You do not believe in evil, and are prevaricating around the bush as much as possible to avoid the subject.

I don't believe in evil? So exactly where did I say what I believe or which statement that I made expresses or implies that notion?

A person with conscience can still do evil, as you argued, albeit unintended or even tricked or coerced or threatened into it, a person can be compromised in numerous ways, and a person without conscience is a fiction, every person has varying degrees of evil and indifference and varying degrees of altruism, empathy and compassion, and their inner self can be both evil and good and their actions being justified by their inner self is inconsequential either way.

Here is the definition of conscience, it has nothing to do with altruism, empathy or compassion, but all with the inner guide or feeling which I don't see how you can exclude that from what constitutes being a person.

noun
noun: conscience; plural noun: consciences
an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior.

They have to be heavily propagandised (those evil nazis) and still they can't go as far.

You just argued that they cannot do that and turned around and declared that they simply can't go as far.

And this is nothing, read some books on what narcissists have done to their children. Emotional abuse that almost everyone I talk to about it does their best to change the subject and continue to ignore the possibility that it exists.

What's your argument here? That people are capable of some evil acts?
We can agree on that, but I said that, and I repeat:

.. there are people out there capable of evil and good, and not necessarily purely evil. Their conclusion could very well be that there aren't purely evil people like there aren't purely good people, but degrees.