Christianity is a force for good in the world.

INTRODUCTION Here at the end of this debate I am really at a loss. I have presented conclusive and debilitating blows to my opponent's already weak and wanting arguments, yet, with blatant and willful indifference, here at the end his last round, he unilaterally relies upon supercilious sophistry. His slur of irreverent adjectives and adverbs is a fruitless attempt to defend the tattered remains of his resolution. So what more can I do? I will use this last round to reaffirm some important points and let the readers discern the worth my opponent's words. RE: IMPORTANT SIDE NOTE The relevancy of the arguments in question is so readily apparent that I am deeply perplexed as to how it apparently eludes my opponent. Only the most bias and credulous, I am assured, would agree with my opponent on this point. If the alternatives to Christianity are verifiably shown to lead to a higher risk of incarceration, a proclivity to abuse intoxicants, a tendency towards gluttony and overall poor health and a penchant for pocketing funds and allocating very little (if any at all) to the needy and downtrodden, how can we be so obtuse as to deny that Christianity is the BETTER alternative? WHENCE COMETH THIS METRIC? My opponent has been - conveniently as he would have it - missing my point this entire time - and he can hardly blame me for obscurantism. First, my opponent never objectively defined good nor offered any serious criticism of Christianity's definition of good. According to what metric of good are we to measure the effects of Christianity? Moreover, and more to my point, the results of Christianity DO NOT DEFINE its force. Christianity is working for good and is thus a force for it. Whether or not it is fruitful in its endeavor is irrelevant to whether or not it is a force for said endeavor. WHAT IS IT A FORCE FOR? 1. My opponent has no idea what he is talking about. This is typical mischaracterization of text. I will allow those curious minds to actually read the text in question. Of course, it's all irrelevant as Christian's don't do this. 2. My opponent's unqualified assumptions about Christian belief and ill found assumptions about what the Bible supports is not relevant. Even if the bible supported slavery it would not matter because Christians do not support slavery and, as I have so clearly shown, they have been the leading force in its abolishment. 3. Irrelevant. Christians do not teach the abandonment of family and, in fact, Catholics and evangelicals have the lowest divorce rates(1) and devote the most resources to family unity and values. CHRISTIANITY AND CHARITY WORK My opponent is so desperately grasping and straws to the point where he is actually claiming fallacy where rebuttal lacks. Christians, PER CAPITA (yes, that per capita thing means that my opponent falsely claimed fallacy) give more than those who are not religious (almost 4 times more annually)(2). Christians not only give more, but their participation more than doubles secularists (12 to 5.8 times per year) (3). My opponent also completely oversimplifies the situation in Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands. All of these nations are historically Christian and, moreover, the majority of the populations in all these areas STILL identify with a particular church or religion (4). More to the point, my opponent has NEVER ONCE SHOWN how these areas demonstrate remarkable charity work. Christianity has ended tribal conflict in many areas (5), and claiming that it has brought more harm than it has relieved is by empty assertion rested firmly on air and ignorance. CONTENTION 1 My opponent has NOT shown any harmful effects of people believing that God created human beings as they are. Furthermore, he completely ignores the most relevant and important point regarding embryonic stem cell research, namely that WE DO NOT NEED A HUMAN EMBRYO TO MAKE ANY CELL WE WANT. How can embryonic stem cell research be promising if (1) we do not need it to produce the same results and (2) it has not produced anything thus far (over a decade)? CONTENTION 2 My opponent has nothing but words, a string of empty and wholly irrelevant words. Calling the Bible an engine for intolerance does little to support his point. People have been more prone to fanaticism WITHOUT the influence of the Bible. Those seeking to create a religious free utopia have done so at the cost of killing MILLIONS of people (mostly their own citizens). Those irreligious are among the first to support the killing of millions of babies each year (6). They rally to support the right for a woman to crush the head of her baby so long as it remains, at least partially, inside of her (7). What a inhuman act of evil that masquerades as a step towards ending suffering. The prominent atheist, Peter Singer, maintains that a pig is worth more than a deformed child (8). It was the atheist, Nietzsche, who promulgated that idea that there is no such thing as equality. To say that the Bible is an engine for intolerance does nothing to actually prove that this is the case. The people he blames for intolerance are the same people who work to mitigate it. CONTENTION 3 God, in the Bible, is ALSO portrayed as mother. My opponent does not even address my points. He continues bantering about things he is willfully ignorant about. Women would have FLED to Israel because of how well they treated women. Just a cursory look at other ancient Near East cuneiform legislation would show that the God of the Old Testament was more loving and merciful. This shows that God's work has always been progressive in working with people with the ultimate goal of changing hearts. Women were given more rights and empowerments in the New Testament than they had in ANY OTHER known area of that time. Furthermore, as already shown, the most misogynistic nations known today are those that were never historically Christian (In India, female fetuses are aborted 10 to 1 - what a sacred rite abortion has turned out to be). Even still, it was Christian men and women who fought for women's rights (as was already shown in my last round)! Under any democratic system of morality and within any evolutionary view of morality, the behavior of homosexuality is wrong. My opponent appeals to an unspecified, unfounded and nonobjective moral metric in order to support his contention. Since he has given no sources, polls or related articles that show the evil ramifications of believing that homosexual behavior is wrong, this point is really inconsequential anyway. CONCLUSION Since my opponent has presented nothing of substance in his last round, I will end by listing the key points that my opponent left without response. 1. Christians have a greater life expectancy than those without religion (9). 2. Christians are less likely to abuse alcohol and other intoxicants (10). 3. Christians are less likely to be obese and depressed (11). 4. Christians are generally happier (12). 5. Christians are less likely to be incarcerated (13). 6. Christians give almost 4 times more to charity (14). 6. Christians participate 2 times more in charities than nonreligious (15). 7. Christians are sexually more satisfied (16). 8. Evangelical Christians are less likely to get divorced (17). If Christians are generally more healthy, peaceful and charitable, according to what standard of good does my opponent appeal to when making his claims? SOURCES: . http://www.debate.org...