be willing to debate you on this topic.
Posted by KhalifV 3 years ago
Pro, challenge me to a debate with the same resolution. It'd be fun and I have some arguments I'm not sure you can refute, assuming you don't have an extremely deep back ground in epistemology and modal logic
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was rude.
Vote Placed by AlternativeDavid 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm going to go ahead and award Pro the conduct point due to Con's behavior in the final round. I didn't find either argument particularly convincing so I will leave everything else as a tie.
Vote Placed by blackkid 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins simply by being more on topic and discussing the actual topic itself.
Vote Placed by Vexorator 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro because of how rude Con was. Neither side's arguments made much sense, so that is a tie.