Man is inherently evil

"I believe the agreed upon stance you took was to prove that goodness and morality in fact is something you are born, well I must prove that Man is evil as in without a moral code at birth. The highlighted text above proves my point man is not born with any code for right and wrong and when coupled with the proof of savage possible a pointed out above I believe I prove that Man is evil at birth as no morals are present at birth."Pro claims that man must be evil if born without a moral code. This is a non-sequitor by his own definition of evil, which is wickedness and immorality. A baby, therefore, is not born evil. It is incapable of being evil as evil requires knowledge and intent, something a baby does not have. Again the absence of a moral code does not signify the presence of evil."The stall judgment processes coupled with the irritability and restlessness(common knowledge to be affects of sleep deprivation) would cause people to affect without morals as when a basic necessity for life is threatened be resort back to primitive unmoral thinking."What is "primitive unmoral thinking?" I am sleep-deprived right now as I am typing this, this does not mean that I am somehow resorting to primitive immoral thoughts. The psychological effects of sleep deprivation in no way validates the resolution that people are born evil."The goal is not only reproduction but also survival, as reproduction is especially significant if your own genes survive.""The goal is reproduction, and keeping offspring alive after that survival is not even necessary."This is false when animals, including humans, have been proven to have motherlyinstincts [1]. Without these extincts many species would have be extinct, including mankind. [1]http://well.blogs.nytimes.com..."General remarkMy opponent, in attempt to disprove my arguments, fail to bring up point valid point other then justifying cannibalism with utilitarianism which is more logic based then moral based. "If Pro is not basing his definition of morality behind logic and reason, what measurement is he using that is relevant in a debate? Pro cannot arbitrarily define terms based on opinion or faith alone. If he cannot demonstrate why his moral perspective is superior to utilitarianism, there is no reason to respect his moral perspective at all over utilitarianism or any other ethical theory based around reason."I would like to point t out to con that they agreed to this debate and at this point cannot point out unclear terms as that was what the first round was for and I believe I clarified all requested definitions in my first argument. Also Con should watch for mispelled words."I apologize for any misspelled words, as I submitted my previous post without reading over it. I will accept any penalty on this regard by the voters. More importantly, I believe I have given sound reasons as to why it is necessary that we discuss what morality is in all relevant contexts. Pro's definition of good is "opposite of evil" and his definition of evil is "profound immorality, wickedness." Aside from this being vague, I challenged this definition as there was a need that Pro justify the logic behind defining morality. If there is no logic or sound reason behind his seemingly arbitrary definitions of good and evil, then there is no debate to begin with, as he is ultimately stating an opinion backed only by his own prescription to it.