Religion is overall beneficial on the human race.

\\\What I am saying is that the proportionality of criminals being religions to the amount of religious people in this country is not corresponding. In other words, if you were to bring up that there were more religious criminals, I would already have a knock-down. This obstacle for your case is the fact that a very small minority of the U.S. is atheist, therefore saying that most criminals in this country have to be religious. My point of this contention is that religion does not stir up more crime./// You are basing your argument off an assertion, you have no evidence that religion is not related to crime. The areas where high levels of religion are are also high crime levels. Think, the middle east, bad parts of big cities? \\\Note that this kind of teaching was mostly around Galileo's time, not present-day. Can you name any president of the United States who is or was blinded to science?/// Name one? Ok, Geroge Bush. And if you haven't noticed, a lot of people in the world still believe this, 18% in fact according to a NPR poll. \\\If according to Catholicism God created people, and people created science, then technically God created the source of science. If you ask "Why did God create science," then are you asking, "Why did God create the world?"/// Why didn't god create us and put us in armchairs on beaches with our favorite foods? Why did he make us deal with all the oil spills, wars, crime etc. \\\With reasoning, if killing yourself took you to paradise, those people practicing that religion would have long since died out./// Your reasoning is faulty. It's Killing yourself for your religion that makes you go to paradise, not just committing suicide in general. \\\The Renaissance was when art and writing and culture flourished; how can you call it a waste of time? During this time, Italy did think, they did invent, and they did innovate./// Again, your reasoning is faulty, and you are putting words in my mouth. The cause of the renaissance was the uncovering of all texts, not just religious, but also scientific etc. They were uncovering the texts the church hid from them. This point was not refuted. \\\Rockylightning, considering that we attend the same school, I'm sure you're not the only one who has heard someone get called a name like that. However, there is still the factor of race. Asians get a stereotype, Caucasians get a stereotype, African Americans get a stereotype – where does it end? If you have a different opinion on politics than others, then you'll still be picked on at school. Maybe you'll still be pushed around as an adult. But in truth, religious differences are another reason why people should try to accept people for who they are./// You do not get this point. Religion creates another thing to tease people about. Enough Said. You have not refuted this point. \\\Instead of giving me a frightening video of planes crashing into the Twin Towers to try to give an impact on your case, what part of that video shows that this has anything to do with religious meaning?/// ... It has been long since proved that the people who hijacked the planes were Islamic extremists. You cannot deny this fact. \\\Yes, new thinkers were burned at the stake. I'm here to prove why religion is overall beneficial to the human race – if I can prove to you that there is better than harm with religion to the human race, I win this debate./// The natural right of life will tip the scale much farther than any of your arguments. \\\However, those trials ended years ago./// The effects are still echoing on our Earth. It's like saying "The Holocaust happened years ago, therefore it doesn't matter " \\\We have a right to religion, or the right to practice no religion at all. It's stated in the Constitution, the framework for government for our very country. You cannot possibly argue against that. I do understand that the motion is based on the human race and not just the U.S., by the way./// Why do you bring up the constitution? First, some countries have no constitution. Second the US was not mentioned in the motion. Third, the human race has no constitution. \\\. Rockylightning states that praying is a non-active activity; praying should not take up an excessively huge amount of time out of your life, /// Then why do you state that religion gives you a healthier body? Do you know what your points are? \\\Again, I need the evidence. Where are your sources? /// My opponent cannot refute my points, therefore makes my points look invalid by saying I do not have a source. I will state them later because my opponent asked. Most of what I'm saying is common knowledge. \\\In fact, what you have stated above actually helps my case – Religion was revealed, and the people flourished; look at that./// You do not get it. The Renaissance was the uncovering of ALL texts. Not just religious. This does not help your points because the Renaissance was where independent thinkers developed, where they moved AWAY from religions. It wasn't a religious awakening, it was an awakening of ALL things. And awakening from the deep sleep of the middle ages where RELIGION governed them. \\\When slavery was popular in the 1700's, many African American slaves looked to Christianity for hope and salvation. We cannot argue that Christianity is not a religion./// You point? \\\That is true. However, 85% of adults in America (18 year olds and up) practice a religion./// What is your point! If your getting at that "it's popular" then I will refute it. Slavery was popular in the 1700's as you stated before, does that mean it's right? Now to summarize: My opponent has failed to refute most of my points effectively and used a red herring fallacy to divert voter's attention away from the fact that she did not refute the point. My opponent wants sources like a shark wants blood. I will provide them even though my points are for the most part common knowledge. http://www.etymonline.com... http://www.cbc.ca... http://www.cbsnews.com... My opponent has stated a one source, a blog site. When considering who had more reliable sources, please not this. Conclusion: The motion is down. All my opponent's points are refuted. I have stated more reliable sources. For these reasons, Con wins. Good Day.