Religion is, in general, beneficial for society

First off, my opponent SHOULD NOT POST AN ARGUMENT NEXT ROUND, because this would give her an unfair advantage. (She would have 4 speeches to my three). 1. The problem here is that my opponent doesn't bring up these impacts until last round. Therefore, she is basically being abusive by bringing these impacts forth in her last round. Therefore, you cannot look to these impacts when you vote for the round, as she has not given me sufficient time to address them. 2. 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. B/C) Pro traditionally begins rounds. And the fact that my opponent brings up the burden in her second speech is totally abusive, because I have already locked myself into a specific position. I quote my opponent: "As such, it is Con's burden to prove that religion has more detrimental effects than positive on one's mental and emotional health. Notice that he did not fulfill this burden either :)" 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. 3. K. So my opponent's only real refutation is "People still benefit from religion even if they don't meet up with others, because the other benefits I've mentioned still apply (health, physical, etc.)." This is not a refutation to my argument on her contention 3. It is just dodging this argument once again and just saying that even if people don't meet up they still get other benefits. BUT THIS DOESN'T APPLY to her 3rd argument which is about tradition not health benefits. 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. Wow! Also, Hitlers war was not politically motivated, it was motivated by racism and hate. 4b) And again my opponent dodges my argument. The argument is that these groups cause more harm than other religious groups do good. Since this went unaddressed, extend it. This alone wins me the round because it proves the resolution in my favor, because when something does more harm than good, it is obviously not beneficial for society. 5) 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. 6) Pro, I encourage you to refrain from trying to sound superior by belittling your opponents, because really, it just makes you look like a douche. My opponent stubbornly attempts to extend her arguments while not addressing the points I have made. 7/8) Just extend my arguments, as Pro really didn't address them. MY CASE: First, my opponent goes for the US not being politically oppressed. If my opponent wants to say it is, fine. It doesn't really have an impact on the debate round anyway. IT DOESN'T MATTER that the extremists exist in politically oppressed countries. My opponent makes a futile attempt at linking these. While we are drawing crazy comparisons, maybe religion is the cause of the political oppression? 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. Reasons to vote Con: 1. Impacts Con controls the impacts in this debate. Pro brings up a few points about physical health and community benefit. Valid impacts to be sure, but Con has multiple death impacts(Islamic extremists, Crusades) that not only outweigh my opponents impacts, but also go unaddressed by my opponent for THE ENTIRE ROUND. 2. Crusades argument This argument by itself is enough to vote Con. My opponent never addresses the fact that this war was in fact motivated by religion and resulted in the deaths of 9 MILLION PEOPLE. This shows how dangerous religion can be when it is directed in a large scale effort against people of other religions. If "holy sites" didn't exist, so many more families would still be whole, and those 9 million people would not have died the way they did. To put the deaths of these people in perspective, 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. The Crusades caused just as great suffering and pain as that terrible event. This shows that religion is most definitely, in general, not beneficial for society. I want to make my position very clear for voters. I do not believe that an individual is wrong for believing in a God. I think that it is a personal choice and should be celebrated. The only qualm that I have is when massive wars are waged in its name or people blow themselves up in order to go to paradise. The only way Pro could possibly win this debate is if you discount all my impacts and arguments that went UNADDRESSED by Pro, and then buy all of Pro's arguments. My opponent doesn't even gain any offense from her case, because she does not have good impacts and does not tell you how her arguments say that religion is beneficial. Therefore, you must sign your ballot Con Thanks to my opponent for a great debate PRO SHOULD NOT POST NEXT ROUND IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN FAIRNESS