Religion needs to go away, it is outdated.

Closing ArgumentI'd first note that a dictionary definition of the term "religion" is absolutely not needed; though perhaps Pro should have included the definition in round one if he/she thought it was necessary. Outlining any kind of definition[s] is round three only serves to show poor debate structure. So essentially, Pro has just wasted characters on something with no valid reason to and is simply playing at semantics in order to compensate for their own lack of argument. In no way does this definition actually disprove or negate my own case--it merely gives a description of what religion is, if anything the definition actually affirms my own statement that religion is also there to "give people an understanding of God. ", which corresponds easily with the last sentence of the definition. Most people would acknowledge that another purpose of religion and another thing that it fulfills is bringing people together in a shared belief[s]. Additionally I'd remind voters that Pro has only just started to use sources in the final round of the debate. Earlier assertions come him have still gone unsupported. And I provided a source in my opening argument that technically counters Pros own sources that proclaim secular people have the same morals and have stronger emotional bounds. However, there's other alternative sources that I can use that again contradict this. Now onto Pros third point, my argument of religious charities was to demonstrate that another net benefit of religion. Pro essentially argues that these particular charities are not needed on the basis on them being religious, however, the billions of people in the world that specifically gain from these charities would naturally argue otherwise. Pro is evidently just not able to let go of his/her bias in acknowledging that religion [regardless of whether you believe] can be beneficial. Moreover, religious and spiritual practice can also have a number of psychological/health benefits [4. ] . http://spirituality.ucla.edu...This article here goes into all of the economic benefits of religion, in fact the U. S government is said to profit 2.6 trillion a year from religion [5. ] . http://www.forbes.com...So, if religion was made to "go way" as Pro outlines in his resolution, these kind of benefits would just not exist. Christmas [being an integral part of religion] would not be celebrated and thus not appear on the consumer market; which means a huge amount money for business, both small and big, would be lost. This source includes other historical and societal benefits of religion [6. ] . http://www.biographyonline.net...Research has also shown that religion can be linked to a happier and more fulfilling life, as is shown in this BBC article: [7. ] . http://news.bbc.co.uk... Alluding further to the benefits of religious practice, this IONA Institute again highlights exactly what they are: [8. ] . http://www.ionainstitute.ie... Moving To Pros statement that I have somehow been "stuck" on the opinion that religion has shaped laws, their points of mine have received equal if not more attention. More importantly, religion has helped shaped the laws that we uphold today, thus showing that it's been of importance to society and that it does in fact have relevance. Pro incorrectly states that any person can understand that things like killing and stealing are "immoralities" and "wrong behaviours", but my question is: how so? There's in fact nothing to say that this is universally understood by people or things that they can somehow immediately understand as "wrong". The point with religion is that it directly teaches people about these behaviours and the general consequences of them. Pro appears to be unaware of the fact that America itself was founded on religion by people who were escaping religious suppression in Europe. [9. ] . http://www.loc.gov... Pro incorrectly states that only two things that are explicitly outlined as laws in the First Testament are punishable offenses, but "bearing false witness", especially when taken in the context of a court of Law, can absolutely be a punishable offense. Pro attempts to argue that certain *things* have that he/she *claims* are a part of religion [keeping in mind that religion is an extremely broad sphere] are not associated with the laws we have now. However, things such as child molestation, enslaving/beating people, raping young women, etc. are not even religious law anyway. A look at some of the 613 Mitzvot--Mosaic commandments upheld by Judaism, easily affirms this. For example, you have laws such as: "Not to stand by idly when a human life is in danger. " (Lev. 19:16)"Not to cherish hatred in one's heart . " (Lev. 19:17)"Not to leave a beast, that has fallen down beneath its burden, unaided. " (Deut. 22:4)"Not to afflict an orphan or a widow. " (Ex 22:21) "To leave the gleanings for the poor . " (Lev. 19:9)"Not to refrain from maintaining a poor man and giving him what he needs . " (Deut. 15:7)"To love the stranger. " (Deut. 10:19)"Not to wrong the stranger in buying or selling. " (Ex. 22:20)"To be fruitful and multiply. " (Gen. 1:28)"Not to demand from a poor man repayment of his debt, when the creditor knows that he cannot pay, nor press him. " (Ex. 22:24) "Not to break a vow. " (Num. 30:3)"Not to defraud. " (Lev. 19:13)"Not to covet what belongs to another. " (Ex. 20:14)So once again, Pro is entirely incorrect in his/her assumption that religious laws telling people to rape, molest, and kill, actually exist. To summarize my concluding argument and the debate itself, Pro started off with a poor resolution and only really gave an argument that was more in-depth in the third round. Whereas I began with using clear arguments [that were sourced] and used the same method until round three. Overall Pro has failed to affirm his/her resolution and conclusively show how/why religion should "go away" and no longer be a part of society.