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

Like the millions of religious zealots before him, my opponent has been blinded by his beliefs. =)I'll break this down into simple contentions, each documenting how the impacts of this debate play out. The Minds WarIn my opponent's final round he suggests that I have ignored his contentions from Round 3. Nothing could be further from the truth. During Round 3 I argued three points (and cited them):1. A world without religion results in a constant life stress which will increase the risk of 6 billion deaths by 50%. 2. People now participate in religion at their own convenience. Worshipping is no longer a zealous, stressful activity. 3. Even if worshipping was stressful, that stress would pale in comparison to the life stress that is death. My opponent ignores these points throughout rounds 4 and 5, I invite the reader to reread them. My points have remained completely unrefuted. Which means, my esteemed critics, when you finish reading this debate the first order of importance is 6 billion potential deaths. Even if you grant my opponent every single one of his other arguments, the risk of 6 billion lives will heavily outweigh. Genetic CodesAs should be recalled, the topic of this resolution is two fold. My opponent must win that religion is not beneficial to (1)humanity and that religion is not beneficial to (2)society. Throughout my five rounds I have continuously argued that the root of humanity is the human genome. I have continually argued (and cited) that aggression is partially a genetic trait, and thus, to improve the human genome, religious wars are useful in culling these expressions. In response, my opponents sole argument is that, "both genetic and environmental factorsplay a role in aggression and violent tendencies". OKAY. I will grant his argument as completely 100% true. However, his argument does nothing to answer my argumentation. Insofar as my opponent has conceded "humanity = the genome" and insofar as my opponent has conceded that "aggression is partially genetic", my opponent has lost this debate. It doesn't matter that environmental factors also play a role in aggression, that's not the relevant question. The question is, "does religion benefit (1)humanity?" My opponent concedes that it alters the genome in a preferable way, and so yes, it benefits (1)humanity. Cause and EffectIn Pro's final round he asserts:"A Study Suggests that Religion helps criminals justify their crimes. [2]" However, a careful rereading of source 2 reveals no such argument. No where in his source 2 does it say that religion helps criminals justify crimes. In fact, like my opponents previous source, this one once again asks the causality question. That being, "does religion cause crime or does religion spring up in places where crimes exist?" I would implore the reader to revisit this section of my round 4 arguments. Wherein I completely dissected Pro's argumentation by demonstrating (with substantial citations) that religion springs up in response to crime, hard lives, and atrocities. Seldom is religion the instigator of such things. These arguments were never refuted by Pro, he only states, "Con again in blatant denial of logic."If there is any doubt left on this matter... one only has to look as far as my opponent's own omission. Religion is not an integral part of violence or atrocities. In fact, the world changes religion in order to fit the world's own needs. Thus, any atrocity attributed to religion would still exist in a world sans religion, only under the guise of another group philosophy. A Secular Community:I would like to examine my opponent's impacts in this debate. Throughout these five rounds I have argued that it is impossible to quantify the lack of religion. In response my opponent has repeatedly stated, paraphrased, "we should just look at mostly secular societies." Ignoring the glaring problem with this logic (Read: Cause and Effect), my opponent has been completely non-responsive to my ultimate line of reasoning. The reason why it is impossible to quantify the lack of religion is because: It is impossible to know the magnitude of wars that were avoided because religion existed. What does this mean? Well... reread my opponents source on Hitler, at the very bottom is states, "Would the Holocaust have happened if Hitler had been a Buddhist?" The question is this, "how many wars were avoided because world leaders were linked to peaceful religions?" Because we can never answer this question we can never quantify my opponents impacts. ...My opponent continues to argue the holocaust. I don't mean to be rude, but he's just wrong; Hitler passionately hated religion. Final Thoughts:1. Without religion 6 billion people gain a 50% risk of death (society). 2. Religion absolutely helps the genome (humanity).3. Pro has cause and effect backwards; religion helps the disenfranchised, it doesn't create them.4. Pro's impacts are unquantifiable. Great objectivity urges a Con ballot!!