Belief in an afterlife negatively impacts the world of practical affairs

[Definition] Straw Man Tactics - A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute, then attributes that position to the opponent. I would like to thank my opponent for his prompt, intellectual response In this final rebuttal I will attempt to clarify my positions and produce summarized reasons for the negation of my opponents resolution and subsequently for the reasons to vote Con. My opponent begins by criticizing my first negation. While his analysis is correct that this debate is much more than about politicians he makes a critical error. By not contesting my point that politicians make their policies strictly based off their religion and not based on their belief in the afterlife, my opponent has conceded the idea that religious persons (both in power and not in power) make decisions influencing people other than themselves based off of their religion and not based off of their belief in an afterlife. As I have shown in examples from my previous rebuttals the two can be (and are) separate concepts. I agree with my opponent that the concept of an afterlife is a part of religion. However my opponent either purposefully or unintentionally misunderstands my point. While the concept of an afterlife is part of relgion, the afterlife by itself is not religion. In this debate my opponent has been attempting to prove that the concept of religion (at least in his opinion) has negative impacts on the world and thus in association with religion the concept of the afterlife likewise negatively impacts the temporal world. To show a more clear example of my position: My opponent is walking into a classroom and selecting a group of students who have negative attitudes towards learning. My opponent is concluding that since the majority of students in this classroom have negative opinions towards learning, subsequently the entire class has a negative attitude towards learning. My position in this debate has been to show that the concept of an afterlife does not have a negative effect (meaning that when the positive and negative impacts are weighed on a scale, the scale would be greater than or equal to a neutral impact) on this world. If the point of this debate was to truely show that religion itself has a negative impact on the world, then I would like to apologize to my opponent as well as voters, however since my opponents resolution indicated that the concept being debated was that of an afterlife, I would like to contend that this no stawman concept. If anything, my opponent has been using straw man tactics to turn this into a debate reguarding religion as a whole rather than about the belief in the afterlife as a slew of his points have been directly involving religion and have had no basis at all in reguards to the concept of the afterlife. The next argument that my opponent states is that the majority of his argument suggests that the concept of an afterlife produces negative effects because people 1) trying to get to heaven themselves 2) trying to convert (or kill, depending on the subject) others so that they will go to heaven as well. 1. As I have shown, sin is the only thing preventing a person from reaching the afterlife. Sin is purely a personal concept. The avoidance of sin, and the prayer of forgiveness for it, can to me only suggest positive effects, not negative ones as my opponent has indicated, but shown no examples of. Nor has he contested by definition of sin or its role respecting the decisions of politicians. 2. Furthermore as I have stated in my primary rebuttal (R2) "Additionally the issue regarding the crusades was a sin of both religions involved. Because all religions held the belief that killing a human was a sin no matter how it was done. Furthermore the crusades were waged more for political reasons than religious, although religion was the main reason. The crusades stemmed from greed and corruption of political leaders. Not their faith." Subsequently my opponent conceded this concept in his next rebuttal (R3 found in comments section when he stated) "-Crusades conceded" When my opponent conceded this point, I assumed that he had conceded number two of his primary argument in this debate. Since in my refutation of the crusades I stated how killing was a sin and prevented a persons entry to the afterlife, I assumed that when my opponent conceded this point he conceded all points reguarding wars or suicide attacks in reguards to the afterlife. If I have been mistaken then I thoroughly apologize to my opponent. "Islam does not promise 72 virgins, or any forms of reward whatsoever for anyone who commits suicide. It is a totally absurd lie. The virgin myth has understandably received more than its fair share of publicity due to its hilarity and "romance". The image of a lunatic suicide bomber taking his pick from 72 luscious virgins fires up the imagination of anybody with a libido. At the very least, it makes for a particularly gratifying affirmation for those who would love to see Islam go down the gutters. The harsh punishment that Islam bestows upon its followers who commit murder and suicide has been spelt out very clearly in the Quran: But let there be amongst you Traffic and trade by mutual good-will: Nor kill (or destroy) yourselves: for verily God hath been to you Most Merciful! If any do that in rancor and injustice, soon shall We cast them into the Fire: And easy it is for God. Chapter 4 (Surah An-Nisa): Verse 29 - 30 Narrated Jundab the Prophet said, "A man was inflicted with wounds and he committed suicide, and so Allah said: My slave has caused death on himself hurriedly, so I forbid Paradise for him." (Bukhari Volume 2, Book 23, Number 445) Narrated Thabit bin Ad-Dahhak:"And if somebody commits suicide with anything in this world, he will be tortured with that very thing on the Day of Resurrection. (Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 73)" Again I sincerely apologize to my opponent for bringing in new points of information in the last rebuttal and giving him no room to defend such a case. I merely thought my opponent had conceded this premise upon conceding the crusades. I apologize for my incorrect assumption. Though I do realize that my assumption that my opponent conceded the points made on crusades by itself is not incorrect. However he brings up this concept again as a basis for his victory in his final rebuttal when he states: "cushion and the comfort required for such things as the Crusades," So while my opponent states that the concept of afterlife produces the negative result of crusades and terrorist attacks, I do have to disagree that the concept of afterlife is responsible and have to propose that the corrupt people who have alterior motives in this aspect use a distorted concept of the afterlife as a tool. So as I have stated in my example of the crusades, it is corrupt leaders and politicians who skew the concept of the afterlife. The concept is simply a tool, had it not existed these same people would use other tools of deception to further their ambitions. So as I have negated throughout this debate the concept of reaching the afterlife (by avoiding sin and asking forgiveness for mistakes) produces no negative effects. This has not been negated by my opponent. Furthermore the concept of afterlife is used as a tool of deception by corrupt leaders to further a cause. The concept of the afterlife is not at fault, the people deceiving others through it are. I would like to thank my opponent for a well-thought debate and would welcome more debates of this polite and intellectual stature in the future. I would like to part with the utmost respect for my opponent as a friend and as a fellow debater. Please provide reasons for your votes.