The idea and or concept of a higher power is essential for human growth and development

Taking into consideration that Pro here is the one affirming the resolution and instigating the debate, it is assumed twofold that the burden of proof rests on him. I'm sure he'd agree. Therefore, my only real objective in this debate is to examine my opponent's arguments and refute them adequately. If I can do that, then there would be no good reason to believe the resolution is true (at least not one presented in the debate). However, Pro not only failed to provide any good reasons to believe the resolution is true; he failed to provide any reasons whatsoever. His previous round lacked any form of deductive reasoning that could even theoretically point toward the truth of the resolution. I'll grant that human beings, as a whole, generally want to survive and live comfortably. It is in the interests of these desires that we may ever develop and grow our civilizations in the first place. But until some logical connection is made between (A) human beings having interest, ambition, and/or ability to grow and (B) human beings having some belief in a "higher power," my opponent can't point to any conclusion implying that there is one. He goes on to say that these forms of a "higher power" (be them gods or governments) do indeed unify us for the common purpose of growth and development. But it seems my opponent is confused about which resolution he's affirming. He must argue that belief in a "higher power" is a necessary precondition for human growth, not merely a possible one. Faulty inductive reasoning such as my opponent's could be applied to all sorts of absurd things. For instance, I could argue that eating bananas is necessary for living a physically healthy life because bananas have shown to be part of the diets of some physically healthy people. But I won't because that's fallacious. It's entirely possible to get the nutrients that bananas provide elsewhere and still live a healthy life. Equally, unless my opponent can explain otherwise, it might be possible for some other thing besides belief in a "higher power" to drive human growth. My opponent concludes his four-sentence argument by asking, presumably rhetorically, if belief in a "higher power" isn't necessary for human growth, then how else can human growth be achieved? Frankly, I'm insulted my opponent would even resort to such a tactic. This is not how one should affirm the truth of his resolution, by placing the burden of proof on his opponent to prove the negation. I don't accept the burden of proof my opponent is trying to shovel onto me, nor should I have to. It's essentially the same as someone affirming "God exists" asking "Well, if God doesn't exist, then how did the universe come into existence". It, in it of itself, a non-argument. Even if the answer to the latter is entirely unknown, that is not justification to believe the former. Though the submitting of the following is entirely extraneous to my objectives in this debate, it is at least interesting to note ants (a species that is arguably more organized and developed for their own species' survival than humans) develop and grow their civilizations without the necessary brain cells to even conceive of a "higher power".