Good and Evil Does Not Exist

=Definitions=Firstly, I would like to note that my argument conforms to the definitions I provided in Round 1. I do not accept my opponents definitions. My opponents definition of evil states that it must be 'profoundly' immoral, when I contend that all immoral actions are evil. Furthermore, my opponents definition of good is anything that is desired or approved of. However, I feel that is not a good definition of good in terms of morality, as immoral actions are desired and approved of by the person doing it.For these reasons, I will be using my own definitions as stated in Round 1. (I accept his definition of morality.)=Introduction=Pursuant to the rules my opponent provided in Round 1, I will not be providing my refutations in this round. Rather, I only have to provide my own argument against the resolution. In order to refute the resolution, I must prove that people differentiate between right and wrong. The fact that these differentiations might be subjective has no bearing on their existence. It only refutes the idea that there is no objective idea of right and wrong.=Argument=There are aspects of the world that could not function properly if no such thing as good and evil exists. In my argument, I will talk about these things, and show that good and evil do exist.P1: LawThe laws of a nation rely entirely on the idea of good and evil. If good and evil did not exist, society would have no way of maintaining order and punishing immoral acts. When a person commits a crime such as murder, the crime is investigated, the culprit is found, and he is brought to trial and jailed. This is because, as a society, we deem that persons actions to be morally wrong. If it was not morally wrong, we would have no reason to spend the resources required to investigate and punish the crime.Since nations establish laws punishing immoral acts, we can conclude that there is a standard of good and evil. This standard may be subjective for that nation, but this has no bearing on the fact that some type of standard exist. If standards of good and evil do not exist, then nations could not pass laws, and there would be chaos. As the Archbishop John Ireland says, 'Law is order in liberty, and without order liberty is social chaos.'P2: Decision MakingEvidence of our ability to differentiate between right and wrong is most prominent in our every day decision making, It is our ability to make the most logical choices that allows us to survive from day to day. Our ability to look at the options and decide what the 'bad' option and the 'good' option is proves that there is a standard of right and wrong, bad and good. If these standards did not exist, how do we know that driving your car off a bridge would be a bad choice? If these standards did not exist, how do we know that jumping off the top of a skyscraper s a bad idea?Even when my opponent denies the existence of right and wrong, he is himself asserting their existence! By debating this subject, he argues that the idea good and evil exists is wrong, thereby proving bad and good exists!P3: War CriminalsLook at the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC is an organization is a tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. This court has brought many evil people to justice. If standards of right and wrong do not exist, what right does the ICC have to punish these people? For if there is no such thing as right and wrong, then people like Charles Taylor of Liberia and Ratko Mladić of Serbia cannot be brought to justice.Look at the most famous example of genocide in the history of our planet; the Nazi genocide. At the conclusion of the war, we gathered Nazi leaders and generals who were complicit in the holocaust, put them on trial, and brought them to justice. This is because we thought that their actions were morally reprehensible and worthy of severe punishment. If my opponent is correct, the death of millions of people would have gone unpunished.=Conclusion=If standards of good and evil did not exist, our world would look different than it does today. Unfortunately for my opponent, the entire world functions based off ideas of good and evil, right from wrong. If he can show that my three points are not dependent on moral values, then my argument stands defeated. If he cannot, then standards of good and evil exist.Thank you.