Christianity Is Intrinsically Harmful- Another Attempt

Premise I: BOPPro pulls the classic act of calling something fallacious without stating why. Without explaining what fallacy my example was, or why it was fallacious, we can only assume there was no fallacy. Pro assumes Oxygen is harmful because it leads to death, however, the benefits of breathing it (ie not dying within ten minutes) negates and overturns the harmfulness. Being harmful is about doing more damage than good.A new example: President A is elected. His administration leads to the loss of 250,000 jobs, but sees debt drop by $10 trillion. Also see the US tax rate drop from 15% average to 10% average, and crime reduced by half. His administration had a harmful effect, but was his administration harmful to the US? No. The US benefitted from his Administration.Premise II: Descriptive vs Prescriptive TextPro mistakens this for an argument. it was, in fact, a Premise (hint the name.) It's only point is to present factual principles to be brought up later in the round. This Premise didn't attack or reference a single claim of Pro's, so to claim I indirectly address his arguments is unwarrented. I used it to attack Pro's claims later in the debate, directly. Pro's attack on my Premise is unwarranted.I did, in fact, address all of Pro's claims. Not in the Premise, but through out each Argument (Rebuttal).Rebuttal I: Oppression.Christianity never prescribed hierarchical organization. That was a construct of the Roman society, implemented by people in the Church, not by the Bible. I have stated this over and over again... Pro's continued attack on this system of organization is pointless. A hierarchical organization is not intricsically bad eitherway. This isn't a matter of discussion, but a matter of opinion, if even that. Pro claims he did not advocate 'objective morality.' If so, than Pro loses much of the Oppression Argument, and all of the Ethics Argument, as both are largely based on morality. To win these, Pro must show that they are objectively wrong. By conceding the point of Objective Morality, pro concedes the argument consequentially. The only means of proving either wrong is through Objectivity.Pro did, however, claim his moral standard that he judges the Church by was the accepted moral standard..."The ethics that I refer to as objective are not arbitrary ones that may be subjective." - Pro in R4.Pro does claim his ethics to be objective, and says they aren't arbitrary or subjective. Now Pro claims to have never advocated any Objective morality. Pro lies and contradicts his argument.Pro's definition of Christianity he lists this round is misconstrued in his phrasing. The definition was "the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies." Pro's denial of his own definition is harmful to his case. The resolution is, in fact, about the religion.Being poor and widowed does not equal being weak and oppressed. Pro argues based off opinion of the text. Not once has he tried proving my interpretation wrong via sources that back his claim. To argue further would be repetitive. Pro has not sourced his interpretation of Ruth.Rebuttal II: Ethics.Pro still relies on the popularity of his morals to deem them Objective. His morals are subjective, and can not be held against the Church. What deems his morals to be fundamental rights? A piece of paper? Pro's arguments are entirely subjective and hold no ground to judge with. Pro's claim of pride is empty. Pro has shown no evidence that pride is an intrinsically part of the religion, while I have shown entire verses that prove the religion is against pride. Pro's stubbornness doesn't make his arguments any less wrong. His argument is largely that people naturally become prideful because of the religion... This, however, is not a principle intrinsic in the religion, but in Human Nature.My argument against anti-intellectualism was never about how Christians can be smart. This is a clear redherring and strawman. My entire argument was that examples of scientists with faith prove that you can be faithful without being anti-intellectual. Also that the Bible is against ignorance and blind stupidity. Being faithful in God is not the same as being ignorant of science. Rebuttal III: My Arguments.How is my argument self-contradictory? Pro can not simply accuse me of something, then not explain the accusation. Pro did indeed shift goalposts. As follows:Resolution: Christianity Is Intrinsically HarmfulDefinition: "The religion derived from Jesus Christ..."Full Resolution: The religion derived from Jesus Christ Is Intrinsically HarmfulPro's new Resolution: The Bible Is Intrinsically HarmfulPro attempted to shift focus from Christianity, defined as being the religion derived from Jesus, to the Bible, and only the Bible. Of course, he then starts his round by arguing about a system of organization never mentioned in the Bible, that was created by the people in the church. Pro can not shift focus like this.Pro continued to not address my arguments. Charity, Africa, Prison, and the Dark Ages are all relevant arguments, that Pro has dropped in order to shift the goals. Facts that Pro has dropped:-Religion, in compliance with beliefs taught in the Bible, has produced a great deal of charity for Africa.-Religion has spread happiness and rehabilitation in Prisons.-Religion, in compliance with beliefs taught in the Bible, preserved knowledge and built universities, and provided social services that prevented the Dark Ages.Pro has also dropped my two newest arguments from R4:-Religion, in compliance with beliefs taught in the Bible, provides 15-35% of all non-government Social Services-Religion provides stability for children is impoverished families, or with disabilities.Final Conclusion:Pro has dropped several arguments about what Christianity has done for the world.I have shown that Pro's Ethics are subjective, and that the Bible is not Oppressive to people. I have also shown that the religion has done far more good for the world than any amount of harm, making it a net-beneficial religion. Christianity is not intrinsically harmful.