With the Development of Intellegence comes the Inherent Advancement of Evil

Happy reading :) --> Pro's first point exclaims that there are "ideas" which show that humans are becoming more evil. However, note that Pro has failed to cite any SOURCES claiming that this is the case. She has simply integrated this as her OPINION. Thus we should not automatically accept this claim; instead you should take into consideration my points refuting why I don't think people have become more "evil" over time. --> I'm really confused as to what Pro talks about next. I've said that first off, what is considered "evil" is subjective and changes over time. Moreover, any "evil" tendencies in humans is probably the same as it was way back. .. whenever. I've also argued that humans have progressed mentally and socially and thus probably morally as well; we now value life in higher regard and considering the example of missiles as a a DEFENSE instead of offensive tactic or precedent to war is one example in my favor. --> I think what Pro is trying to say is that there is no way to prove that violent tendencies or evil has increased. If this is the case, then what has the point of this debate been? I'm confused due to her presentation of arguments; the numbers and letters jump around and her sentences aren't entirely cohesive, so I apologize - I'm trying to interpret her argument as best as I can. That in mind, I've argued in the last round that humans have found other ways to release natural aggression or survival instincts which Pro has interpreted as "evil" through aggressive sports and other competitive outlets, for example. --> To counter this, Pro writes, "I don't see either countries or people investing in physical activity as a means of promoting peace, so in this context the small amount of impulsive aggression seen in sports is not a substantive argument to refute the advancement of evil through developed intelligence. " First of all, consider the Olympics, anyone? Second, I said that sports help exhibit AGGRESSION and other inherent masculine and testosterone prompted things which I attribute to be necessary to survival. --> Regarding war, it exists basically in the form of revolution (with survival and/or moral goals) OR to make a few powerful men very rich. This has nothing to do with whether or not people have become more evil, but rather how much the masses can be brainwashed and influenced to support a warped agenda. For instance, the "evil" demonstrated by the "terrorists" on 9/11 have been attributed by many skeptics to rich and greedy politicians themselves. This has nothing to do with the resolution regarding the advancement of intelligence or technology. --> Next Pro cites a source (sort of. .. ?) in saying that there have been more wars recently than in the past. This is simply not true. We live in an unprecedented time of world peace. Sure there is conflict going on in some parts of the world; however, throughout history there have always been some type of war, revolution, etc. going on somewhere. Consider my point of why war exists. Again, remember that Pro is supposed to be supporting the RESOLUTION which states that people are becoming more evil because of technology and intelligence - not greed itself. She has not supported this. --> Pro has said, "I absolutely agree with the Con's idea that cheating, theft, and other actions most certainly demonstrate human's selfish desires. " Okay, cool. Again, this debate is supposed to be about how KNOWLEDGE and TECHNOLOGY makes people greedy and evil. I've pointed out that people have ALWAYS been greedy! Even when we were primitive cavemen! I've also argued that this isn't necessarily "evil" (though some of it surely is) but rather just exaggerated survival instincts. --> Taking the Spanish/Incan example into consideration, Pro points out that it would have been most economically prosperous for the Spanish to have simply enslaved the Incans instead of killing them. Note that to some, killing would be more humane, and moreover, THIS DOES NOTHING TO SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION. How was intelligence responsible for massacring the Incans? The Incans would have killed the Spanish invaders if they had the means. This does not support that technology is responsible for evil; the PEOPLE are and the technology just helps them carry out what they have carried out even if they both had to fight only with their fists. Indeed just as intelligence can be a weapon for war, it can also be an instrument of peace. Again, I'd consider our attempts at maintaining world peace one example of this being practiced. --> I think we can see Pro's general argument here when she states: Pro is not denying the idea that innate selfishness exists in man, simply that that selfishness has been exemplified through the development of intelligence overtime. Well. .. thank you, Captain Obvious? I've pointed out how innate selfishness has been demonstrated over time through intelligence and technology; however, not BECAUSE of either. This is similar to the familiar protest, "Guns don't kill people - people kill people! " --> Moving on to my animal examples, Pro notes that I have only provided examples of intelligent, violent animals. This is an entirely new argument much different from her original response that human intelligence proves that we are the most evil and violent, and animals aren't, and as such this is to be considered "abusive" conduct in a debate as she offers a new argument in the third round. Nevertheless, I'd like to point out that even "dumber" animals are violent, such as sharks, hyenas and black widows - which are considered a dumb and yet they eat their mate for no reason. Anyway, I disagree with Pro regardless. In the animal kingdom, disputes and dominance is settled through violence because that is the only way they know how (since they are not intelligent to communicate any other way). On the contrary, humans have found alternative means to handle conflict and as such our intelligence proves superior and a way to overcome "evil. " --> Pro writes, "Greed is only animal instinct to an extent; the fine line between robbing others of necessary resources when you have your own and taking from others to fend for yourself is an important distinction. " I've already explained how this is untrue. We still have an innate desire to acquire MORE than necessary for not only survival but prestige. For instance, women are biologically designed to appreciate being provided for. In the animal kingdom, the "richest" animal or the male with the most resources gets the best and biggest selection of female mates to procreate. Similarly, psychology has revealed that humans do the same thing. Men, for instance, brag about their power, money and prestige through clothes, cars, etc. because women are attracted to wealthy men; in other words men that can provide for a family, etc. This example is applicable to both animals and humans, obviously. --> Sure intelligence can help you be deceitful and steal (in capitalism, for instance); however, Pro again misses the point and that this innate desire to use intelligence to steal is part of Darwinism - survival of the fittest - which I have explained in the previous example. --> Pro writes, "The Con is arguing that the power to annihilate multiple cities at a time with one bomb the size of a small desk while providing tons of radioactive damage afterward in fact prevents evil. " Um, you're straw manning my point. My argument was that the threat of this damage is so great, that people keep this consequence in mind as a reason to achieve peace in a non-violent way. Conclusion: I think that greed and evil stems from innate desires. Intelligence and technology helps us achieve these desires, but does not CAUSE these desires as Pro has argued in this debate.