Evil does not exist.

Round 2Con believes that my definition of evil is inadequate, so let me provide my source, the English Oxford dictionary.[1] Evil: Profoundly immoral and wicked.I cannot find a source which suggests that evil is defined in the way that my opponent wishes, thus his definitions are in fact, just his opinion of what the word means, not actually factual. Thus my argument holds.Counter argument:Con provides us with a wonderful example of a false analogy:'I can categorize cars between blue and red cars but it doesn't help me determine which cars are fastest. Morality can be based upon secular or religious views but the debate stems on whether people follow this morality or not.'This debate is not about which field of morality we should follow, it is in fact about whether morality can exist at all. My argument is that as morality, and therefore evil, is so subjective, it cannot exist.Although now irrelevant, I'm going to return to one of con's arguments:'The general populace today believes killing a baby is evil. If you intentionally kill a baby, you are a horrible evil monster. However, in Sparta many years ago, if a baby weren't up to a certain standard, they would be tossed off a cliff or abandoned on a nearby hillside. By today's standards, it's considered barbaric and evil. It's irrelevant what the perpetrator thought. Morality is based upon what society think. And, we view the actions by these Spartans as evil.'Con's argument does not ring true for, if it did, then Mothers who go through with abortion would, without exception, be categorised as 'horrible evil monster[s].' This is not widely the case. However, some people do believe that abortion is only carried out by 'evil' people. As some people see it as evil and some don't, then there is no definitive marker for evil, therefore it cannot exist as it is too abstract.Con asserts:'an omnibenevolent God can allow evil to exist to contrast it with good.'I think it is, again, necessary to find a definition.[2] Omnibenevolent: Kind and generous towards everyone and everythingThus an omnibenevolent God would be Kind and generous towards everyone and everything, thus not allowing evil to exist as it would not be kind to allow it to exist.[3]We find this in the bible: Psalm 145:17 The Lord is righteous in all his ways and kind in all his works.Thus suggesting that God is omnibenevolent, you now have evidence for it.I don't wish to make this debate a debate about the reasons behind the holocaust, however: [4] 'The Nazis believed that exterminating the Jews was justified because the Jews were not only a 'low' and 'evil' race, but were affecting the lives of the Germans negatively. Hitler and the Nazis blamed them for all the social and economic problems in Germany'[5] 'The Germans, like the Poles, Austrians, French, Croats, Slovaks, Ukrainians, Lithuanians and others, were all taught, almost from the moment they could understand language, that Jews were evil, that they worked together with the Devil (indeed were minions of the devil), that they were bent on defiling the Christian mind, taking over the economies of the world to enslave Christians... Thus, long before the time when the Nazis came to power in 1933, the various peoples of Europe already viscerally hated Jews.Con's point of view about the Nazi's is simply his own opinion, with no factual evidence to back it up. There were, in fact, many reasons for the holocaust, but the incredible amount of European anti-semitism at the time played a large part in it.Ironically, my quote from source 5 also helps to prove my point about the abstract concept of 'evil.' Europeans were largely taught that Jews were 'evil.' Evil here can be seen to be used to seperate one group of individuals from another. The word itself does not refer to a real attribute of the Jews, but simply used to seperate 'them' from 'us.' They're 'evil' and we're not. What does the term really mean? It means that one group of individuals wants to imagine that another group of individuals is inherently different from the normal. What is the normal, you may ask? It is subjective. What is normal for a man born in 16th century Britain may be different from 'normal' for a man in 6th century Britain. Normal can be defined as: conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected. Which is all very well and good, but as that standard changes based upon culture, religion, time period, etc, it is reasonable to assume that 'normal' in and of itself, cannot be pinned down and labelled, for it is constantly changing. Thus, 'normal' does not exist in a definitive form, thus neither can evil.Sources:[1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2]http://www.collinsdictionary.com...;[3]http://biblehub.com...;[4]http://www.sahistory.org.za...;[5]http://www.sixmillioncrucifixions.com...