Evil Proves The Existence of An Evil God

Before I start, I'll just inform the audience that this will be a bit shorter than my normal arguments. This is mostly because my opponent's arguements are, once again, based on a misunderstanding. This is both a misunderstanding in certain fields and and in my case, which I will explain in the argumentation. This will also be because, once again, i won't be quoting everything my opponent says, as it mostly has to do with the same idea. Instead, I will put seperate topics into sup-topics under an umbrella topic (such as morality, seen below) for his major arguments and start them with a phrase describing my opponents argument. Morality: Basis of Morality Unfortunately, my opponent misunderstands my case here. He assumes I'm saying that morality is black-and-white and based untirely on societal opinion. This is completely false. I simply stated that societies (like the US) have simple moral beliefs nearly everybody agrees on. Like Free Speech and Freedom of Choice. While nearly everybody in Saudi Arabia would agree with the sexist policies undertaken there justified. I'm not at all implying that everybody there agrees with it, just like not everybody here believes that we were created equal, merely that there is a majority consensus found among societies. Seperate Moralities My opponent asks: "Were the people who hid Jews during the Holocaust being immoral? Were runaway slaves immoral?", however, this completely plays into my explination of evil. I personally believe that one who hides Jews was moral rather than immoral, but I ask my opponent, what would the Nazi think? Clearly, he would think that Jews were evil, and by extension those who shelter them. This simply shows that there are two seperate evils here. The Nazi evil and the Jewish (and most likely the majority of the world) evil. Does this mean that there was a seperate deity both causing the Nazi evil and the Jewish evil? No, they simply differences of opinion, not thoughts formed by an all-powerful deity who loves evil. And this is the root reason behind the resolution being false. There is no one "evil" that a diety would be forming. In order for the problems Pro describes to be caused by an evil deity would mean that there would first be a proven objective morality[1]. However, as both my opponent and I agree[2] that morality is not entirely black-and-white, this objective morality cannot exist (and if my opponent attempts to follow that route in future rounds he must first prove that objective morality exists), in order for the resolution to be true, there must be thousands of different deities, each creating the thousands of different moral "evils". However, as if this doesn't contradict the resolution enough, because there are thousands of different moral "evils", each of the moral "goods" (like hiding a Jew from the Nazis) would also be evil and vice-versa, completely defeating the purpose of a deity who only spreads evil, as his evil would also be a good. I know that this is extremely circular logic, but unfortunately that's what we're dealing with when we look at the logic behind the resolution :P Societal Morality: My Opponent misinterperets my Lord Devlin quote to mean that all morality is derived from the society you live in. However, nowhere in that quote did he say that, nor do I say that anywhere in my argument. The argument here is that a society has a collective moral basis (Like the fundamental freedoms written in the constitution that most Americans believe in) otherwise it will not exist for long. For example, if half of America believed in Democracy and half in Dictatorship, then the America as we know it will not exist for long. Eventually, through war or politics, one side will win out and America either has a Dictatorship or a Democracy. A society cannot exist when it has a major split in moral ideals, it simply will not happen. My opponent goes on to say that if a society who values murder as morally good won't last long. This is both completely true and completely irrelevant. It's like responding to "I need food to survive" with "not if that food's poisoned". It's correct, but it doesn't disprove the fact. Contradictory Morals: My opponent says this cannot happen, but unfortunately morality isn't based on logic. If it was, we'd all be much, much better people. Because it isn't based on logic, we contradict ourselves. For example, I morally believe that killing people is wrong, but I also morally believe that killing people in self-defense is right. It's still killing people, which I find wrong, but I believe different things on it. Just like with feeling wearing pink on Wednesday is morally wrong but enforcing it is morally wrong, morals contradict themselves quite often. Natural Selection: My opponent labels the next section under something different, but it still has to do with his arguments in round 1 that has to do with natural selection, so I put them here.Suicide:My opponent states that because suicide includes brain chemisty, then it's impossible for it to happen. However, he completely drops my argument which states that suicide is the brain's way - even if it's often irrational - of ending pain it feels it cannot normally avoid. This happens because of the brain's natural instinct to avoid pain. I had already refuted my argument, but my opponent dropped the argument, and as such it continues to be refuted.My opponent's misunderstanding of this comes from his misunderstanding of natural selection. As I stated in the last round, natural selection is not a bunch of spontaneous miraculous mutations that create perfect beings. If that were so, then there wouldn't be any problems at all, we wouldn't even die because it's counter-productive to humanity. However, as my opponent drops, natural selection takes place over generations and generations of those with inferior genes dying out and leaving those with the genes best fitted to survival, like the long-necked giraffes in my last round.Hatred:My opponent claims that he can't explain hatred in evolutionary terms, so a God must provide it. However, not only can it be explained, but my opponent is making the same far-fetched hypothesis fallacy he made last round by saying "It happens, therefore there's a god who caused it" without proper evidence for the god's existence. Hatred can be explained through natural instinct. As my opponent and I both bring up in the round, Humans have a natural instinct to stay alive, which can be overridden only through a fate which is concieved by the brain as worse than death. Therefore, when we find those who are counter-productive to our existence, such as a school-yard bully or an outside group who competes with resources, we naturally seek to eliminate the source of this counter-productiveness in order for us to continue to leave happily.Even if that's not enough to satisfy my opponent's need for an "evolutionary reason" (a term he did not define), I will simply refer him to the same reason he misunderstood the rest of natural selection. Evolution doesn't work by seeing a problem and automatically fixing it, it works by those with harmful (like the do-dos thinking they could fly) or inadequate (like short-necked giraffes) genes dying out. Not only is hatred not a gene, but it isn't enough of a harmful quality to cause death in those that have it, and so it continues to exist. So it's not that there is an evolutionary reason for it to exist, but there is no evolutionary reason for it to die out.Conclusion:Once again, my opponent jumps to assumptions without proof to prove his case. He has not found a single reason why there is a deity who controls evil, and instead assumes that because he can't explain it it must be made from a deity. This is, as I said before, a jumping to a far-fetched hypothesis fallacy. Works Cited: 1.) http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com... 2.) "That's because although morality is not black-and-white", found in round 2