Good and Evil. True facts, or fabricated fiction.

This debate has no resolution and no clear meaning as to what's being debated. I'm Pro but I really don't know what I'm Pro for, so I think it apt to go against standard practice and say that Con has the burden of proof for this debate--it would be improper to make a confusing debate with no resolution and an ambiguous topic and put the BoP on the one who accepted. I still don't know exactly what this debate is about, but I'll answer Con's claims as he makes them.Con states my lack of faith in believing in gods and devils disturbs him. If Con wishes to provide evidence for gods and devils, I invite him to do so. I also don't really see what gods and devils have to do with anything this debate.Con believes we are supposed to all work as one. Firstly, I take issue with "supposed to". That seems to imply some preordered purpose to us which I have yet to percieve exists. All Con says is that every major religion has that exact same idea. This is both irrelevant and clearly false. Most religions are exclusive. Only those of that faith are included. The God of the Bible ordered many wars, battles, and plagues. He gives no endorsement of peaceful unity. Con says that society today is as I depicted his utopia--blind sheep following the herd--and does nothing to refute my argument that his utopia of univeral agreement is detrimental. If Con critisizes the herd mentality today, why would everyone agreeing on everything be good in Con's imagined world? Disagreement is a necesssary part of progress. We can't survive without it.Con says I didn't make a proper argument about what the debate was about. As stated Con never says what the debate is about exactly, but I think my response was apt anyway. All he says is that the debate is about "good and evil" or "right and wrong", which is ambiguous itself. Con seems to think every person must have an intellectual interest in life. I find this an oppressive view. Persons are free to choose how they want to live. If Breaking Bad or shopping is their meaning in life, so be it. Con has no right to condemn their individual persuit of happiness. What is wrong is when such people pretend their religion or their ideology is unquestionable, but only some do that.Moreover, Con just takes it for granted that society is univerally wrong, blind, and uninterested in the truth. He also assumes that if they were woken up to the truth, they would condemn the awaker as evil. This is not necessarily true. Pleanty of people fit this descrpition but there's no reason to be pessimistic about everyone. Con is ambiguous with his notion of right and wrong. Part of the time he uses it in the factual sense and other times in the moral sense. If there's no factual right and wrong, then the statement that there isn't is self-refuting and the whole hyopthetical awakener is flawed. Con never explains how there's no moral right and wrong. He makes many unconected leaps in his argument. He never gets to why his hypothetical even should lead us to disregard right and wrong. He does make an argument about morals evolving, but this is unsatisfactory, for morals can be relative to time and place and not all moral beliefs change over time. Right and wrong don't need to be absolute and unchanging in order to exist. Our idea of the appropriate age for sex changes as society changes. It would be wrong now to have sex with a 14 year old only because of the way society is and thinks today. But in the past it would be perfectly fine. Con also makes many value statements and such directly contradicts his claim that right and wrong don't exist. Clearly we can delineate a good life from a bad life. Con seems to say this state of affairs is a bad state. Con clearly values the "advisor" more than the dictator. Moreover, he claims his "advisor" is a hero. So Con himself continually implies the existence of right and wrong.PS. This was extremely rushed.