Evil is a misunderstood and overused concept.

This debate has a vague motion: "Evil is a misunderstood and overused concept". I should remind the readers that as Pro is making the assertion, the BoP rests solely on him. As the Latin law goes: "Onus probandi incumbet ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat. " Also since the resolution is rather vague this goes in my favor for the legal rule is as follows: When a certain statement is unclear it benifits the one negating it. Now I will spend most of my time dissecting my opponents arguments:1. "'Evil' is not a matter of choice, whether you like it or not. "This is a baseless assertion by my opponent and does not have any weightage. He doesnot show why and how it is a matter of choice he simply asserts so. I should like to inform the voters that this is actually contradictory to his case because he goes on to rest the case of evil largely on "motivation". If motivation is what evil is based on then it simply follows that one with an intentionally evil intent/motivation will have done an evil act. So you see my opponent, when he asserts that evil is a matter of choice self refutes himself. 2. "Nobody simply 'chooses' to be evil. This brings me back to another debate on morals. We consider acts such as rape and murder 'evil'. However, evil is not an absolute concept either (as I pointed out in the morality debate). "Once more I see that my opponent has made claims. It is irrelevant even if his claims are correct (which they are not) for as Proposition and as the one giving an argument it is his duty to give arguments supporting his premises. Of arguments I see none. He states that evil is not an absolute concept, however once more if one is to consider his motivation argument later on then one could say than an evil motivation causes an absolutely evil act. This is shown to us by causality, where affect X is caused by cause B, as long as cause B is being fulfilled effect X is guarenteed. As my opponent gives great weightage to motivation then one can easily conclude than an evil motivation makes an action evil. Then my opponent would state that what is in fact an evil motivation? Very simply, I reply that an evil motivation is the motivation that a. negates good, b. is left out by opponent in his further case. I believe my opponent is talking about evil as an act here, quite different from an evil motivation.3. "If a man raped a five year old girl, we would consider him evil, a natural and logical response. However, this brings us to his MOTIVATION. What MOTIVATES him to do this? Did someone force him to do this? If he was forced, is he still evil? The term evil is used to describe a person with little-to-no morals. "This argument and the sub arguments Benji attached with this are refuting to his case above. Also they make little sense. As my opponent simply mentions force or illness or trauma one could very easily ask why is an act not evil if a healthy, sane minded, man intentionally rapes a 5 year old girl? Until my opponent can answer this question his argument is moot. --------------As you can see my opponent has the BoP as he is the one affirming the resolution, in that matter he has failed. He did not provide a proper argument and he fails to properly show why his pseudo-argument stands. As I have shown that his argument has holes and he has not proved what he must this should fall to me. That having been said I only had 16 minutes for this so I did it quickly, excuse my slightly harsh tone, I love you Benji! (How could I not his name is Benji :p)Ajab