Resolved: Christianity is negative for society.

Contention 1: As the judges will clearly see from the Biblical clauses that I've claimed to contain messages that promote immorality, the main two things that I focus on are murder and discrimination. My opponent brings up the question about the moral standard that I'm trying to place here in replacement of Christianity in order to evaluate the immorality of the situation, but as far as the concept of justice is concerned (which is what I'm trying to provide here through the examination of the immorality of the Bible), discrimination and the murder of another human being are inherently immoral against any moral standard, even Christianity (which I will address also in order to substantiate my case). That is, of course, unless my opponent disagrees and states that discrimination and murder are completely moral; then, this is a different scenario that I must address. Before moving on to the specific things that my opponent has made about my case, we should look at some primary definitions to consider within the rebuttal:Discrimination: Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)Prejudice: an irrational attitude of hostilitydirected against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)Submit: Yielding to governance or authority. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)Inferior: Of low or lower degree or rank. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)When we look at these definitions, we will realize that my opponent really has no arguement against me, especially in his case against sexism in the Bible. His stance against discrimination when it comes to his rebuttal against my case would imply that he stands against discrimination, unless my opponent says otherwise. As I have shown you from my evidence, we can clearly see that the clauses in question in this contention all promote some kind of prejudice against a group of people, which includes hostility considering that the quotes promote the use of harm against these people simply because of their inclusion within a particular group of people, which is essentially the epitome of what encompasses prejudice and discrimination. As I said, the moral standard that I'm trying to place here is justice, and we can compare the morality of these actions to the clauses stated within the Bible against discrimination. Unless my opponent says otherwise, discrimiantion and prejudice are inherently unjust in all cases including to one of the clauses of the Bible. At the point where the Bible is promoting what it condemns, it shows us that the Bible possesses contradictions therein, only further proving my point that the Bible is not an optimal doctrine of choice for the determination of morality. Within the rebuttal against this contention, that leaves only the argument against the claims of sexism. At the point where women are supposed to allow husbands to govern over them simply because of their status of being the wife, that already tells us that women are considered to be inferior in the eyes of the Bible, according to the definitions of the two words thereof. In case if my opponent requires more evidence, I would advice also checking out 1: Timothy 2:9-15. It'll say the exact same thing a bit more directly. Sub 2b: When it comes down to the representations of Christianity and the idealism therein, the main point isn't how the message is displayed, but what message they are trying to get across at all. Take for instance if I were a racist, and I am trying to promote the message that black people are lower than any other race. I could tell it to you in a nice way or have it screamed in your face, but either way, it doesn't change the content of the message. The same goes for these representations of Christianity I have mentioned. Regardless of whether it is Westboro Baptist Church or the kindest, gentlest priest known to mankind; the message is all the same: Groups A, B, and C do not go in accord with God and will be damned to Hell with murderers and rapists. That's still bigotry. That's still hate no matter how you try to flower it up. Not to mention that this kind of message has prompted for countless hate crimes and acts of discrimination. Christianity is responsible for this.Sub 2c: My opponent obviously doesn't understand the point I'm trying to get across in this subpoint because I listed the events in question as examples for the underlying point I'm trying to argue: that Christianity and the practice thereof has prompted for genocides and murders, and the events that I have listed in this sub-point are examples of the point. Sub 2d: I had thought my computer had placed this before it went on the fritz. It was actually supposed to list the actions of the Republican Party.Sub 2a: When we closely analyze the rebuttal that my opponent has made against this point, we realize that it actually substantiates my case with regard to the third contention. What we realize is that religion only prompts science as long as it substantiates the agenda they're trying to promote. My opponent says so himself in his rebuttal against this point when he states that these colleges in question actually prompted for science as long as they kept God in it. Science is the discovery of truth and knowledge, and at the point where religion tries to inhibit it and go against it when it contradicts their doctrine, that is still inhibitting science because Christianity is refusing to allow knowledge to expand when it contradict their idealisms. The perfect example for this scenario would be the attitudes on the theory of evolution and the prevention of its inclusion into a biology curriculum. At the base of all of this is the idea that the theory of evolution is wrong because of the solid accord with creationism, and when they try to teach it in schools, fundementalists try to keep it out of the curriculum. We are preventing the spread of knowledge about current ideas within science, and that would still count as inhibitting science. My opponent states that it was the actions of fundementalists alone, but as I have clearly defined Christianity, it includes the practices and actions of Christianity, so the example of the Scopes trial still counts.As for the things that my opponent didn't address, extend them across the flow until further notice.