Religion is, in general, beneficial for society

Con - What the hell are you talking about? We never agreed in the debate, comment section or anywhere else that I wouldn't get to post a final round. If you were so concerned about having an equal amount of rounds, then you should have presented a R1 argument, as you were the instigator after all. Nevertheless, here's my final rebuttal. Good luck! - - - 1) Con begins by stating that I haven't brought up these impacts (of religion affecting religious societies) until the last round, therefore this is abusive... What?! I have mentioned this in my first point from my very first round! Just because Con can't think of a proper rebuttal doesn't give him the right to make stuff up in this regard. 2A) After I corrected Con's ignorance about yoga being a form of prayer that keeps you fit, Con so rudely proclaims, "Ummmm.... I said that THE BENEFIT from yoga is that your body is getting a workout. Any spiritual or religious part has no impact upon your health." However, you'll notice that on the contrary, what he said exactly the last round was, "Fitness in no way correlates to religion. Unless you get a good workout by praying, the act of believing in a supernatural power in no way makes you more fit." Lol so again, Con basically flat-out lies here as well. 2 B/C) Con continues to dodge arguments by AGAIN stating that I have been abusive by asking him to prove that religion has more bad effects than good effects on one's mental and emotional health. Con asks, "Why the hell is it my burden to prove that religion has more detrimental effects? I can just as easily say it is my opponents burden to prove that religion has more positive effects than detrimental on one's mental and emotional health. Since these burdens were not brought up earlier, discard them." This is crazy talk. First of all, I addressed this in ROUND 1. Second, I *did* prove that religion has more benefits than negative on one's mental and emotional health! Third, Con had the opportunity to answer that question in R3 (this final round); instead he chose to be a chump and again not take responsibility for failing to properly argue his side of the debate. 3) Con stoops low on this one. Basically, I said that people value tradition and as such that brings them comfort and happiness. Con says that most people aren't hard line religious. I said it doesn't matter if Con considers them to be that way; what matters is that these people (according to my cited source) DO consider themselves religious (therefore the resolution and my arguments apply to them). Instead of refuting this, Con just accuses me of dropping an argument and saying that I've dodged his point about tradition. Say what? 4A) "I can't believe that my opponent has the nerve to say that Iran's crusade against Israel is rational. Or that Al Qaeda's attacks against the US are." Too bad. I believe that Iran's crusade against Israel is justified. Unfortunately that has nothing to do with this debate. Moreover, I never said that Al Qaeda's attacks on the U.S. were. Con continues to straw man my arguments and not present anything of substance of his own. 4B) Con says that his point was that these extremist groups cause more harm than other religious groups do good, meaning religion in general is overall not beneficial to society. I negate. Technology can do more harm than good; however, we value science and advancement, and thus that's a risk that we accept. Moreover, Con has provided NO evidence and NO argument to back this up. Listing a few extremists discredits the MILLIONS of lives that faith based groups have saved, sheltered, helped, etc. over the years. Furthermore, Con has ignored MY argument which exclaimed why crazy fundamentalists aren't a good representation for religion as a whole. And finally on this point, you'll note that despite me bringing this up in the last round, Con has still yet to provide any facts or stats about religious extremists. I'd argue that there are other groups - i.e. politicians - who cause the same amount of harm and death each year. Con failed to respond to that too :) 4C) Con has COMPLETELY IGNORED MY ARGUMENT regarding science and religious ethics. Award it to me. 5) Con writes, "Since religion brings with it immorality, it is more harmful to have religion. If we can have morality without religion, why do we need it." THIS POINT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE; there's no point in refuting it. Also, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with my last 5th point, which stated, "Once again, he is scapegoating religion as the only thing that people can be "extreme" about. I've already refuted this point noting politics, extremists who value animal and nature rights, etc. Yes, we can be moral without religion, but we can also be immoral without religion. Con is grasping at straws here :) Maybe the Islamic extremists in particular would not exist had it not been for religion, but others would." Again, since my point wasn't even touched upon, this should be another easily awarded point to me. 6) Con attempts to insult my intelligence and claims that I have not responded to his "argument." His argument was that you can't mix religion and science. To counter that, I gave him a whole explanation (twice) about the contrary and explained how and why he was wrong, along with providing a cited source. You'll notice that yet again, Con failed miserably at trying to refute this point at all... and making me look bad. Haha. 7/8) I've addressed Pro's pointless points several times throughout the debate. He's just illiterate and couldn't find them (though I pointed them out specifically numerous times). - - - Rebuttal: Con says, "IT DOESN'T MATTER that the extremists exist in politically oppressed countries. While we are drawing crazy comparisons, maybe religion is the cause of the political oppression?" Nay. People in Russia are politically oppressed, and they do not live in a theocracy. This point fails. Moreover, my point is ABSOLUTELY relevant, because the injustices Con mentioned in his argument are applied to politically oppressed nations - not religious ones. Fail. Con also admits to straw manning my argument, and then says, "Sorry about the Crusades bit. Agreed, my opponent did not say they were a minority, but she never said anything else about them either. Therefore, you extend my Crusades argument as it was never addressed by my opponent." Absolutely ridiculous. He completely makes an argument up, and then accuses me of not responding. Readers, please refer to prior rounds to observe how Con completely manipulates this point. Conclusion: Impacts/Crusades--> I've provided more overall benefits than Con throughout this debate. Also, Con has provided NO cited sources (despite my pleading) regarding the number of religiously motivated deaths. I maintain that religious endeavors have saved and helped more lives than its harmed. Also, like I said, many of the "religious" wars Con has mentioned have been politically motivated (including Hitler, which he ignorantly claimed otherwise). The Crusades were one bad example of death and destruction, but like I said, religion has been responsible for many more benefits and life saving, including - but not limited to - The Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity, innumerable Christian hospitals, etc. Overall, Con has pretty much ignored most of my arguments, straw manned the others, and couldn't successfully refute those he bothered to answer. I have proven that on balance, religion is beneficial to society.