Religion and faith is not beneficial to the well being of society and humanity.

I almost don't feel the need to respond to anything this round because of failed semantics and failure to support his resolution. I will however, address some of the issues he has brought up.Again let us review the resolution. "Religion and faith is not beneficial to the well being of society and humanity"Here he is claiming that religion and faith are not beneficial to humanity. No matter how we view this sentence, it speaks for itself. He is not saying religion is mostly harmful, but clearly states that it is NOT beneficial at all.He does then go on to state that major sects of religion are "mostly" detrimental but then also goes on to say "it" referring to religiond "does not help the overall well being of anyone" Again I direct you to my prior round. The resolution is not "Religion causes more harm than good", but is "Religion and faith is not beneficial to the well being of society and humanity"So even in spite of the obvious title of this debate, when we piece together the topic itself. He is clearly claiming that " A majority of major sects in religion are detrimental and does not help the overall well being of anyone". Saying that religion in itself is detrimental in some aspects of life is quite obvious, the issue with the resolution is that he tagged "not beneficial " to it. He claimed this both in the title of the debate, and in the sentence that he wants to keep positing but fails to show this part of it "as it surely does not help the overall well being of anyone".Again I will direct you to the 2 main premises that I can offer to cancel out his resoultion. P1 : If Religion has been beneficial to society, the resolution is false. P2: Harm caused by religion is a non sequitur, because it does not negate the good done by religion. Again this is essentially saying, that because of him stating that religion is not beneficial or does not benefit anyone that if any benefit is gained from religion then his resolution is false. The next premise goes on to state that the harm caused by religion is not a factor in this debate, because if anyone has ever benefited from religion, then obviously it is beneficial and his resolution is false. In defense of contentionsAfter this my adversary goes on to list a vast majority of ways religion can be detrimental. A majority of which I have already successfully refuted. Again I will state that harm does not negate the good, with the resolution he has put forth. I will offer brief rebuttals again, since I have went over this already. Even if everything Con presented was a fact and it was morally unethical, again it still would not negate the good that has came from religion. Religious Inspired ViolenceI can not deny this claim. Religion can act as a catalyst for violence, but can just as well act as a catalyst for someone to go out of their way to help their neighbor. It all depends on who is reading what, and how they perceive what they are reading. Again even acknowledging that religion has caused wars in the past such as the crusades, we must also consider the good that has been inspired by religion. Such as charity work in the slums, people going over seas to make sure people have medicine, church planting and donations of food to poverty stricken areas all fall under this category. Same Sex CouplesThe verse pro offered is out of the bible. This does not account for all major sects or religion or even religion as a whole. It does not even account for all Christians. There are a vast majority of Christians that believe the bible is nothing more than a metaphor. A lot of Christians read it and just take the good verses out of it as a way to better their life. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Do not lie, cheat, or steal. Some Christians can read this verse and just consider it a parable. Not everyone takes it literally. More ViolenceHe then lists rape, sacrifice, and a vast majority of other issues religion has caused. For defense of this see religious inspired violence. HopeHe says"the small amount of good religion inspires does not negate the bad it does and furthermore as I have shown there are plenty of secular charity organizations that do just as much if not more than religious ones."At this point the debate is already over. This is actually a concession if you think about it. He even admit religion does a small amount of good. Meaning that religion is beneficial, therefore his resolution does not stand. In ClosingAt the end Pro has accidentally conceded this debate to me. He states "the small amount of good religion inspires does not negate the bad it does and furthermore as I have shown there are plenty of secular charity organizations that do just as much if not more than religious ones."Even in his mind he has acknowledged that religion has caused a "small" amount of "good". Meaning it is beneficial. Since the resolution is"Religion is not beneficial to society and humanity"We can now logically conclude that his resolution is false.