Religion is, in general, beneficial for society

Alrighty. First on to definitions: "my definition comes from the dictionary. Con cannot change the dictionary definition of a word to suit his position." My opponents response to my definition. The supernatural is by DEFINITION what religious people believe in. Later on in her case, my opponent says that science is based on the NATURAL. Bing! Contradiction. Therefore, you prefer my definition because with this argument my opponent contradicts herself. On my opponents first argument, where my opponent says that entire communities are based on religion or worship. That isn't an argument. That just says, these communities exist. NO BENEFITS OR IMPACTS, therefore not applicable. 2. A) Yoga is an exercise form. Therefore, the benefits are gained out of the EXERCISE, not the belief itself. You can do yoga just as well without believing in a god. B/C) Ok. My opponent makes this argument a wash. A wash is where both sides claim two positions and these essentially cancel each other out. I don't have a burden. My opponent needs to make burdens clear in her first speech, not her rebuttal. 3. My opponent specifically states that the benefits and impacts come from interaction within religious groups and circles. So, if people don't attend, no more impacts. My opponent dodges this argument. Unless religious people have a psychokinetic link to all other religious people, they cannot communicate if they don't meet. 4. Ok. This point is completely fallacious on Pro's part. This comparison between politics and religion is soooo flawed its not even funny. First, politics don't cause someone to SUICIDE ATTACK ISRAEL BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWISH. Politics cause wars yes, but these wars are based on rational motivations. B) Problem. Serial killers are individuals. The extremist groups are groups, and they take a huge number of lives each year. These groups have just as much of an effect on society as helpful religious people. And my opponent funnily enough, doesn't address the harms of extremist groups, just says that they are "the extreme few". C)Actually, this is once again a total misaddressed point. I'm saying that mixing religion with science is not compatible. My opponent says separation can handle it. Well, this doesn't address the point that RELIGION IS ALREADY TRYING TO HARM SCIENCE. Stem cell research is just one example where religious people want to stop scientific advance. 5. The gumption of using extremists to represent religion as a whole? Of course not. I'm stating that extremists have a huge impact and kill a great many people. This is intolerance. THIS NEXT BIT IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT! As we are arguing "Religion is, in general, beneficial for society", this means what does religion provide that we cannot provide normally. WE CAN GIVE AID TO AFRICA WITHOUT RELIGION! We cannot have Islamic extremist groups without religion. 6. RIGHT HERE. Contradiction number 3. My argument is that science measures the natural, and religion measures the supernatural. Well will you look at that! My opponent agrees. Because the two use different tools to measure different things, they cannot mix. And to say that religion is a part of evolution is just complete BS. How in any possible way does belief in something supernatural mix with a purely natural theory. Whoops. IT DOESNT! 7. Ummmm.... I addressed. Look to my argument to my opponents third point. 8. Opponent doesn't address my response, so she loses this point. MY CASE: WHAT THE HELL! Because I'm not citing any sources, I'm plaigarizing. Thats like saying, look you have blood on your T-shirt, you murdered someone! This idea about living in very oppressed areas is total crap too. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT POLITICALLY OPPRESSED! So on to the argument about how politics are the primary part in all these endeavors. So first, my opponent says the Crusades were a minority. FAIL. The Crusades consisted of a huge number of Christians. So if it was primarily politics, then why pray tell (excuse the pun) did the warriors wear crosses on their shield, pray before each battle, and viciously massacre any man, woman and child that wasn't Christian? The answer is it wasn't primarily politics. My opponent doesn't address the harms I mention here, so those stay as a firm argument in my favor. I am so not dramatizing Al-Qaeda. It affects thousands upon thousands of families each year, and is a huge security threat to the world. The only argument my opponent brings against the cults argument is that it is fallacious and abusive to over dramatize the minority. It is not, not when they affect a great number of people, and not when their existence is tied to religion, without which they would not exist. Hasty generalizations? I think not. Perverseness in religion is much more pronounced than perverseness in the media. As in, the media doesn't kill people. Religion has, and continues to. My opponent does not address the last part of my case, which states: "Finally, I want to state that my case argues the resolution as in general means weighing the good and the bad. My impacts of death and murder, as well as violation of the individual by far outweigh my opponent's social communities impacts." This alone wins me the round, because I have groups and organizations that can only exist with religion. On to an elaboration on my contention 2, Sub point A. The Crusades: I quote: "The total number of deaths due to the crusades had been estimated at around nine million" http://www.geocities.com... This is gigantic. The number of people slaughtered in the name of religion is vast. Look to my death impacts in my case. THESE IMPACTS WIN ME THE ROUND! My opponent makes a hasty attempt at saying that religion also does good. WE CAN DO THIS GOOD WITHOUT RELIGION! For these reasons, I urge a ballot for Con. (This is just clarification. I accidentally put four rounds. To make this debate a reasonable length, I ask that the next argument from Aff be voters and reasons why she has won. I will do the same in my last round. Apologies for not seeing this before hand. The last two rounds can either be forfeited, or be a random post.)