Walmart is Evil

I look forward to a spirited debate. The burden of proof in this debate is on Pro. It is up to him to prove evilness. There is no need for me to prove that Walmart is good and virtuous, or even to prove lack of evilness. My opponent must prove evilness. To do this, the first thing that is required is a suitable definition of evil. Unfortunately, my opponent's definition of evil is nothing more than a list of dictionary synonyms for evil and does not provide an objective standard by which the assessment is to be made. Questions of good and evil are questions of philosophy, and some definite, objective philosophical standard is required for this determination to be made, lest we pass judgement based on mere whim of emotion. We certainly cannot be expected to make the judgement based on a definition that amounts to a truism saying evil is evil. Since my opponent has failed to properly define evil, I will propose a serious-minded definition of evil. Evil actions are actions taken with the intent to harm other people for the doer's benefit. Now that that's out of the way, let's get on to my opponent's contentions. 1. My opponent offers up that Walmart is 2.5% below the national average wage. My opponent does not explain precisely how this makes them evil, but one would assume he is implying that because they do not pay a certain wage they have no regard for the humanity or dignity of their employees. This is not proved by the statistic, whatsoever. In fact, if wages alone were enough to make a firm evil, then every firm which pays below a certain wage level would be evil. This would amount to some large proportion of the firms in the economy, including all that pay below Walmart, which is only 2.5% below the average. Furthermore, where does one draw the line? Why is $11.75 an hour evil while $12.04, or $15 or even $20 is not. My opponent has provided no standard for why a specific wage level is evil. However, I contend (without the burden to do so resting on my shoulders) that by keeping their costs low, Walmart is able to sell their products at lower prices. This in turn enables low income families to do better with the money they have. Walmart pays their employees the market price for their labor. If they paid over that they would be harming their customers because they would have to hike prices. My opponent's argument zeros in on the supposed evil done to the employees without even remotely considering the good that is done for the consumer in the process. How can an organization that enables millions of low income families to afford groceries, staple goods, and basic needs when they otherwise would go without be evil? Finally, no matter how they set their prices or who it actually hurt, evil is really about the intent. My contention is that Walmart's setting it's wages at a certain level cannot be and has not been proven to be intentionally malicious. I encourage my opponent to try to prove malicious intent in his rebuttal. 2. Again, here, my opponent has offered up a piece of information without actually tying it back to his contention that Walmart is Evil. Why must a firm "design it's wages to support a family" to avoid the evil moniker? The burden is on my opponent to present some logical reason why this is so. 3. Here my opponent has leveled a bevy of accusations against Walmart without proper citation. He has listed several links in the body of his argument, but I don't have the time or desire to read through the lengthy articles he has linked to find out if his accusations in this contention have even a glimmer of truth to them. It is incumbent upon my opponent to make his argument. If indeed Walmart does the things he describes, it may very well amount to evil behavior, but my opponent must prove it. As he has stated it here, however, my opponents contention amounts to nothing more than a personal attack. The only portion of the contention for which supporting evidence is provided is the low wage claim, which has been thoroughly discredited in my response to contention #1. I encourage my opponent to provide supporting evidence for the remaining accusations in this contention. Conclusion: My opponent has presented a blistering attack against the Walmart corporation, claiming them to be evil. However, my opponent has utterly failed to make even a single valid argument to prove this. He has not even provided a precise, objective definition of what evil is, and therefore cannot claim to be asserting evilness on the basis of anything more than the flit and fancy of his emotions. This is further demonstrated by his 3 contentions. Allegations of evilness based on emotional feelings alone are quite simply insufficient. Some standard is essential for a prudent assessment to be made. If this is not clear enough on it's own, let me present an example: If I were arguing that "Hitler is evil", my reasoning should amount to more than: "because I hate him". I would be required to make a logical argument such as: (1)Hitler murdered innocent people. (2)Murderers are evil. (3)Therefore, Hitler was evil. My opponent has failed to make even the most elementary of logical progressions to support his claim. I eagerly look forward to his doing so in rebuttal.