Without religion, there would be less war.

I feel the need to mention that as the Affirmative in this debate, my opponent has the Burden of Proof, and it is his responsibility to convince the voters that there would be less war without religion. If I can prove that there would be an equal amount of wars or even more wars without religion, I win. Point 1: War and conflict is the inherent nature of man and has existed before the creation of religion. Mankind is by nature violent and aggressive. Man does not and has never needed religion to wage war. Point 2: Religion is used as an excuse to wage war, but is not the actual cause. This is essentially the main point of the debate. Religion has set up a system that causes its followers to blindly follow the commands of the deity, but since no deity communicates with them, it opens the door for men to claim to speak through God, and control the followers. War is caused by man, and religion is merely a vessel with which to enact said war. Pro is no doubt a student of history, and he could likely tell you better than I of the endless leaders throughout history who has used religion as an excuse. Point 3: The are always differences between nations that can cause war, not exclusively religion. Religions are often found in particular regions. Any two states who differ in religion almost certainly differ in nationality and certainly differ in ideology. Any war that has ever been wages in the name of religion could easily be substituted with Race or Beliefs as the flags of war. Rebuttal: Point 1: I concede that religious tension has existed and does exist today. I never thought that was a point of any contention. Point 2: Pro has attempted to pull a fast one, it seems. Pro has taken two different possible causes of conflict(Religious tensions and "scramble of resources), prove one true (resources) and hopes that I will buy into the idea that if he proves one half of a statement true, the other half (religion) must also be true. However, that is false. What he says about resources is true but irrelevant to the resolution, and so he continues after his points about resources as points of conflict throughout history. Re: Rise of the Abbasid Calphate. I won't pretend to know much about this particular case Pro has brought up, but I will say that if two different groups of people are willing to go to war over the petty details of dead man who claimed to have communicated with God, then it's reasonable to assume these two groups would just as easily go to was over race, ethnicity or ideology. Re: The Crusades My opponent's quote of Pope Urban the II serves to prove my 2 quite nicely. Better than I could have, in fact. You see, as I have said, man has taken their ability to get away with the absurd claim of communicating with an omnipotent God to wage war and expand their empire. Thousands did not die for God, thousands died so Roman would expand their empire. Hell, this is a great example, because Rome is in Italy, historically one of the most important areas regarding the evolution of Christianity, and it is not just a coincidence that Rome was also one of the greatest empires in history. Conclusion: Quod Erat Demonstrandum, my opponents points exist to serve my arguments better than his own, and my arguments exist to end this fallacy that wars are the will of God, but rather, the will of man.