With the Development of Intellegence comes the Inherent Advancement of Evil

I'd like to begin by thanking my opponent for posting this debate. That said, I agree with her proposed definitions with the exception of the word evil, which she has described as being morally wrong or wicked. Throughout this debate, what is and isn't considered moral will be up for discussion at length, I'm sure, given my arguments, and as such I'd like for the voters to keep this assessment in mind as we proceed with the debate. I'll now move right along to refuting the contentions Pro has presented thus far. 1) Humankind, though its evolutionary increase in brain capacity, has continually shown its brutal and violent hostility towards it's fellow man for the sole purpose of personal gain and not of survival. There are several problems with this argument. First, Pro has failed to demonstrate how violence and hostility has INCREASED over time via the process of evolution. It seems to me that while war seemed imminent and necessary in the past, that greater efforts are being made today than ever before in order to suppress the likelihood of a massive giant attack. Moreover, it would appear as if the technological progression and inception of nuclear missiles - and the threat of nuclear warfare itself - that seems to be keeping people in check. My point here is that in order for this to be a valid claim, Pro will have to provide evolutionary evidence showing how mankind was once more gentle and considerate towards each other, whereas I am arguing that there has always been conflicting ideals and instances of generosity and kindness mixed with selfishness and violence - both of which I attribute to evolution, and neither which I consider inherently good nor evil. 2) Human massacres - such as Pro's Incan example - proves that humanity acts out of selfish interests and not survival. I disagree. I believe that while humans indeed act selfishly, that this is not necessarily a bad thing (depending on how you define or practice selfishness). Additionally, I believe that even 'evil' and selfish acts are rooted in some type of innate survival instinct. For instance, why did the Spanish proceed to massacre the Incans? Well, why does anyone do anything? Personal gain and advancement, of course. Science not only supports the concept of evolution but of Social Darwinism as well: the concept of Survival of the Fittest applies in almost always scenario. Indeed we have learned that it is not the biggest or the strongest who survive, but rather those who are most adaptable to change. As such, the Spanish have proven to be superior in the sense that their ability to progress mentally and technologically speaking have given them that upper hand to succeed in their natural instinct for survival. So, essentially I am arguing that selfishness = survival. 3) Animals with obviously less intelligence and brain capacity (such as chickens) than humans never engage in Fratricide or random acts of violence, and kill only for the purposes of survival. That's a load of BS. Chimpanzees and other types of monkeys have been known to engage in various acts of war amongst each other. Leopards, whales and others have been observed hunting for sport. Siblicide (killing brothers and sisters for a bigger share of parental resources) is fairly common in the animal kingdom, including amongst eagles, sharks, hyenas, etc. Fighting or killing for territory (physical land or access to mates) is almost universal in the animal kingdom. Even very "weak" animals like rabbits have been observed battling to the death for territory. So, my opponent's premise here is blatantly false and unsupported. 4) Greed is never justified and has shown presence more so in the Human Race than in any other member of nature. First, I obviously disagree with the latter part of this statement as detailed by my description of other animals who engage in human-like behavior, including greed. Second, I perceive greed to be a negatively excessive aspect of survival instincts which are merely innate drives that seek to secure our own survival and the procreation of our offspring. Clearly those with the most resources have the greater chance to adapt and survive. .. this is common sense. For this reason, I disagree that greed - which my opponent has cited as being an excessive desire to acquire wealth and possessions - is never justified. 5) Various other cases such as the Holocaust, Mafia, and other organizations claiming vigilantism as their justification proceed to end human life for the purposes of lack of tolerance and pleasure respectively. Not true. In the case of the Holocaust, you're taking one man's misguided interpretation of history and politics and applying it to the entire human race. That's not fair. Additionally, the Holocaust was supposed to be about ethnic cleansing and moral superiority - not a sick and twisted pleasure for death. In reality, the Holocaust was a political move with economic and racist origins. Again, with wealth as a goal, that is still referring to resources, and racism (similar to nationalism) once again deals with the preservation of the self or those that one can identify with. Regarding the mafia, the same logic applies. These people don't go around killing for fun - they go around killing for money. Furthermore, some groups such as the mafia DID actually try and carry out some forms of vigilantism, which again isn't so much for pleasure as it is to try and uphold some form of morality. 6) The knowledge of nuclear technology has become more a cause for concern of the continuance of humankind rather than it's preservation through energy efficiency, therefore it has become appallingly obvious in recent times that with the development of intelligence comes the inherent advancement of evil. I negate. I've already addressed nuclear intelligent in this debate; however, I'll finalize my R1 argument by attacking your conclusion. It would seem to me that the development of intelligence has nothing to do with the advancement of evil, but rather it is just used as means to carry out what is considered evolutionary morally appropriate. For instance, since evolution often leads us to violent endeavors, the technology and advancement of nuclear missiles could very well be used to carry out those goals. However, since evolution also promotes morality in the sense that we want to secure what is best for us. .. and that means cohabitation with others with the expectation of mutual respect. .. then again this technology and advancement (i. e. missiles) can be used to scare people into acting appropriately (peacefully) since everybody, generally speaking, has the instinct to survive.