Religious doctrine of inherent evil is incredibly harmful to mankind.

To my esteemed opponent. I thank you for this wonderfully made speech. It should be both challenging and interesting. To the voters, I would ask that you don't assume my response is from personal conviction, but rather from the want of a good debate. Hopefully this will indeed prove worthy of being so titled. Now to the fun part. You specify the Christian doctrine. I will respect that and only debate from the Christian standpoint. My first argument is the fact that you don't backup your first claim. You say that this believe is responsible for all these things, but don't prove how they cause it. This leads me to my first argument. The burdens argument. The resolution provides a clear and distinct burden to both the affirmative and negative debaters. My opponent's burden is that of proving the resolution true, and mine is that of proving it false. When my opponent makes claims but doesn't back them up, he is failing on his own burden. In order to win, he will have to do a better job in his future rounds. Now for why your argumentation is wrong. The first problem you present is that of division. If division were harmful to mankind, then why are we debating? Division isn't harmful to mankind. Rather, it allows for things to be tested and proven on the intellectual battlfield. By yours and my division, we are hoping to get to the truth of this issue. So division leads to good things. The second problem you present is family dispute. When my siblings and I, or my parents and I argue, this isn't harmful to mankind. Mankind, as defined by wordnet is "all of the living human inhabitants of the earth." My argument with my parents or siblings has no effect on a family in Russia, China, or even the neighboring state Colorado. Therefore even if this belief causes family division, it doesn't effect EVERY living being on the face of the earth. The third is a negative expectation. There's an old saying, "There are two types of people in this world. Those who think everything will work out right, and those who know it won't." We've all been told at one point in our life, that life isn't fair. If your brother gets the candy bar while you get stuck washing dishes, then you might get a little angry at the injustice. This is the way the world works. Sometimes things work out for the better. But sometimes they don't. Sometimes having a negative expectation isn't bad at all. It's just realistic. When you fail to tell me why a negative expectation is bad, there is no reason to believe it is bad. Then you argue about genocide. There isn't even a vague link to this, so I don't see how you can claim it. But those who commit genocide rarely believe in the Christian God. Even though Hitler claimed to be, I doubt he measures up to the Christian standard. Why then does it fit that one who doesn't believe in the Christian God is caused to commit genocide because of a Christian belief? It doesn't make any sense. You say that this causes believers to give greater weight to individual cases of bad behavior. I say the opposite. If you were told that while visiting your girlfriend's/boyfriend's family for the first time you would hear random explatives proceeding from the mouth of his/her sister because she has alzheimer's (I'm sure that was a run-on.) Then you wouldn't give it more weight because you are expecting it to happen. The same applies for this belief. If you believe that something is going to happen, then when it does happen, it's not as big of a deal. So this argument is completely false. You then proceed to say it is a self-fulfilling prophesy. This too is wrong because if one expects something to happen, then it allows them to view it as less important. It creates a feeling of apathy towards it after a while. This means that it should theoretically stop this "cycle" because it isn't viewed as important. Take the example of a small child. If every time the child throws a fit for something they want and it is given to them, then the child learns that it can get whatever it wants by throwing a fit. But if throwing a fit doesn't help, then it will stop throwing fits because it knows that won't work. Now for some analysis. My opponent must show you how the religious doctrine of inherent evil IS incredibly harmful to mankind. He must show that it is harmful now, not in the future, not in the past, but right now. Not only that, but he must show that it is harmful to all of mankind. If I can prove how it isn't harmful to all of mankind, even one person, then I win the round.