Religious Faith Is Independent of Societal Progress

I feel the con has yet to completely grasp the whole of my Round 2 argument and has neglected the aim of my latter points. If he cannot fully address the main points of my foremost argument (or at the least question it in some way) then all proceeding Rounds will become moot. To the end of my Round 1 argument I state: [The principles of religious freedom & separation of church in state work hand in hand. They are binding and one cannot function properly without the other. > Religious freedom prevents discrimination of any one belief so that no one general ruling can work on behalf of them all regardless of any abuse potential. > Separation of Church and State makes sure that should a religion become abused (assuming that its basis isn't abusive in itself), its effects don't infiltrate the national institution that is supposed to work for all differing kinds of people and all their differing kinds of beliefs. These statutes are the result of a carefully thought out human framework. But ANY human framework has the potential to be abused. So these same laws which were meant to protect everyone are instead being misused to protect a select few. Just like with the previous examples of theism, fear is at the heart of any form of observable abuse. Do not confuse one with the other.] The whole of this part of my post is meant to show that religion is NOT supposed to have any intermingling with any neutral secular framework. But because this secular framework has been abused, it no longer functions in the way it was meant to. This statement here: "I argue with my opponent that religious faith and societal progress, whether it is progression or degradation, are interdependent in all societies handling religious faith no matter what religion it is." Is just you proving my case. Then you go on by merely restating the effects of what happens when these frameworks have already been abused. Something I just gave multiple examples of in my last argument [paragraph 7 non quotes: This same case of fear's role can even be seen in non theistic environments (continued).] And this statement here: "I observe that it does cause people to be satisfied primarily on their faiths views of the world and not much further, and these would not be so if said people were secular thinkers." Is ignoring the absolute entirety of my last argument by once again resorting to external inferences and believing the source is of equal guilt as the effect. You even use the words "observe" & "cause" in the exact way that I warned about as soon as I started my argument: [I have suspicion to believe my opponent is popularly confusing the state of religious faith itself with the abuse of religious faith and the external consequence of that abuse or the ease of that abuse. His position of concluding that the seen result (of theism) requires dismissal of belief from society ['that it is not needed'] and his reasoning's for doing so all exhibit signs of inference-observation confusion. |||||>A misinterpretation that the source is of equal guilt as the externally observed results.<||||| He concludes that the horrors performed in the name of religion are of equal guilt as the state of belief from which they allegedly came. The idea that simply the possession of belief alone contains a natural and instinctive volatility that has been proven and seen to be harmful to the civilized progression of mankind. |||||>The problem with this reasoning is that my opponent overlooks the consequence of human error, instinct, motivation, and the role they all so tirelessly play among mass social frameworks in all instances.<|||||] With this I would like potential voters to see that my opponent, as of the start of Round 3, has yet to form a counter to my argument which can be considered to effectively move this debate towards a conclusion.