Evil and it's opposite, righteous, are words with religious conotations.. I prefer the words, good and bad... People aren't bad or good, their behaviors and thoughts can be, but not the person...

Your “A. Evil is a bad thing.” confuses a thing with a word for that thing.

Religious doctrine attaches the word “evil” to what the religion’s leaders dislike, and the word “good” to what those leaders like.

Evil as an entity doesn’t exist, it’s a fabrication of supernatural thought and religious dogma, and cannot therefore be used as a noun. Only actions by people can be evil, making its correct usage that of an adjective, and interchangeable with synonyms such as wicked, heinous and bad. Looked at rationally, the word “evil“ should hold no extra fear or meaning beyond any other condemnatory word we use to describe human behaviour.

I don’t see the world in good and evil, that I reserve for how I like or dislike things, activities, and situations. It’s just a personal choice.
What’s going on now is both a lack of mental health care and a lack of perception and judgment on the part of the public.
It’s not evil, it’s sad and unnecessary and I’ll concede that the isolation and frustration and grief are evil. 🦹‍

Wow, so much confusion, so little time.

I'm not sure that 'evil' has a universally accepted definition.

Since the whole concept of evil is subjective, both one and two are false.

What sometimes happens with people is they can be persuaded to turn off their capacity folr higher cognitive reasoning and behave like chimpanzees. There are a number of consequences of this, but the one which I suspect is bothering you at the moment is how chimpanzees resolve leadership struggles. Chimp leaders, like human ones, can be good or bad, and bad ones are more likely to face frequent leadership challenges, but when the chips are down and a leadership challenge has been made, chimps don't pick the most moral leader, they pick the one they think will win, and back them like their life depends on it (which it might well do). This can mean the biggest, strongest leader, but also the one with the most followers. At the moment people have been largely herded into bubbles by social media, so that every day they encounter lots of voices supporting one particular leader, so that one they support. Like their lives depend on it.

"Evil" is a very broad and vague term. What I consider "evil" and another person considers "evil" can be quite different and can vary based on circumstances. We both might agree that murder is evil, but we might not both agree that capital punishment is evil and we might both agree that killing someone who breaks into your home is not evil.

And what exactly makes something evil? Is it the act itself that is evil? Is a person evil? Can an object (book, movie, etc) be evil?

IMHO evil is a descriptor much like beauty. Both only exist in the eye (opinion) if the beholder.

Very much depends on your definition of evil, it is a very sloppy and subjective word that has like many others been hijacked by religion to literally cover a multitude of "sins".
Evil cannot be the opposite of good because again good is so poorly and subjectively defined.
It is not precisely synonymous (no pun intended) with "Bad" or Wicked" or "Mischievous" or "naughty".
Evil is more of a personal concept of that which is personally derogatory or dangerous or has deliberate negative intent against the life, well being or personal preferences of the individual making the assessment or in this case something perceived as negatively impacting on life and wellbeing generally of those living in a state of mutually approved and defined normality.
Evil like good, perfection and right and wrong is more of a concept, you know it when you see it, but often it will not be universally accepted as such.

The battle between pro-life and Pro-choice movements is a prime example with each side decrying the other as the very epitome of evil, and yet with both sides completely agreeing with the merits of their opponents stand point in ANY OTHER context.

People claim that evil is not real. I see lots of evil going on right now and I say this without any religious indications. When you make it hard for others to survive you are evil.

prove that he wasn't wrong, your word for it is zero evidence.

A and B are correct for the huge majority of people.
But...
You overlooked the definition of evil that can change from person to person.
Make this exercise:
A) Start a discussion with the premises that:
A1) The other person is smart
A2) The other person wants to improve the world

B) Then you can start asking, trying to discover and understand (yep, this needs an effort mainly if you disagree with the person) what is the model of world that that person thinks is the objective.

C)Do you agree with the model of world that that person thinks is the objective?
If no: Discuss the model of world, because discussing if an action, politician, law etc is discussing the top when you disagree in the basis.
Is telling that I am wrong to paint the room Yellow because it is getting far from Blue, when I WANT the room yellow

If Yes:
D) Ask and understand the strategies and the line of thought that that person thinks will bring this better model of world closer.

At this point you will see that sometimes you want the same end, you just disagree on the way to do it.

The countries that are doing well in the world are the ones that agree of the final objective and discuss and negotiate how to get there.
The countries that are being polarized are the ones where politicians convinced population that they want completely different models of society when the population in general wants very similar stuff and disagree basically on the strategies on how to achieve that.

With this exercise you will see that people are not evil, they just believe in different ways to do good.
This does not mean that everyone is correct. There can be errors, mistakes, strategies that are proved to not work, prejudices on the premises that once removed will unblock the views etc...

But identify where is the precise disagreement is the first step. Label the other person evil and go full war with them is the recipe to do nothing other than make politicians happy.

I think Machiavelli made a pretty good argument for it. It depends what your goals are and how you want to achieve them.

But some people think YOU'RE evil, probably the same people YOU think are evil.
That's what religions and ideologies of all descriptions are all about.
Any 'belief system' has its enemies who denounce it as 'evil.'

“...a deep-seated death wish for both oneself and all of humanity.” BINGO, on my card..

The USA is one of few nations whose standard of living has been reduced. An unbearable fact to those clinging to ‘life as they knew it’ ... or sold that it ‘should be.’ Imagine, all that’s seen on TV & Movies being taken away before ‘you get there!’

Who to blame? Big money can give you a target, take your pick: Environmentalists, Social advocates, Atheists, Educators, Scientists, Liberals, Foreigners, the young, the old… Evil recruits.

I’ve wanted to photograph & post any number of decaying single-wides with ‘trump’ signs out front … but have feared being shot taking the photo. ‘Trailer Trash for trump’ crosses my mind. Why? ..why would those with little.. vote to have even less..? -- to keep those above from getting any.

They’ll never achieve what the media says they should. They’ve given up trying, are ready to die -- but desperately want others to suffer and die with them.. Desperate, ignorant evil is easily cultivated - and The Republicans knew/ow it.

I also tend to assume that my possible interlocutors have been paying attention. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa maxima...

If someone or something could be described with an oxymoron, which are they, good or evil?

The evil good ...
Or, the good evil ...

But it's not evil if it's to your advantage. This is the subjective morality by which the human brain operates.

Theoretically, it's wrong to take advantage of others; but confront someone with evidence that they're taking advantage of others lower down on the economic ladder, and the response will be, "I'm just doing what the system allows," or "If they worked harder they'd be better off too." The brain has built-in filters that paint our own behavior in a positive light, and other peoples' in a more negative light; so that the wealthy see poor people using the Earned Income Credit as "gaming the system" and "too lazy to work", while the poor see the rich as "cheating the system" and "not paying their fair share". Both may be doing the same thing- following a tax code built by competing interests to achieve conflicting ends. Neither one is trying to hurt the other. But they subjectively see each other as an enemy, and therefore "evil".

That's just one example. I'm sure others could occur- police vs protesters, liberals vs conservatives, cats vs dogs. Most of us are the same as who we see as our opposites- just trying to feed ourselves, pay the bills, and hoping tomorrow will be better than today.

How does anyone clearly and unambiguously define a concept such as 'evil?'
Any concept relies and depends for its meaning/definition, mostly, on things like the Social Norms of the time, the linguistic nuances and variations in usage at the time, the opinions of those making the concept and the definition, and, of course the religious connotations as well.
For example, what we see as the 'evil' wrought upon others by Islamic Fundamentalism, etc, they see as 'doing what their god and prophet want to be done.'
Christians, for most/some part, see 'evil' as being ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that is NOT acceptable or prescribed in or by the bible,
Socially we see what we call 'evil' as anything harmful, immoral, socially unacceptable, unethical and criminal in nature.
Personally, I see anything and everything that is NOT harmful, immoral, unethical, etc, a matter of choice and conscience to be made by the person/s involved, i.e. homosexuality, nudism, etc.
So, precisely who's definition of what is 'evil' can be proven to 100% correct and who's can be proven 100% wrong?

I don't see anything wrong with A, and I don't see how "...both history and the condition of these disunited States at this time.." show that most people disagree with it. What I think it shows instead is that people disagree as to what it is that is bad and should not be supported. Some think it's capitalism, some think it's communism, etc.

The person or persons that are doing evil, and by that it greatly depends on the social environment and rules of the society in which one finds evils interpretation, does not know that what they are doing is evil. In many cases, they believe that they are right in their actions to accomplish their goals.

The philosophical error you make is you assume most people now do not agree that evil is wrong. The condition of the United States is better described as split, not evil.

When people think they’re doing the right thing, but are behaving in an extraordinarily harmful way...
it may not be an argument against A, but does demonstrate we are half a chromosome away from a chimpanzee and prefer to give into acting on emotion rather than reason most times.
There is a psychological point also though, where humans have a sudden impulse to jump from high places, it’s called the “High Place Phenomenon”...