Evil does not exist.

Round 4First of all, I would like to point this out:'I am assuming that Pro hasn't reached high school yet.' This is essentially an attempt to try to insult me, and I would like it to be taken into consideration when the voters issue conduct points.As a matter of fact, I never did reach high school, because I am British. Therefore I went to Secondary School, and then College, where I got an A in History. I was never taught that starting an essay with a dictionary definition could be deemed as wrong (I took English Language as a subject) and therefore I can only assume that what is deemed wrong in one culture (American high schools) is not deemed incorrect in other cultures (British Secondary Schools and Colleges). Having said that, this isn't a 'paper' it's a debate, therefore perhaps we can stay off the topic of the education system.Ironically, this goes a long way to proving that a universal moral code can't exist. For, although grading systems are a slightly different example, as all cultures have a different view upon essentially everything, how could it be gleened that they would all have the same views when it came to morals and ethics? 1. Evil as an absolute act:My opponent asserts:'Some philosophers consider certain acts evil, irrespective of any point of view.' But is that not, in itself, the point of view of those philosophers? That sentence cannot make sense as, by saying that the point of view of other people does not 'count' essentially, you are accepting that your own opinion doesn't count either. If I put an Athiestic British person in a room with a Muslim person from Iran, then I told them they had to write a list of everything that was evil, and they couldn't come out until they were agreed that the list both:1. Included everything evil that existed; 2. Did not include anything that was not evilThen there is a very good chance that they would never come out of that room. A universal moral code does not exist because, if it did, there would be no such thing as a moral dilemma.2. Evil as a relative act:'Many criminals know what they are doing is wrong but they do it anyway.' Here, we can see that Con is making a generalised assertion. He asserts that 'many criminals know what they are doing is wrong.' However, he doesn't say which moral code he is following. For example:[1]'Iran executed two gay men on Sunday for the crime of “perversion” and has sentenced a third individual to death for “insulting the prophet."'But there's more:[1]'Intelligence officials reportedly “confiscated a private video recording of Tavana on his personal computer, in which while under the influence of alcohol he allegedly uttered a phrase the judge interpreted as insulting the Prophet of Islam,”' Two men were executed for being gay, and another was executed for 'insulting the prophet whilst drunk in private.' Did these three men know what they were doing was wrong? No, in fact, I would argue that they thought what they were doing was right, and that it was, in fact, the Sharia law against homosexuality and blasphemy that was wrong. Did they know that they would be harshly punished if anybody were to find out? Incredibly likely yes, they did. But that doesn't mean that they thought what they were doing was wrong, or worthy of that punishment.Here's another question. Is it wrong for a man to steal an expensive medicine from a chemist IF he didn't have the money for it and it was to save his dying child's life?Personally, I see this two ways. The first was that the man saved a child's life at the cost of a Chemist store having less money. The net morality here looks to be positive. I.E. the man's actions were morally acceptable.However, we could also look at it in another way. If we say that stealing is wrong no matter what, then what the man did was unjustifiably wrong, therefore the man is evil. Here's another example. A man beats up his brother. This is wrong.A man beats up his brother to stop him from stabbing somebody else. He is still beating up his brother. That's wrong, supposedly. I would, in fact argue, that in this case it isn't. However, the man doing the beating would still likely be charged with assault. Does this make him evil? No, in my eyes it doesn't. However some people will disagree with me. Some would say he should have gotten inbetween his brother and the man and allowed himself to be stabbed instead of the other man. Does that make the man in this version of events less evil? No, it just makes him more dead.Morality is completely subjective. There is no one thing that everybody in the world who is alive, or who has ever lived, will agree is evil. Therefore, evil cannot be defined for certain as everybody has their own version of it. My definition of evil was inadequate, Con is right in that respect. However, Con's own definitions of evil were also inadequate, because not every person, not even most people, would agree with him. Some might, but not all, therefore his opinions on what evil actually IS are just that, subjective opinions. There is no universal evil. One man's evil is another man's tradition. Therefore, as we can't all agree on what is and isn't evil, it is undefinable. Therefore, it cannot exist. Neither, in fact, can there be an inbuilt morality that determines that some things are definitely evil and therefore unforgivable in any circumstance.Does evil exist? Well Con has not yet given a single example of universal evil. Thus, we must conclude that no, evil cannot exist.Sources:[1]http://www.jihadwatch.org...;