Mankind is evil

Thank you for your convincing points and moving on from general unconvincing insults. Firstly, By the Earth dying, I mean it becoming a harsh environment very different from what it used to be and no longer able to support most, If not all forms of life. Sorry for not clarifying earlier, But I did not mean killing the Earth in a literal sense. Secondly, I would like to respond to your point on how humans do bad things out of necessity but not evil. This may have been true to a certain extent, But not anymore. Yeah, We do cut down trees for houses and farms, But we also do so because humans need paper. You might say that that is another necessity, But frankly it's not. Despite the ability to reduce paper due to digital methods as well as more environmentally friendly options, People keep using paper probably because of convenience and do not care about what that does to the forests. Not only that, The methods of deforestation are also done sometimes such that the trees may take very long or never grow again, Simply because it is faster. The fact that people will prioritise convenience over saving animals and their habitats, And in the case of those clearing the forests irresponsibly, Over preventing humans from suffering from haze, Shows their evil. We kill animals to survive? There have been way too many vegetarians and vegans(and healthy, Strong ones too) for you to claim you can't survive or grow healthily if you are deprived of meat. Many people have even told me that the reason why they don't become vegetarian is not because they're scared they'll die, It's because "meat is too nice". So, Satisfying some taste buds is more important than the god-knows how many lives they're taking in one lifetime just for food. Moreover, Humans also eat all sorts of animals. Humans can stick to farm animals and maybe some seafood and have enough to eat all the time. But no, Humans need to eat kangaroo, Dog and crocodile meat, Among others. So, Humans eat meat just because they like it and for no better reason, And if that's not evil, What is? Of course, It's not possible to have 0 pollution, But I'll tell you something, It is possible to cut down on pollution by miles. They're causing global warming and blanket countries like India and China in smog. Why's that not changing? Those that have the power to improve factory/power-generating methods are too money-minded. The cost of limiting pollution is, In their eyes, Greater than the Earth becoming more and more uninhabitable and lowering the air quality by miles. "Money is the root of all evil" is pretty much encompassed in this bit of my argument. we test products on animals not because they have fewer rights than humans, But are more helpless than humans. Intellectual and social intelligence are not ways to measure who has more rights as disabled or anti-social people are not viewed as having less rights than other humans. Hence products are tested on animals because they can't protest in the streets, They can't launch a rally, They can't even just tell you to f*** off. Moreover, The number of cases whereby animal testing failed to predict adverse side effects in humans is astounding. Not only is this behaviour extremely unethical, It may even do harm to the first humans that try out the products, So-called certified safe by animal testing. Animal testing causes the loss of life or bad injury to many animals, With the result being the first few humans to try it getting injured or killed too, With only the occasional breakthrough which may or may not justify the immense loss of life and lowering of standard of living that had come before that. Human testing will mean faster, More accurate results with much less loss of life, But probably doesn't proceed because the government/organisations are simply scared of the backlash. I do not think they have ever tried showing how this method may actually save more lives than animal testing in the long run, But are willing to let more die just because they're "afraid". Well that may not be terribly evil, But it still kind of is, Too. Of course humans wouldn't want all the above mentioned impacts/effects to happen, But the fact is, When faced with a price to pay to avoid all these effects, Humans would rather just let it be, Leaving many animals and humans to a terrible fate, Even if the price isn't all that high. I guess that's evil? Of course, These are only a fraction of the human population, But atrocities are on the rise. War has been a constant feature in all the years man has been around, And even now, The Middle East is engulfed in a very complicated "war", And I'm pretty sure wars don't break out because of necessity. Of course you could argue that not all those on one side of the war are bad, But many are. Soldiers may commit atrocities and torture/rape people, And that may be totally unrelated to the big shadow of war that most people see. Nowadays, Sexual harassment, Rape etc are becoming more common, And I don't think that's necessary either. On top of majority of mankind that are already evil, These groups of people take it to the next level of evil, And are starting to make up a bigger portion of mankind. Please do not bring up children next and ask if they're evil. They may be innately evil, But too young to be able to do anything to show it. Am I evil? I think so. I've done and said many things that I should never have and some of my selfish actions that have hurt others are evil too. Lastly, I would like to admit that "mankind is evil" is a sweeping statement, And it may well be impossible to prove that EVERY single human falls into the above categories. But then again, Calling a group of people something(especially the whole world) is bound to produce a very small proportion of people that don't fit into the "generalisation". But I believe that if you are unable to effectively argue against my points and they still stand after this last round, It can be seen that "almost all of mankind" is evil, And that's about as close as I can get to winning the debate. Instead of focusing on the small details like "Ha, Your statement is technically false so you don't win the debate", I implore voters to look at it as "ok, Maybe the motion is sweeping, But in a slightly different version, Who deserves to win the debate? ", And you, The honourable con side, To argue along that line in this final round. It's been a joy debating with you and may the best debater win