(ELO) Compassion is a more worthwhile human trait than intelligence

Resolved: Compassion is a more worthwhile human trait than intelligence. Compassion defined as "sympathetic pity" by the pro has a negative connotation. Without compassion we as a society would be worse off. Contention One. Compassion is the human trait which allows people to help eliminate pain and suffering. Compassion is not only a human ability is it rampant thought out the animal kingdom. If compassion was as useless as the Con suggests evolution would have dealt away with it long ago. The reason compassion sticks around is due to the Achilles heel of people, being social. Humans are naturally social animals regardless of who you are. Intelligence will make for great conversation and may help with decision making but people are incapable of being solely intelligent. Due to our nature instincts to talk to our friends, family, even the occasional stranger compassion assists in getting to know a person to create social bonds. Without some sort of connection to people we have no reason to use intellect to help fellow humans other than to just make it livable. These social bonds are what create our world whether it a good friend or two nations. Compassion does play a role within our world and it is between nations. The helping of a foreign nation in need is an act of compassion that has great benefit because it helps create the social bond which also assists in making the world more livable. A decision calculus may not always account for the reaction of a nation due to not assisting them because it does not favor us enough. It is also a action of greed. Contention Two. Compassion has a larger role in ethics and morality than my opponent lets on. Compassion is a crux in morality. Morals as defined by Oxford - concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. To argue that intelligence is more favorable than morals leads to the idea of nihilism. The difference between right and wrong allow for people to feel compassion for the victim of wrong actions. Claiming that moral norms are valid subjectivity is true. One society will differ from another society. Claiming intelligence supersedes compassion in this realm is unsupported. A society different from my opponent and myself may live by their norms and not intelligence. I will even go as far to say such society's may even lack intelligence. No intelligence means compassion trumps. Contention Three. Compassion plays a significant role in politics. Regardless of what either of us think about intelligence not all people are capable of thinking critically. Within the political realm compassion can make or break politicians. Being in an office of power which is there to help the people, being solely intellectual based will harm the people it is there to assist. My opponent could argue that politicians are all corrupt with compassion, but with intellect base he or she would only help him or herself. An intellectual will only look out for ones self over the interest of the people. In summation; Compassion is an inalienable human trait that has not been eradicated from evolution. Compassion leads to social bonds that may help everyone whether it person to person or nation to nation. Compassion without politics will leads to a more hurtful government than Socialism. Purely intellectual thought leads to nihilism. Due to word count I suggest round three be rebuttals only I pass it on to my opponent.