Christianity, in it's extreme form and in general, is detrimental to society.

I had intended for my opponent to keep with the structure of my argument to make things easier on us both (since we are both first timers), but seeing as he has abandoned the framework, I will refute his argument, line by line. 1.) "Christianity is not detrimental, but actually supportive of our economy" A bold claim. However, you give no evidence to support this, nor do you ever mention the economy in the remainder of your argument. 2.) "Actually, our society is doomed without Christianity." My opponent uses an editorial to support this claim, and in and of itself this isn't very reliable. Even ignoring this fact, my opponent proposes that Western Civilization was formed by Christianity, which is false. The religion is deeply entrenched within it's roots, absolutely, but by no means formed it. Western Civilization was born of ideas; it was formed from the concepts of equality, democracy, and permeating the unknown. All ideas that are rebuked by strict Christian ideology (emphasis on the strict). The statistic my opponent refers to, the 78.4%, is referencing the population of the United States that is Christian (also a shifty looking source, but looking into it I found the source they themselves pulled from:http://www.thearda.com...) is supposed to support is idea that without Christianity, the U.S. population would "not have their free rights to believe who they want to believe in"? It's a bit strangely worded, but taking it as it stands, it doesn't make much sense at all. My opponent is essentially saying that without Christianity, the people in the United States would not have the right to believe in what they want to believe in ...? However, Christianity is not what gives them that right, it is the 1st amendment of the United States Constitution. If what my opponent says is true, then people of Christian faith would be allowed to believe in whatever deity they so please, breaking one of the commandments. There fore, this point is null. 3.) " He explained why Christianity is unfair because it opposes against homosexuality, and it doesn't help people to "pick and choose" . ' Firstly, he has taken "pick and choose" out of context. I was merely stating that those who choose to establish the foundation of certain laws and policies of the United States on biblical grounds choose only portions that provide for whatever policy they are attempting to influence. I was merely stating that they do not wish to allow all rules of the bible to be adopted into U.S. law and policy, only portions, which makes the entire notion ambiguous and unjust. So that claim is unfounded. The opposition states that he is not sure why Christianity affects the lives of homosexual people, but the source of the injustice, discrimination, and harassment they face is founded in Christianity (and other religions, in other regions). If there was no Christianity, there would be no problem against homosexuality (unless people came out and said the real reason they are against it: "it's icky and gross and we don't like it."). But once again, I am not arguing for the depletion of Christianity, merely that it's form in society today is detrimental. 4.) "Christians have their rights to rely too much on God or not." Absolutely true, and one of the few statements in my oppositions argument I agree with. However, the problem arises when this notion permeates the policies of government. When that reliance beings to influence economic or public policy in a secular nation, then a problem manifests. As far as the Heaven's Gate religion ... I'm not exactly sure why this was brought up. Christianity is not ruining society, and I never said this. A strict, radical form of it is merely hurting it; it's pushing it in the wrong direction. 5.) A response to your question. Without Christianity, I suppose Western Civilization would have continued down a different track. Possibly for better, and possibly for worse. Your sentiment is weak, however; you are claiming that because Christianity was influential in the formation of Civilization, it is perfect and requires no modifications or any downsizing. If you believe that because something is present and influential in the foundation of a society, it is forever and always beneficial, you are wrong. I would ask you what your position is on slavery? On women having a insignificant and unequal role in society? On education being kept out of reach of the poor? These are all ideals that were essential to the formation of Western Civilization. Do you believe these good? If not, then you must recant you're statement of Christianity being beneficial for society just because it influenced our foundation. You ask me who or what caused The Big Bang? I must say that the question is a definite what, and the answer is not known by any yet. I'm a budding physicist and will tell you that the two most prevalent theories are either the clashing of subatomic particles, or that it was the result of spontaneous quantum fluctuation, proposed to occur whenever two conditions are met (I cannot be sure if these are the following, but I think they are an inflating space and empty zero energy fields). I suppose you weren't looking for a concrete answer though, merely trying to prove a point .... And that point is precisely the problem that I am arguing against (at least from an educational standpoint). You don't know the answer anymore than anyone else does. However, you are content to merely say "God did it." and wipe your hands clear of the problem. This is impedes progressiveness. This impedes society. We have begun to plug "God" in when met with a question we do not know the answer to, and are not content to research and explore, to learn and grow as a society. If we were the society of old, that said "God did it, but let us figure out how", then I wouldn't have started this debate. "It's only logical."