Generally we cannot simply accused someone as evil without justifications of the evil acts they have committed.
However if a person consistently and persistently commit acts of evil [as defined] then we can state the person is evil as qualified to the evidence of the acts of evil s/he has committed.
Therefore there is no issue and most people will agree Hitler was an evil person as qualified to the evil [as defined] acts he had committed.
So it is because of their evil [as defined] acts that we can state a person is evil.
As for the individual who has not committed any acts of evil [as defined], we cannot state such an individual will become evil based on speculations.
However we can not deny the fact that a percentile of all humans are born with an active tendency to commit evil acts and violence because it is a fact based on evidence that SOME human did commit evil acts and violence.
The question is were these actual acts of evil and violence based on Nature factors or Nurture factors.
I have demonstrated they are influenced by both ‘Nature’ and ‘Nurture’ factors.
Arminius and James S Saint insist evil acts are only caused by ‘Nuture’ factors. Such views are based on ignorance of human nature.
If they insist on the cause of evil as only due to ‘Nurture’ factors and ignore the ‘Nature’ factors they will never be able to resolve the evil acts of human in the future.