Evil Proves The Existence of An Evil God
Science can not explain evil.
Why are people capable of murder, not just a little bit capable such as if we feel threatened, but capable out of pure malice and in large numbers (the Holocaust for example)? Some people even murder innocent children, even babies (and I'm not talking about abortion here, I'm talking about infanticide). That clearly is not a beneficial trait. It would have helped us greatly if humans had an inherent revulsion to murdering each other, and a desire to cooperate with each other for mutual benefit. Cultures and societies would have come together a lot faster. Technologies and knowledge would've been shared. By now we would probably already have a colony on Mars.
There are a number of other things which would've been beneficial had we developed genetic mutations to avoid, such as rape and suicide. Suicide is particularly difficult to understand, since the individual is directly acting against their own survival, the individual selecting against him/herself!
Since all human behavior boils down to neurobiology unless there is some sort of supernatural intervention it is possible for genes to emerge that would stop these sorts of behaviors, but it didn't happen.
There can be only one explanation for why natural selection did not eliminate these things from our DNA.
God. There must be an all-powerful evil deity who continuously intervenes to prevent these sorts of beneficial mutations that would've otherwise occurred due to natural selection. Nature alone can not account for all the evil in the world.
I agree to my opponent's rule of arguing from an atheistic standpoint, and as I'm an atheist myself we shouldn't have a problem with me bringing up the "God is good" argument. Instead, I will be proving the resolution wrong through both my evidence and the refutation of my opponent's logic.
To determine whether or not the existence of evil itself proves that an evil God exists, we must first look to the definition of evil itself. I don't intend to turn this semantical, but it's neccesary for the debate so that we can be absolutely clear on what the other is talking about.
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est
. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
When askiing the question of "Is this man evil?", what one is really asking is "Does this man conform to my morality?". Although that may look a little strange at first, but what evil truly is is making actions that go against your morals. After all, did Robin Hood find himself evil for stealing from the rich? No, because in his morality giving to the poor was a greater good, despite the fact that he was causing harm to others. Lord Devlin states:
"... society means a community of ideas, without shared ideas on politics, morals, and ethics no society can exist. Each one of us has ideas about what is good and what is evil; they cannot be kept private from the society in which we live." 
Simply put, every person has a different view of the word "evil". Therefor, evil as most people know it - A force of wrong that exists only to harm others - actually does not exist as it is merely the negative moral iterperetation of certain actions that is normally shared by a society (which can be backed up by looking at how the vast majority of America as a society views the sexist actions of Saudi Arabia as morally wrong).
This puts evil into an entirely new light, one that is based on moral beliefs rather than black-and-white good and evil. For example, an altruist would see hoarding money, causng a rival business to collapse financially, or skimping on costs that could benefit lives as evil, but to an egoist the actions would be perfectly acceptable. Because of this, we cannot look to the existence of a morality that contradicts our own and automatically assume an "evil" god made it so, it simply was the result of a different moral system at work.
I'll start by showing how science explains evil :P : http://www.scientificamerican.com...
I won't quote every paragraph as my opponent's case is largely focused around a single idea, and so I'll target that. My opponent's entire case revolves around Natural Selection's lack of removing evil traits such as murder and rape from the human psychology, as well as self-harming traits like suicide.. However, not only does he irrationally link this to an all-powerful entity without sufficient proof, he misunderstands how natural selection works.
Sure, it would be great if natural selection just erased everything that caused death such as homocidal urges, psycopathic genes, and stupidity, but that's just not how it works. Natural selection is simply the driving force behind evolution, in which those with the strongest traits survive and those with the weakest traits do not. For example, when food sources on plants closer to the ground were consumed from the competitive ecosystem, only girraffes with longer necks could reach the edible leaves, and so those with smaller necks starved to death. As a result, the long-neck gene was passed down while the small-neck gene was not, and now Giraffes have long necks as a result of natural selection.
As we can see, natural selection is based on survival,not on random mutations in the body (that leads to things like cancer, not evolution). There is no gaurantee that those that harm others will be killed simply for doing so, and so the psychopathic or otherwise harmful genes can be passed down after reproduction. Furthermore, individual morality is determined by upbringing, education, and environment, and because Evil is just a different interperetation of morals, there is no reason that everyone with a different moral belief system as you will suddenly die out.
Pertaining to the self-harmful tendencies like suicide, although children of suicidal parents are more likely to commit suicide, the death of the suicidal will not eradicate suicidal tendencies. This is because it only has partly to do with genes, and also has to do with psychological conditions and experiences, as well as being part of human nature. My opponent is right that humans wish to preserve themselves, however this does not always extend to preventing death. It more often has to do with preventing harm, and at times in a human's life they may feel like their lives will never get better, or experience an event (like a terminal illness) that will cause them to feel pain for the rest of their lives. In order to preserve themselves from this pain, instinct will kick in and we'll seek to kill ourselves to avoid this harm.
Evil is simply a negative interperetation of morals, and so without it being an existant entity there is no reason to draw that it comes from a god. Furthermore, my opponent's reasoning based on natural selection is flawed, and he jumps from "Evil exists when it shouldn't" to "a god made it happen" without sufficient proof, making a "far-fetched hypothesis" fallacy by jumping to a conclusion without sufficient proof. Therefore, not only has the resolution been proven false, but the my opponent's argumentation for the resolution has been negated. Vote Con :)
2.) "Morals and the Criminal Law" in The Philosophy of Law (ed R M Dworkin) Oxford (1977) at p 74
My opponent puts forth a view of morality that is entirely based on societal opinion.
So I ask my opponent Were the people who hid Jews during the Holocaust being immoral? Were runaway slaves immoral?
Most people would say "no". That's because although morality is not black-and-white neither is it entirely relative. Looking at the way the concept has been used throughout history we can say roughly that things that cause "harm" in people's lives are immoral, and things that help people in their lives are good. Sometimes this is unclear. For instance, conscription. Does the good in national defense outweigh the harm in forcing people into an occupation they may not want, especially when they may have moral objections to participating in violence? But in other cases it's more cut and dry. Regardless of how anyone feels about it, including the individual doing it suicide (in general cases, not exceptional cases) is harmful, and murder is harmful.
My opponent quotes Lord Devlin saying:
"... society means a community of ideas, without shared ideas on politics, morals, and ethics no society can exist. Each one of us has ideas about what is good and what is evil; they cannot be kept private from the society in which we live."
And uses this to suggest morality is entirely socially relative. However, Lord Devlin forgets one thing: NOT just any shared set of ideas on politics, morals, and ethics will allow a society to exist. A society that believes that murder is on the whole a good thing that people should do everyday indiscriminately is not going to last very long. If that were the case a society would be better off in a state of confusion where a large portion of the population disagrees, since at least then there's hope for the dissenters coming out on top.
Furthermore, you could have contradictory or idiosyncratic morals. Imagine if it was considered immoral to wear pink on a Wednesday, but it's also considered immoral to punish or even criticize someone for wearing pink on a Wednesday. Furthermore, it is considered morally right to praise people or even reward them for wearing pink on Wednesday.
Clearly such a situation is impossible. "Morality" can not be "morality" if action even speech is morally directed to give positive encouragement for acts considered to be "immoral". Similarly, say it's considered morally good to wear pink on Wednesday, but it's also considered morally good to have laws against wearing pink on Wednesday and send them to jail. Again, you have an impossible moral system. Inherent in "morality" is social sanction, or else it's not "morality".
Nurture/Nature Is A False Dichotomy
No gene may ever achieve expression without an environment. That's called a miscarriage. And if it weren't for genes in the first place conception would never take place. In reality things are caused by a system of interaction, not just genes or the environment.
Even environmental effects are physical. Science has shown that talk therapy can change brain chemistry.
Every thought that you have is the result of neurons firing. When the environment influences your thoughts that's the result of incoming stimuli interacting with your brain causing it to change.
Therefore "suicide" and the thought process leading to it must involve brain chemistry. Since it involves brain chemistry then it is possible for there to emerge a gene that would code for proteins in such a way as to make an individual choosing suicide impossible or at least extremely unlikely. Yet, no gene immunizing the person against committing suicide has ever been discovered*. This does not make sense, since from a natural selection standpoint such a gene would confer great benefits upon the person who has that gene. This leaves a supernatural, otherworldly, being, a God intervening from beyond our Universe to somehow obstruct this natural process by killing any individual to develop such a mutation or somehow preventing them from procreating as the only explanation.
*Note that this gene needn't prevent depression, it only has to prevent the individual from reacting to depression or from anything else with suicide.
Then, there's hatred. How is this explained in evolutionary terms? A group could have more protection from the elements and from attacks, and have a greater deal of productivity, and innovation if it were willing to come together with other groups and cooperate. Yet historically people tend to hate outsiders, even going to the point of genocide. This is not only evil but goes against natural selection. The only explanation is that God is pushing the haters and mass murderers of history such as Hitler towards this behavior.
Natural selection need not yield perfect results to be the sole explanation, but things aren't just imperfect. The amount of evil in the world requires more than just nature, it requires an intelligence capable of altering things towards evil.
Before I start, I'll just inform the audience that this will be a bit shorter than my normal arguments. This is mostly because my opponent's arguements are, once again, based on a misunderstanding. This is both a misunderstanding in certain fields and and in my case, which I will explain in the argumentation. This will also be because, once again, i won't be quoting everything my opponent says, as it mostly has to do with the same idea. Instead, I will put seperate topics into sup-topics under an umbrella topic (such as morality, seen below) for his major arguments and start them with a phrase describing my opponents argument.
Morality Need Not Be 100% Objective Or Not At All
Just because there are fuzzy areas in morality does not mean that there is no objective morality at all. As Con has conceded there can exist moral systems that would destroy society. From an objective standpoint, this morality is wrong. For we can assume axiomatically that as human beings in a society we want to continue to exist. To argue otherwise would be the same as saying there is no "objective disease" or illness, because from a purely physical standpoint all it is is another fact about the universe. But we regularly consider science pointing out diseases to be objective, because of the allowed assumption that we want to go on existing, and to be free from pain and suffering.
From this, that we should continue to preserve our existence both as individuals and collectively and that we should be free of pain and suffering, from this axiom we can derive a limited objective morality. There are times when the axiom itself will have contradictions and people will have to make judgment calls, but that does not mean there are no times when we can clearly say "this is right" or "this is wrong" in an objective manner.
The Nazis Conception of "Evil" Was Wrong
The Nazis conception of "evil" was simply wrong, just like if I said the sky was green I would be wrong. The killing of Jews created untold pain and suffering that clearly outweighs any emotional offense the Nazis had at the thought of Jews due to their minds being brainwashed with antisemitic propaganda.
Con misinterpreted what I said on suicide.
"My opponent states that because suicide includes brain chemisty, then it's impossible for it to happen."
No, I have just laid out a solid argument for why if all that is going on is natural selection we should see a sizeable number of people who are immune to suicidality, but science has not found a single gene for this.
Natural Instinct to Avoid Pain
Pain and pleasure themselves are subjective experiences which needed to evolve and continue to evolve and change. Hypothetically a person could mentally associate "death" with such strong "pain" as to immunize them from ever considering suicide. Such a feared pain need not be physical, the feared pain could be existiential, the person could fear the unknown after death or fear non-existence, and in addition the person could be immune to accepting any line of thought that would challenge the idea of "death" as "non-existence", or even the person could believe they continue to exist after death but that if they commit suicide it will be "torment" or even that it will be "torment" no matter what so they might as well continue on as long as possible.
Those with genes for that sort of response would be more likely to get through times of hardship without killing themselves, living on, and reproducing. Yet scientists have not found any genes linked to a mindset that wouldn't under any circumstances consider suicide. You would also expect certain cultures to have vastly lower suicide rates, since genetics between cultures do vary, and you would expect that at least some lineages would've taken advantage of the genetic advantage of being immunized from suicide.
Even depression, which typically is present before suicide is ever considered is odd from an evolutionary standpoint. "Depression" is not just "feeling bad" but also feeling emotionally run-down and demotivated. How is such a response beneficial? Cave man A's girlfriend leaves him, he feels depressed, wallowing in his misery, slowing down tremendously as he ruminates over his loss. Cave man B's girlfriend leaves him, he feels bad about it, but feels a burst of energy and a will to improve his life. Which one is more likely to survive and reproduce? It is clearly, Cave man B, so why is it that depression is the most common response to "grief" rather than neurological stimulation and a strong desire to start improving one's life (which the individual may experience as a strong pleasure-seeking drive)?
Why didn't mroe Cave Man Bs survive? Why did the Cave Man B types lose in natural selection? Since natural selection would suggest the opposite, the only explanation for this outcome is divine intervention.
Negotiation v. War
"Therefore, when we find those who are counter-productive to our existence, such as a school-yard bully or an outside group who competes with resources, we naturally seek to eliminate the source of this counter-productiveness in order for us to continue to leave happily."
For argument's sake let's say we can quantify all resources except people into a discrete set of units.
Tribe A has 100 people and 1000 units of resources. Tribe B also has 100 people and 1000 units of resources.
In scenario A, the tribes fight to the death because they both want more resources.
In scenario B, the tribes talk amongst each other first, and decide to share the resources and to work together to develop them.
Clearly, if they behave as in scenario B that would indicate better survival chances. Whoever "wins" in Scenario A is likely to pass on what ever genes and cultural memes lead to the aggressive behavior in the first place, and this will lead to more wars in the future, and so more of a chance of that tribe being wiped out. But in scenario B they now benefit from having more human resources than if they killed a substantial portion off through war, as well as more economic opportunities from combining resources. They also stand a greater chance of defending themselves if attacked by a larger foreign tribe.
So, then why is it that there is so much war in the world today, and has been throughout human history? And not just war, but cruelty. Genocides, massacres, sometimes with sadistic torture against innocents. How does cruelty help pass on genes?
If it was all natural selection we'd still expect to see some violence, and indeed maybe a few examples of cruelty here and there but the sheer amount that exists in history compared to people advancing themselves through cooperation and trade shows there must have been an evil deity that intervened.
If It Was Just "Natural Selection" Hate Would Be Straight And to the Point
Even if the reason from natural selection for hatred is that "they have resources we need" people typically do not reason that way. If they did that would at least limit violence to when it is actually needed to gain resources. But what we see is that instead people's "emotions" lead the way and the reasoning is typically "these people are different and that difference is detestable because..." along those lines. Had we stuck to the plain truth "we really need those resources" that would've been better for passing on genes because violence that doesn't help in that endeavor would not have happened. Furthermore, violence would've been limited because people could avoid violence by surrending their resources. In many cases hatred leads people to violence even if the target agrees to surrender their resources, because those who have hate are blinded to that being the actual reason for their hatred.
In fact people often use hatred in ways that waste resources. A good example is the Holocaust. Resources were used to gas Jews that could've been directed to the war effort. If this was an isolated example maybe there'd still be a case for "natural selection" having occured without any divine intervention skewing the results. But if there was no evil God involved in changing the outcome we'd expect only "survival-based hatred" based on a calculation of resource needs and not an "emotional hatred" based on irrational things like "I don't like the way they look" or "I don't like their religion" or "I don't like..."... However, "survival-based hatred" is far, far more rare than "emotional hatred". Natural selection suggests that underneath it all the motivation is "survival". If no evil God is involved why has natural selection lead us to self-deceive and make believe that we are hating for other reasons?
I'll use my opponent's sections to save time, and I'll do my best to point out the gross amounts of arguments dropped throughout the round.
Morality Need Not Be 100% Objective Or Not At All:
Yes, I stated that if everybody in a society agrees that murder is a morally good action, society will be destroyed, but that was in a sarcastic manner used to illustrate how far-fetched my opponent's claims need to be to work, as I demonstrated in the following sentence with "This is both completely true and completely irrelevant. It's like responding to 'I need food to survive' with "not if that food's poisoned'. It's correct, but it doesn't disprove the fact.", which my opponent conveniently forgot. I did not at all concede that this was morally wrong however, because - if my opponent didn't notice - throughout my entire argument I've been pointing out that there are several different moralities, each one with their own system of right and wrong.
He continues to say that's like saying there's no "objective" disease using my logic, but this shoud show you how much my opponent is grasping at straws. Diseases are facts that are right in front of our eyes, moralities are feelings that differ from person to person. That is not at all an accurate comparison.
My opponent does not at all prove that there is an objective morality, he simply states that which causes pain and suffering is "evil", but he doesn't prove that it will be always evil all the time. Robin Hood stole from the rich and made them suffer, was he evil? The allies bombed Germany to rid them of the Nazis and made the civilians suffer, were they evil? That's why you cannot look at morality as black-and-white, and why it is not an objective standpoint.
The Nazis Conception of "Evil" Was Wrong:
My opponent completely drops my arguments here. I brought up how both sides thought the other was evil, and he simply responds with "one side was evil". He drops EVERYTHING I said about the Nazi conception of morality, and so drops the objective morality argument, and the argument that if there are different evils there are different evil gods, which each spread good through spreading evil that another could find good, and so he loses the debate.
I didn't misinterperet it, Pro clearly said that because it has to do with brain chemistry then we would adapt and become immune, leading to suicide being impossible. He even backs it up in his argument ni this section -_-. Extend all dropped arguments about suicide not having to do with natural selection, because he dropped all of them.
Natural Instinct to Avoid Pain:
At least here he attempts to address some arguments. My opponent continues to argue - through his incomplete knowledge of natural selection - that a human would naturally want to avoid death at all costs. This is normally true, but my opponent is acting as though suicide is a choice. Often times, people commit suicide not because they think "hey, this is a good idea", but because they see no other option due to their stress or pain-ridden minds. Even animals commit suicide, and unless my opponent wants to suggest that non-sentient creatures can process moral decisions or even hold morality, this should show that it's not a moral matter .
He goes on to say that with all these different cultures, at least one would have "taken advantage" of being immunized form suicide. This is false for two reasons, 1.) Natural Immunization (not through vaccine) is not a choice, it just happens, you can't choose to "take advantage" of it, and 2.) It doesn't prove that someone's prevented us from natural selection, because - and I've said this repeatedly - it's not natural selection . Natural selection doesn't breed out every single thing that could cause death. As my opponent dropped, if this were true, we'd be invincible. However, I'm glad that my opponent brought up suicide by culture, because it helps reinforce my case of societal morality. It's a good way to show how different cultures can be brought up to morally accept different things, because some societies view things as so wrong that you can't redeem yourself. If there were an evil god causing this, we would all share these views, and we could see suicide rates similar to Japan across the world, where 31,690 people commited suicide last year alone. If an evil god causes this in all humans, and morality is objective, why don't we see similar suicide rates in all countries?
My opponent tries to show how depression would be bred out if natural selection occurs, but once again incomplete knowledge of the subject prevents him from doing so successfully. Although there are certain people who are more prone to depression, depression is purely psychological and can happen to anyone in existence. Senior Psychiatrist Dr. Shaheen Saiyed states:
"My patients often come and say...“I feel worthless. Why should I live? There is no meaning to my life. No one is good to me. I can’t handle this. I am responsible for this. I don’t have guts to face the world.” All negativity related to ‘I, me and mine’. That’s the reality of depression, a bio-psycho-social illness affecting 25 to 35 per cent of individuals in that age group from 9 to 75, in any given time, all over the world. Can depression affect me? Yes, anybody can get depression." 
It isn't just some gene to be bred out, simply because depression =/= death. Sure, it makes you more prone to suicide, but because it's not a gene, we can't stop it from happening. "Caveman B" did not "lose" in natural selection, because -again- IT'S NOT NATURAL SELECTION.
Negotiation V. War.
My opponent takes my example of hating the schoolyard bully and compares to a scenario where there are two tribes with completely equal people and plentiful resources, and where neither side threatens the other. Although it would be nice if that's what happened in the real world, it's not a comparable scenario. It in no way counters hating someone who's counter-productive to your survival.
If we all could live without fear of others or going hungry or losing resources, then 9 times out of 10 we simply wouldnt' have war. However, that doesn't happen in the real world. The only reason the Germans joined the Nazi party is because they were starving and their economy was in collapse, and the Nazis provided a way to get them out - through warfare. In their eyes, that and genecide -for the upper echelon of the Nazis who knew about the genecide - was legitimately the way to survive and pass on their genes. They thought that the Jews threatened their existence, and so sought to kill them to pass on their genes. And that should answer the question "how does cruelty help pass on genes?" because the Nazis and others feel that to survive, they need to kill others. And according to my opponent's own argumentation, humans try to pass on their own genes.
Once again, violence is not a gene. There are some people who use it more than others, but this is not a trait that makes you die, so natural selection would not occcur.
Running out of characters so I'll make this quick.
My opponent's first paragraph is false because many people detest those who are different because they feel like they threaten their way of life. Because their way of life is what kept them breeding and passing on genes, they want to protect it. That is the natural reason why hating different people works.
As I showed earlier, the Holocaust was "survival-based hatred" as my opponent puts it. Diversion of resources was an unintended side effect. You can also look to the paragraph above this to show why some hate people who are different.
For half of my opponent's argument, he bases it on something he doesn't understand. For the other half, he makes unrealistic jumps to a deity.
My opponent says "disease" is a fact. But for "disease" to be defined as a "disease" it must cause some kind of pain or suffering otherwise we would not think of it as a disease. In shorter terms, we would not call something a "disease" unless it caused something we SUBJECTIVELY find "wrong".
And yet my opponent is quite correct that "disease" is a fact. It is a fact, because subjective things, things people feel can be facts. It is objectively true that fibromyalgia feels painful, and so it is a disease.
Similarly, morality which pertains to how people conduct themselves in society in consideration of the good of each other and the good of the whole can have objective facts. That not everything is "objective" in morality doesn't undermine that. The same is true of disease. Take "homosexuality". This used to be considered a mental disorder, a disease. But now it is not. Why? Because over time people changed their minds and decided that "homosexuality" was not an inherently harmful condition. Some people point to higher STD rates and suicide rates and claim that makes it a disease, but most people today believe these are the result of society's treatment of homosexuality. There are fuzzy issues with disease as well, but that doesn't mean we can't speak of "facts" regarding disease or of wellness and illness, just like there being fuzzy issues with morality doesn't mean we can't speak of "facts" regarding morality or of good and evil
Con implies that suicide has absolutely nothing to do with natural selection.
However, there is a lot of evidence that genetics can lead to suicidality.
"There is convergent evidence from adoption, family, geographical, immigrant, molecular genetic, twin and, most recently, surname studies of suicide for genetic contributions to suicide risk."
This ties in to what Con says about natural selection and human decision-making dealing with pain and pleasure. Those people who had an increased risk of suicide had genes that conditioned them to develop concepts of pain and pleasure which had the more common pains in life weighing more than the perceived pain of death.
Then, it's possible for a human to have genes which cause one to consider "Death" to be the worst pain, the most feared suffering, preventing that person from committing suicide.
So, how come these genes aren't common enough for scientists to have discovered and identified them? Why are we not now working towards a cure for suicidality? If we could give this gene to everyone then nobody would commit suicide again.
Those genes would confer a huge advantage on the recipient by stopping them from committing suicide, greatly increasing the chance of them reproducing and passing on the gene. There's no logical explanation for why this gene isn't common enough for us to have found it by now, unless God prevented it from being common.
Depression & Genetics
Scientists have found a genetic link to severe, recurrent depression.
That doesn't rule out environmental influences, but it shows that genes do have to do with depression, so that makes it a possibility for a population to develop genes that would block depression, or even genes that would react to the same environmental circumstances that a normal person would at least feel "sadness" to by stimulating energy and creativity rather than suppressing it and causing the person to mope about. Such behavior would be more beneficial to survival and hence reproduction, yet there are many things that would make a "normal" person feel sad and that could trigger depression in some unlucky people, even severe things which would make a normal person "depressed". Why is "sadness" and sometimes "depression" a majority response and not a minority response to certain things? It must be divine intervention.
My point about Caveman A & Caveman B remains valid. Why did Caveman B die out?
One oddity is the fatal fever. This is one example of the ways the immune system, which is supposed to protect us can kill us. Why do we not find even one person in the world in case of fever who has a trait where these immune responses "stop" before reaching a level that would kill them? That's no good from an evolutionary perspective. It's understandable why some people can have fevers that get fatal, but why is it a possibility for everyone and not a disordered minority? Why didn't genes providing for a "stopping mechanism" become predominant? In many cases had an individual had that stopping gene they would've survived. The only way to explain why the ability to die from a fever is found in practically everyone, rather than a minority of people with defective genes is that God intervened to guarantee this.
Yes, Violence Does Have To Do With Genetics
Con claims that violence is not caused at all by genetics.
Several sources prove him wrong.
Including impulsive violence. A tendancy towards planned violence could be explained by natural selection alone, since planned violence in a logically-directed manner, especially in man's earlier times could've been useful.
But impulsive violence is messy and chaotic. How can impulsive violence be an improvement to one's reproductive success? And yet history is full of it, and almost everyone has some tendancy towards impulsive aggression when they get angry, even over the most stupid things. If genes can code for a person to have a serious problem with it, they could also code for a person to be calm, rational, and only use violence if it's thought out such as if a person rationally concludes it to be necessary in self-defense or a country organizes its military for war when attacked.
So, why do humans tend to not only be violent but impulsive with it? Science can't explain how that would've evolved. There's no good reason for impulsive violence to lead to more reproductive success. Not unless some "higher power" intervened and made sure of it, by saving the people with these genes, or killing people with genes against impulsive violence.
Con Still Doesn't Explain Why We Do Not Exercise "Hate" In A More Logical Manner
Not every aspect of a person's "way of life" helps them pass on genes. If a person were to only defend those that do and not the others this would be more effective in passing on their genes. Humans have the capacity for logic and reason, so why is it that we fail to exercise this when it comes to "hate"?
The Holocaust wasn't "survival-based" in the sense that the act did nothing to improve survival.
That "Hatred" tends to be exercised impulsively and tends to take the form of "we think you are ugly/we hate your beliefs/we hate your culture" rather than a more logical (in relation to survival and passing on genes), "we want your food, we want your women" goes along with my observation that violence in humanity tends to be impulsive more often than it is methodological and logical. Even if the emotions guiding these impulses are oriented towards "survival" why didn't we just evolve to exercise hatred and violence only according to a deep analysis towards "survival"? Why is it that violence and hatred when practiced by humans tend to be based upon impulse and emotion and oftentimes fallacies, rather than cold, hard, logic?
If it was just evolution and natural selection picking these genes then we would expect different outcomes. The only possible explanation is an evil God who seeks to make these problems worse by subjecting human beings to not just violence, but chaotic, impulsive, emotionally-charged violence. That we also suffer death from our own immune systems at such a high rate, and are prone to suicidality shows the divine intervention of an evil deity.
TheOrator forfeited this round.
All arguments extended.
Vote for Pro!
Sorry, I wasn't expecting the 3-day wait for arguments which inevitably led to this debate running into school time. I won't have any time to debate this now, so I'll let my opponent decide whether he gets the forfeit points or have the voters grade on argumentation (I know this is the last round, but he can post it in the comments)
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|