Evil Proves The Existence of An Evil God

I'll use my opponent's sections to save time, and I'll do my best to point out the gross amounts of arguments dropped throughout the round. Morality Need Not Be 100% Objective Or Not At All:Yes, I stated that if everybody in a society agrees that murder is a morally good action, society will be destroyed, but that was in a sarcastic manner used to illustrate how far-fetched my opponent's claims need to be to work, as I demonstrated in the following sentence with "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.", which my opponent conveniently forgot. I did not at all concede that this was morally wrong however, because - if my opponent didn't notice - throughout my entire argument I've been pointing out that there are several different moralities, each one with their own system of right and wrong.He continues to say that's like saying there's no "objective" disease using my logic, but this shoud show you how much my opponent is grasping at straws. Diseases are facts that are right in front of our eyes, moralities are feelings that differ from person to person. That is not at all an accurate comparison.My opponent does not at all prove that there is an objective morality, he simply states that which causes pain and suffering is "evil", but he doesn't prove that it will be always evil all the time. Robin Hood stole from the rich and made them suffer, was he evil? The allies bombed Germany to rid them of the Nazis and made the civilians suffer, were they evil? That's why you cannot look at morality as black-and-white, and why it is not an objective standpoint.The Nazis Conception of "Evil" Was Wrong:My opponent completely drops my arguments here. I brought up how both sides thought the other was evil, and he simply responds with "one side was evil". He drops EVERYTHING I said about the Nazi conception of morality, and so drops the objective morality argument, and the argument that if there are different evils there are different evil gods, which each spread good through spreading evil that another could find good, and so he loses the debate. On Suicide:I didn't misinterperet it, Pro clearly said that because it has to do with brain chemistry then we would adapt and become immune, leading to suicide being impossible. He even backs it up in his argument ni this section -_-. Extend all dropped arguments about suicide not having to do with natural selection, because he dropped all of them. Natural Instinct to Avoid Pain:At least here he attempts to address some arguments. My opponent continues to argue - through his incomplete knowledge of natural selection - that a human would naturally want to avoid death at all costs. This is normally true, but my opponent is acting as though suicide is a choice. Often times, people commit suicide not because they think "hey, this is a good idea", but because they see no other option due to their stress or pain-ridden minds. Even animals commit suicide, and unless my opponent wants to suggest that non-sentient creatures can process moral decisions or even hold morality, this should show that it's not a moral matter [1].He goes on to say that with all these different cultures, at least one would have "taken advantage" of being immunized form suicide. This is false for two reasons, 1.) Natural Immunization (not through vaccine) is not a choice, it just happens, you can't choose to "take advantage" of it, and 2.) It doesn't prove that someone's prevented us from natural selection, because - and I've said this repeatedly - it's not natural selection . Natural selection doesn't breed out every single thing that could cause death. As my opponent dropped, if this were true, we'd be invincible. However, I'm glad that my opponent brought up suicide by culture, because it helps reinforce my case of societal morality. It's a good way to show how different cultures can be brought up to morally accept different things, because some societies view things as so wrong that you can't redeem yourself. If there were an evil god causing this, we would all share these views, and we could see suicide rates similar to Japan across the world, where 31,690 people commited suicide last year alone[2]. If an evil god causes this in all humans, and morality is objective, why don't we see similar suicide rates in all countries?My opponent tries to show how depression would be bred out if natural selection occurs, but once again incomplete knowledge of the subject prevents him from doing so successfully. Although there are certain people who are more prone to depression, depression is purely psychological and can happen to anyone in existence. Senior Psychiatrist Dr. Shaheen Saiyed states: "My patients often come and say...“I feel worthless. Why should I live? There is no meaning to my life. No one is good to me. I can’t handle this. I am responsible for this. I don’t have guts to face the world.” All negativity related to ‘I, me and mine’. That’s the reality of depression, a bio-psycho-social illness affecting 25 to 35 per cent of individuals in that age group from 9 to 75, in any given time, all over the world. Can depression affect me? Yes, anybody can get depression." [3] It isn't just some gene to be bred out, simply because depression =/= death. Sure, it makes you more prone to suicide, but because it's not a gene, we can't stop it from happening. "Caveman B" did not "lose" in natural selection, because -again- IT'S NOT NATURAL SELECTION.Negotiation V. War.My opponent takes my example of hating the schoolyard bully and compares to a scenario where there are two tribes with completely equal people and plentiful resources, and where neither side threatens the other. Although it would be nice if that's what happened in the real world, it's not a comparable scenario. It in no way counters hating someone who's counter-productive to your survival.If we all could live without fear of others or going hungry or losing resources, then 9 times out of 10 we simply wouldnt' have war. However, that doesn't happen in the real world. The only reason the Germans joined the Nazi party is because they were starving and their economy was in collapse, and the Nazis provided a way to get them out - through warfare. In their eyes, that and genecide -for the upper echelon of the Nazis who knew about the genecide - was legitimately the way to survive and pass on their genes. They thought that the Jews threatened their existence, and so sought to kill them to pass on their genes. And that should answer the question "how does cruelty help pass on genes?" because the Nazis and others feel that to survive, they need to kill others. And according to my opponent's own argumentation, humans try to pass on their own genes.Once again, violence is not a gene. There are some people who use it more than others, but this is not a trait that makes you die, so natural selection would not occcur.Hate:Running out of characters so I'll make this quick.My opponent's first paragraph is false because many people detest those who are different because they feel like they threaten their way of life. Because their way of life is what kept them breeding and passing on genes, they want to protect it. That is the natural reason why hating different people works.As I showed earlier, the Holocaust was "survival-based hatred" as my opponent puts it. Diversion of resources was an unintended side effect. You can also look to the paragraph above this to show why some hate people who are different.For half of my opponent's argument, he bases it on something he doesn't understand. For the other half, he makes unrealistic jumps to a deity.Works Cited:1.) http://news.discovery.com...2.) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...3.) http://www.navhindtimes.in...