With the Development of Intellegence comes the Inherent Advancement of Evil

I don't have much character space so let's get right down to it :) 1) Pro acknowledges that there is no evidence which proves her claim that humankind has become more violent over time. In that case, we must ignore her resolution which states that with the development of intelligence comes the inherent advancement of evil. Let's not forget that she has yet to prove (1) Humans are inherently evil, (2) Evil is advancing, and (3) It's because of or instigated by technology. Pro has said, "Since technology has become more advanced, man has found it less necessary to resort to extreme measures for the sole purpose of survival. If the need has reduced but the violence has remained the same, an ulterior motive must be present, ergo greed and evil." There are several problems with this. First, she said that the need for violence has been reduced but the violence has remained the same. This contradicts her original point that you cannot actually prove violent tendencies have increased. Second, if what she meant to say was that violent tendencies still inherently reside in the human species despite the need for violence for survival, again I would have to disagree. I submit that man has found alternative means to show aggression, such as participation in sports. Since mankind no longer needs to stay in shape or exercise their masculinity via hunting, they release their testosterone and need to compete and be aggressive through physical contact sports [1]. Additionally, I propose that there are other ways to demonstrate one's greed (and evil) aside from violence. For instance, cheating to get ahead, theft, and other actions would demonstrate one's selfish desires. To claim that violence is the only (or at least a very prominent) way to demonstrate greed, Pro would have to back that up with some kind of evidence. She has not thus far. 2) Pro again visits the example of the Incas and the Spanish, noting that it was not NECESSARY (for survival) for the Spanish to murder the Incan people. I agree. However, what I said was that innate selfish desires MOTIVATED the people to do these things. If we are to believe that evolution a.k.a. Survival of the Fittest were true (and we should), then of course people are going to feel the need to not only adequately surpass others but rather DOMINATE others to (1) demonstrate their superiority (2) secure procreation for themselves and their offspring. People have been enslaving others to demonstrate their superiority since the beginning of man; we cannot attribute this harshness to technology. Furthermore, we cannot accept Pro's supposition that only when your life is threatened do survival instincts in humans come into play. That is simply not true. For example, when we're hungry, we eat. This is a basic survival instinct in animals. Suppose it's lunch time and I won't be home until dinner. Rationally, I know that I don't have to eat lunch for my SURVIVAL, and yet it is something that I do because I have an innate desire to do so; I am hungry because I have been biologically designed to want food to sustain my person. Similarly, human beings are born to be inherently selfish. This is to ensure a desire for you to protect yourself, your family and procreate. Biology is all about progression and survival. In this day and age, we suppress our selfish desires whenever and wherever necessary in order to function properly in society. There's rules about dominating others because we have created a legal system again out of selfishness; we want to protect our rights and in doing so must consider the rights of others as well. We don't nuke another countries because we don't want others doing that to us. Thus it is because of selfish motives that we have learned to advance socially. We are selfish ALL the time not because of survival; however, the inherent desire of selfishness comes from an innate drive intended for survival as man was created. And finally on this subject, again my opponent has not proven that it is because of the development of intelligence than man has become MORE evil. 3) Considering my above point, let's revisit the idea of siblicide. Pro has said that this is done for survival; however, note that the parent animal has the intention of distributing the resources among the young equally or to the point that each one can survive. However, out of innate selfishness, the young want MORE than what is necessary (another biological instinct) and that is why they turn against their siblings. Now, according to several sources, animals like wolves do indeed hunt for sport. One notes, "There was a documentary on the Discovery Channel last year that showed when the wolves would attack the sheep, instead of killing 1, 2 or 3 of them for food, they killed the whole flock of sheep, sometimes over 25 head of them. They pointed out that the wolves seemed to just enjoy the kill as much as acquiring the food... The wolves are just doing what nature programmed them to do. They kill to eat and they kill for fun, much like man does" [2]. "So what if wolves hunt for sport? It's natural. Cats do it. Also, killer whales do it. I've seen killer whales killing a baby whale and then abandoning it after it was dead. I've also seen bottle nose dolphins brutalize a juvenile porpoise for fun (I assume this since the two male dolphins were obviously aroused). I've also seen Chimpanzees kill and eat a baby chimpanzee. It goes on and on in the natural world..." [2]. Consider the fact that wolves have killed off 50% of the population of coyotes in Yellowstone since their reintroduction. They don't eat the coyotes; they do this to demonstrate their superiority. Here is a link to part of a documentary which demonstrates this very plainly [3]. Indeed, there are many sources that animals kill for fun and not only for food [4], etc. 4) Pro continues to suggest that greed is unnecessary and is therefore unjustified for humans. Again, it is not just humans that are greedy. This is basic ANIMAL INSTINCT. It may not seem logical considering current times; however, in the animal kingdom and before modernization, individuals had to be greedy - or have greedy motives - in order to survive. It's not just about survival either; many people feel capitalistic in the sense that they feel entitled to what they've worked to earn, for instance. No doubt wealth carries a lot of benefits. As a side note, what exactly has Pro proven here? She says that greed is unnecessary; however, in no way does this support the resolution that is it because of increased intelligence has evil advanced. 5) Pro suggests that only intelligent beings could have committed evil genocide (the Holocaust). My sited sources depict otherwise. And again, Pro has failed to prove that it is only the INTELLIGENT species (humans) that are greedy. My point is that animals have greedy instincts as basic survival instincts. Of course this greed is going to be excessive in some individuals and those with the means (intelligence) are going to carry this out. However, those with the means in terms of brawn or strength in numbers would carry this out as well (again - see animal examples). I would argue that this is a smart thing for them to do, and thus intelligence may have something to do with this, but it wouldn't necessarily be EVIL. 6) No, nuclear intelligence has NOT promoted evil. As I said, it can be argued that it's INHIBITED evil (war). Pro concludes, "The evolution of the mind and the development of intelligence provides the means and the ability to carry out evil." I've proven that selfishness is a BASIC ideal, and that one doesn't need technology to carry it out! Sources: [1] http://www.manhood.com.au... [2] http://answers.yahoo.com... [3] http://www.youtube.com... [4] http://www.mtmultipleuse.org...