With the Development of Intellegence comes the Inherent Advancement of Evil

1) The Con blindly claims that I acknowledge no evidence to my theory, but fails to investigate the means by which the advancement of evil through acquired intelligence can be proven (on which I will shortly expand) 1a) It need not be proven that Humans are Inherently Evil, even if humans are inherently good, ideas showing that they are becoming more evil and exhibiting more evil motives are certainly valid. Judging by the juxtaposition of the prevalence of war and lack of compassion shown throughout human history with the good intentions and sacrifices also examined in the moral historical records of human beings, humans inherently posess both good and evil inside of us, but the question remains which side is progressing faster. 2a) + 3a) Any evidence that the presence of evil has remained the same while the means have increased and motive has decreased due to the advancement in technology thereby showing evil and greed (see Pro pt.1 R2) is JUST AS VALID, IF NOT MORE VALID than any evidence that the evils themselves are increasing (which, as previously stated is impossible due to external factors considering that often, the frequency of war and other such conflicts are indicative of the severity, and therefore motive, of each skirmish as decreased, making it an innaccurate measure of the advancement of evil) 2) The Pro still fails to recognize that there are two ways to test the advancement of evil, but only one that is truly feasable as evidence of this theory: 1a) Showing that violence has remained relatively constant throughout history but the need for violence for the purposes of survival (due to advanced technology and intelligence) has decreased shows that it is only inherent evil and greed fueling the continued cruelty. 2a) Showing that the occurences of evil have increased (which is invalid due to the reasons in my previous Pro subpts.2a+3a, R3 seen above) Subpt.2a requires the factors of severity, motive, and psyche to be analyzed and taken out of the equation (a total impossibility unless the Con can provide some substantial means of doing so). I am, therefore indeed NOT contradicting myself in that I am saying that Subpt.1a for which I originally advocated is solid evidence, considering that compiled lists of wars as well as the rate of violence in advanced countries such as the United States have had little fluctuation in the past centuries (Dept. of Defense and the Heritage Foundation 1990). Also, adressing Con's second point, sports came around only shortly after the development of sophisticated hunting and is in no way a substitute for evil intentions as evidenced by the occurences of war. 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 agression seen in sports is not a substantive argument to refute the advancement of evil through developed intelligence. Concerning the Con's additional point, nowhere did the Pro state that "violence is the only war to demonstrate greed). Violence is in no way expressly stated in the resolution, but simply an example used in these rounds. So, that being said, I absolutely agree with the Con's idea that cheating, theft, and other actions most certainly demonstrate human's selfish desires. 2) Adressing the Con's idea that the Incan Massacre was for the purpose of 1) demonstrating superiority and 2) ensuring procreation is untrue from a practical standpoint. The Spanish, as previously stated, may very well have enslaved the population while negotiating and treating them with respect (yes, the Incan's and Spanish were somehow able to communicate as evidenced by the articulated requirements of emporer Atahuallpa's ransom). This also would have yeilded greater prosperity to themselves and their young due to the profits from slave/min.-wage labors. This also would have established dominance to demonstrate their superiority. The Spanish certainly had enough knowledge to see the economic feasability of this option, which would have enabled them to gain my minimizing the evil of their actions, and thus it remains that they simply chose not to. According to the definition accepted by both the Pro and Con, survival entails "enduring under adverse circumstances", meaning that yes, survival instincts come into play in threatening situations (and in regards ot the Con's example, yes, hunger is in theory an internal feedback mechanism that is telling you that you will die in a matter of weeks if you don't eat). To demonstrate superiority for no beneficial reason by massacring a population less sophisticated than one's own therefore exemplifies evil more so than survival. 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 (the idea of which I have already adressed in my Pro pt.1 R3) 3) The Pro's animal examples are a Cherry-picked variety of all the animals that inhabit the Earth. Wolves, for example, ended up killing due to a likely testosterone hype that they are not as able to control as Humans are; the killing off of Coyotes in Yellowstone also has to do with competition for resources, not sport. Most importantly, recognize that the Con's examples of the Wolves(wolf), Porpoise and Killer Whale(Dolphin varieties), and Chimpanzees(our closest primatal relatives) are in the Top 5 along with Humans as THE MOST INTELLIGENT ANIMALS ON THE PLANET EARTH according to every source that I have come across. This idea must flow towards the Pro, because even these few examples given by the Con all show superiority of intelligence correlating directly to evil behavior. 4) 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. As evidenced by the previous point, intelligent animals have a tendancy to act on the first option rather than the second. And in regards to the capitalistic argument, the idea of capitalism is giving someone something in return for a profit on a level playing field. Intelligence allows for ways around this system through abuse and exploitation (i.e. Madoff) There is an obvious distinction between putting your life's work into making profit from a grocery store and killing the store owner and taking his money. 5) Again the Con makes assumptions as to the limitations of the resolution at hand. No where does it say that it is expressly humans that are being discussed and that it is only humans that are greedy. Humans are simply the best example because it is easier to track both their intellectual and violent progress, and that they are the most intelligent animals on Earth. Other intelligent species, as proven by the Con, in fact, are also greedy. So contrary to the Con, I have provided adequate proof that intelligent animals are more likely to be greedy, overly selfish, and evil(Con pt.3 R2 and Pro pt.3 R3). 6) Nuclear intelligence has absolutely promoted evil! The Con is actually 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 afterwards in fact prevents evil. Although nations are cautious as to the power of Nuclear Technology, it is the most obvious means to ultimate immorality, and thus will inherently spur evil beleifs and ideas. The development of intelligence has indeed shown direct correllation to the advancement of evil in many instances. Instances such as brutal war and calamitous technology is the strongest case for this idea. But luckily, the Pro has faith that the human race, knowledgeable of this fact, can proceed to evaluate it's actions and provide hope for our future. Seeing as the Pro has effectively refuted and turned the Con's points in negation, I strongly urge an affirmative vote. Thank you Con!!