Resolved: Christianity is detrimental for the human population.

Regarding Observation 3:"The winner of this debate is the one that shows that the amount of advantages of Christianity's effects outweigh their disadvantages.” Wouldn't that imply that you would lose by demonstrating that Christianity's disadvantages outweigh the advantages? Regardless, Observation 3 is false. All I have to do is show that Christianity is not detrimental to the human population by refuting your arguments, I do not have to show any advantages of Christianity because you bear the burden of proof. In the name of fun though, I will still mention how the advantages of Christianity outweigh the disadvantages even though it's not required.Refuting My Opponent's Argument:Contention 1: Basically, my opponent is claiming that there are many immoral actions in The Bible as well as things with contradict reason and logic, and the book is overall just flawed. This apparently is a good reason to claim that Christianity is detrimental to the human population in the eyes of my opponent, but of course it isn't.Immorality: For example, there are immoral actions that take place all the time in Batman movies. Villains hold people hostage, order their henchmen to kill other people, and kill people themselves, but Batman as a whole isn't detrimental to society just because it's followed globally and involves immorality. Logical contradictions: Also, it doesn't follow that just because something contradicts logic and reason that it is detrimental to the human population. The idea of Santa Clause for example has major logical contradictions, I mean, how can reindeer fly without wings or anything to suspend them in the air? How can Santa visit every house on Earth in one night? How can he fit down small chimneys, and deliver presents to houses with no chimneys at all? However, is the idea of Santa Clause detrimental to the human population? I would think not, I've never heard of anyone going to therapy because their parents lied to them about Santa Clause. We all bought the hook line and sinker for that story (just like most of the world buys the hook line and sinker for the God of Abraham), but I'm not sure there is any evidence or valid reasoning which could lead to the conclusion that the resolution of this debate can be logically affirmed. Contention 2:The affirmations of my opponent involving this contention, seem to be a bit more solid than those in the last contention. However, lets analyze each claim closely to see if they really indicate that Christianity as a whole is detrimental to society.Christianity has inhibited scienceThis is not entirely true, some Christians inhibited science. The people in Galileo's day personally believed that some idea of science rocked their belief system so they rejected it (like many Christians do today), however there is nothing in the core of Christianity which requires the rejection of science. If you can claim that Christianity inhibited science because some Christians inhibited science, then I can claim that Christianity helped improve science because some Christians (Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei ect. were Christian) helped improve science. Of course, neither one of these claims logically have much to say as far as the resolution of this debate is concerned.Christianity has prompted for bigotry and inequalityWhat my opponent is describing are certain Christians cherry picking what they want from The Bible. Here is a quote from The Bible (the Old Testament mind you) against homosexuality:"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." - Leviticus 20:13 [1]However this is in the Old Testament, when it comes to Christ himself (the basis of Christianity), he clearly does not endorse bigotry or inequality:“You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you. In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? - Matthew 5:43-47 [2]Due to the above, I think it's clear that the bigotry is demonstrated by certain Christians, and not Christianity itself.Christianity has caused genocideGermany has caused genocide in the name of Germany during World War 2, however, Germany was the most positively viewed nation according in a recent global survey (29,000 people), with 62 per cent of those surveyed rating its influence as positive [3]. Just because Germany caused Genocide a while ago in the past, that doesn't mean that they are detrimental to the human population now. I believe the point I'm trying to make here in regarding Christianity causing genocide is self-evident.Christianity has attempted to take over government with relative successThis had no explanation, so I have no objection.Contention 3:My opponent simply bare asserted that the only reason Christians do good is to spread their doctrine. Also, I believe that the advantages of Christianity actually are relevant (see below) to this debate even if I'm not required to mention them.Advantage of Christianity for Society:Even though I am not required to do this as far as the burden of proof is concerned, I'm going to quickly argue in favor of a benefit christianity has for the human population.Christianity is what made the idea of Heaven and Hell famous. The fact is, humanity as a whole isn't ready to accept that there is no afterlife or transcendent purpose at this point in time. The idea of Heaven and Hell for the time being keeps those in line who would be immoral without it. Basically, when nobody is looking, God is looking to the believers...This idea obviously would make people think twice about their actions, this leads credence to the idea that Christianity as a whole is good for the human population. Concluson:The resolution has clearly been negated, my opponent's arguments for Christianity being detrimental to the human population were not convincing.Sources: [1] http://www.evilbible.com...[2] http://rosskendall.com...[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...