The existence of evil proves God must exist

My opponent has no substantiated premise. It seems like he has given up, Vote Con. I will spend this round killing all of his arguments that were based on nothing. Please enjoy. #1. "That is true. The opinion of whether something is right or wrong varies from person to person, society to society, but still nearly every person believes that stealing from them is wrong. .. .. .but if you were to steal from them, or harm them, or treat them negatively in any way, they would surely say you were wrong for doing so. "Has my opponent studied every single individual in human history? How does he know that "nearly every person believes that stealing from them is wrong? " Did my opponent provide any evidence? No, this was a baseless assumption. My opponent did not even offer us a single study or any stats related to this. Even if he did I would refute it. My opponent did not support what he said with any evidence whatsoever. #2. "As my opponent has already fulfilled Godwin's Law"I refuted this in Round 2, it was an inappropriate use of Godwin's Law. #3. "German soldiers had no problem with murdering Jews, but when Russians raped their women, they viewed that as wrong, or evil. "This is an unsubstantiated claim. How does Pro know that the German soldiers who killed Jews were upset when Russians raped "their" women? #4. "Southern plantation owners may have viewed their cruel treatment of slaves as ok, but if someone stole one of their slaves, they viewed that as wrong. "How does my opponent know all Southern plantation owners felt this way? Pro didn't even show us how one single slave owner felt this way either. This is a generalization and based on nothing. #5. "Both people groups committed action which we would declare heinous, but they approved of, but both groups still believed certain things were wrong. "Who is "we? " I never stated my opinions one way or the other. Also how does Pro know they "believed certain things were wrong? " He doesn't know, he has just assumed. #6. "I challenge my opponent to find one society in all of world history that has no concept of right and wrong, or good and evil. "Not my claim to defend, I did not assert all civilizations believed in evil nor did I make such a generalization. My opponent claimed "evil" existed in all civilizations, therefore he must prove it. My opponent has the burden of proof, not I[1]. It is clear he has not intention of proving it. I would even state emphatically that he does not have the capacity to prove it as well. [1]. http://www.nizkor.org... #8. "Even Nazi Germany belived in evil"You have not proved that Nazi Germany believed in evil. #9. "What I did prove is that all civilizations believe in evil"No, you did not prove that all civilizations believe in evil. You have only shown 2 segments of civilizations believe in "evil," he Antebellum South and German soldiers. Essentially, my opponent showed 2 examples and extradited these examples on all societies. How does 2 segements of 2 civilizations equate to all civilizations having evil? It doesn't. My opponent has committed a hasty generalization fallacy[2]. [2]. http://www.nizkor.org... #10. "If it is recognizable that evil does exist (even if your definition of it is different that the person next to you) then we are aware that the world is not the way that it should be. "Pro has not shown one iota of evidence that substantiates the existence of "evil. " My opponent has not substantiated what the "we" either in his claim. pro has not proven what the world should be or not be. I have clearly exposed Pro for wasting our time. Why do I say that you wonder? Notice, not a single one of Pro's arguments are substantiated by any evidence. We are left with baseless assumptions. Far as I am concerned, we should be discussing if the dream Pro had last not was true. Why? It is simple, he is the only person who can see the dream, we can not. None of Pro's claims can be verified. I have negated each one of his claims for trying to push his assumptions onto the readers and I. My opponent offered us assumptions all the rounds he argued and I have offered nothing but refutations and throwing out his fallacious claims.