(ELO) Compassion is a more worthwhile human trait than intelligence

C1 Compassion is the human trait which allows people to help eliminate pain and suffering... 1. This is a semi-strawman argument. My position is not that compassion is useless as my opponent says. My burden is merely to show that intelligence is more worthwhile or is equal in importance to compassion (refer to C1 – impact 1). 2. No warrant provided about evolution. You would need to establish an evolutionary timeline that can be analyzed so we know specifically when compassion would have been eliminated. Ut obviously this can’t be done, and is thus unverifiable. 3. TURN: Intelligence is first needed before compassion as a mechanism of survival. Intelligence gives humans the ability to overcome the environment and use it for its own gain and own survival. The reason compassion sticks around is due to the Achilles heel of people, being social... 1. No link provided between compassion and social bonds. Remember compassion refers to pity, and people all the time are social with others without having the feeling of pity for them. My opponent to prove this as valid would need to establish a prerequisite link between compassion and bonds. 2. TURN: Intelligence is more important in this case because as my opponent mentioned social bonds are predicated upon interaction which can only be done through communication and other forms of rational mental processes. These social bonds are what create our world whether it a good friend or two nations... 1. No warrant on intent. How do we know nations act out of compassion and not simply guised self-interest? It is a big leap to say that nations help each other out of compassion. Moreover, I would say this is untrue because nations act within realms of realism, i.e. nations act out of self-interest and survival. This is seen historically, especially through alliance systems. E.g. World War 1. 2. TURN: Thus, the façade of “compassion” is simply a mechanism conceived by intelligence to further a nations own self-interest. Therefore, intelligence is more important again because it helps preserve the survival of different nation states. C2 Compassion has a larger role in ethics and morality than my opponent lets on. Compassion is a crux in morality... 1. Non-sequitur. How does that definition lead us to the conclusion that compassion is more important? It simply tells us to follow the right. However, refer to my C1. The ethics of utility argue that ethics are based on rational decision calculus’s which are predicated first on intelligence. To argue that intelligence is more favorable than morals leads to the idea of nihilism... 1. Nowhere in these “warrants” is there a justification for the claim that intelligence leads to nihilism. He basically jumps to that conclusion. 2. Cross-apply C1. I isolated two independent ethical systems, both of which rely on intelligence as its primary human trait. 3. Where’s the impact? Why is nihilism bad? There are many responses to nihilism that exist within ethical philosophy. 4. TURN: Intelligence solves whatever harms nihilism might produce because it protects against societal backlash. One society will differ from another society... 1. My opponent makes a horrible logical fallacy. He says since other societies might value compassion over intelligence then you can’t negate. (i) If that’s true then I can say that some societies value intelligence over compassion, so you can’t affirm either. This argument is a wash at this point. (ii) Who cares if some societies might? That doesn’t make it correct or right; it just means that some people believe the wrong thing. 2. Every society will have intelligence, since it is a human trait. Some just utilize differently than others. C3 Compassion plays a significant role in politics... 1. Again, no warrant, just an assertion. 2. Cross-apply C3. Compassion without rational calculus results in socialism. And cross-apply the impacts. 3. False. If a politican foucses too much on self-interest thy will lose their office.