No-one can be purely good or bad

Hmm. I thank my opponent for his quick response.I shall start with refutations.PRO explains that most people will not see everything about you, and therefore they cannot judge you as 'good' or 'bad'1) Some stereotypically bad things, such as killing another human being, can be justified in the eyes of society. This is mainly due to intent and the circumstances in which the killing occured. Similarly, swearing can be justified if it is being used for a good cause. For example, if Person "X" was going to set off a bomb in a heavily crowded area, and requested that one person cuss out loud and harm his own reputation, harm society, and harm the english language in order for him to disarm the bomb (although it is unlikely), a person carrying out these actions would be reasonable. In fact, one would even call him/her heroric/brave to do such an act in front of a crowd and save their lives.2) Furthermore, you cannot base a image or perception of a person based on one single aspect. When trying to determine if someone is 'good' or 'bad' people may take into other, outside factors. Once again, there is not information to make a good judgement.PRO claims that even Jesus could have sworn, stolen, etc.1) Good or bad is completely subjective. If one day Christians discover that Jesus lived a life of 'stealing', perhaps they could justify stealing this way. "We are following the path of our lord." At that point, stealing would no longer be 'bad'.2) All of your situations are only possibilities.3) Once again, some bad actions can still be justified. If Jesus stole something from the Devil, in order to stop a terrible 'evil', wouldn't that be 'good'?4) People are judged by society and what society is led to believe about them. What they don't know is completely irrelevant - it's what they do know.PRO claims that Ghandi could have done morally unnacceptable things.1) This is argueable. But one must speculate that at one point in his life, he must have had a point when he had pure feelings. I've never stated that Ghandi hasn't done anything wrong in his life, and the definitions don't imply that he must continue to do 'good' things for the entirety of his life.My opponent claims that Ghandi should not be seen as more 'good' then average humans.1) He has done many 'right' things and has avoided doing wrong, even in situations that the average person may have done wrong. He is a figure of 'excellence' and many people look up to him. On the other hand, most people have no heard about what you or me have done - and any good actions we have committed are more than likely 'average' acts.My opponent argues the Problem of Evil to claim that God does not exist.1) One has to know evil in order to understand it's counterpart. Evil must exist for man to know what goodness is.2) Perhaps God wished for us to have free will, and to give us some freedom.3) you cant uderstand his intentions4) God, from what I can tell, wants you to show face in the face of evil."And therefore will the LORD wait, that He may be gracious unto you, and therefore will He be exalted, that He may have mercy upon you. For the LORD is a God of judgment; blessed are all they that wait for Him."--Isaiah 30:18 [1]Furthermore."The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."--2 Peter 3:9 [2]**Lol, I'm an atheist, yet I'm arguing for the existance of God. Your a theist, but you're trying to say God doesn't exist. Oh, the irony.My opponent claims that if God make a boulder so big he cannot lift it, it would defeat the object of omnipotence.1) A rock that can’t be lifted is self-contradictory - it cannot exist. By definition, all objects that have mass can be lifted.2) God cannot break the laws of logic as that these laws stem from his very nature. It's like asking "Can God be different than who He is" When a person claims that God is omnipotent, they do not mean that he can do anything. We mean that God can do anything that is logically possible.My opponent claims that Hitler must have at least done one good thing in his life.1) This is uncertain - there is no evidence.2) Society sees Hitler as an example of 'pure evil'.==New arguments==1) Being good or being bad is completely subjective. Perhaps one day humans will develop the perception that simply by being a human, you are therefore good. In that case, all humans would be purely good. Furthermore, all being that are not human would be purely bad.2) Some humans are born like a 'clean slate'. One could argue that this is an example of being only "good" - there are no evil thoughts in these humans.3) Some humans are born evil. A study found that genes are key in a child's chances of becoming 'bad' [3]. Behavioral problems are imprinted on a child's DNA.=====I draw my arguments to a close. I await your response.Sources:[1] http://www.biblegateway.com...[2] http://www.biblegateway.com...[3] http://www.geneticsandsociety.org...