Christianity is a force for good in the world.

If Con wishes to include references, he must include them within the 8,000 character limit. However, there is no need to reference things that I accept, like the age of the universe. a. The debate resolution is "Christianity is a force for good in the world." That means that we are debating Christianity as it is today, not as it was during the Spanish Inquisition or over its history. Con specifies "the modern world." b. The resolution is also a generalization about Christianity, therefore assertions must be accurate generalities. For example, one could not argue that "Italians are evil" and expect that "the Italian mafia is evil" would prove the generality. Con does not justify his assertions about Christianity as valid generalizations. c. The contention that "Christianity has done far more harm than good" supposes that we hypothesize a world without Christianity and compare that world with the actual world that has Christianity. It is not reasonable to assume that if Christianity disappeared, that all the Christians would become paradigms of reason and temperance. People seek belief systems, so the present Christians might disperse among other religions, like Islam, and among extreme political ideologies or militant nationalism. Con makes no case that a vacuum of departing Christianity would not be filled by something worse. d. To compare "good" with "harm" we need a reasonable sense of proportion. Having a false belief is in some sense worse than having a true belief, but the measure ought to be the actual harm to others. About a quarter of the population believes in astrology http://www.foxnews.com..., but there is no particular harm in Capricorns being cautious around Rottweilers because a horoscope says so. C1. Con contends that "Religion misrepresents reality." Yes, sometimes it does. However Con gives no valid generality about modern Christianity harming others. Only a small fraction of Christians are fundamentalist-style Creationists. The Catholic Church represents over half of all Christianity, and it officially accepts Evolution. Moreover, the minority of Young Earth Creationists does very little harm. They might like to control science education, but in modern times they very rarely succeed. By contrast, the absurd and often delusional dogma of political correctness is systematically incorporated into the nation's textbooks through rigid standards. The book "The New Thought Police" documents the abuse. http://www.amazon.com... So while a few Christians might like to impose their belief upon school children, they do not succeed. The alternative dogma succeeds in doing harm. Con claims that if Old Testament teachings were followed, they would be worse than Islamic extremism. Perhaps, but they are in fact not followed. Two millennia of social evolution have purged harsh doctrines. Modern Christians are not burning witches -- or anything like it. The Bible was once thought to favor slavery; it is now thought to prohibit it. Con does not offer a single valid generalization about evils in modern Christianity. C2. "The dogmas of Christianity are harmful to society." Con asserts "Christian beliefs may console some, but they ultimately harm humanity by distracting people from actual problems by pacifying them with dubious promises of an afterlife." Christians do believe in an afterlife, but there is no evidence that this causes Christians to ignore present problems. To the contrary, Christians are taught they must act benevolently in order to secure heavenly rewards. Con asserts, "Countries with high levels of religious belief are unusually [?] plagued by high levels of crime, low [?] infant mortality rates, disease and social turmoil." We are discussing Christianity, not religion in general, and in any case the assertion is false. The lowest crime rates are in Buddhist countries, and in general there is no cause-and-effect relationship to Christianity. If Christianity causes crime, disease, and turmoil, then the Vatican City, which is 100% extremely devout Christians, should be the worst place on earth for those things. It isn't. C3. "Christianity promotes intolerance and supports oppression." Islamic sub-Saharan Africa practices female genital mutilation. The major opposition originated with Christian missionaries. http://www.encyclopedia.com... Con offers no evidence that misogyny characterizes modern Christianity or that present-day Christians are typically anti-Semitic. It is true that Christians get to vote on social issues like everyone else. However, Con is mistaken that Christianity is per se the only opposition to a radical makeover of society according to Con's concept of what is right. San Francisco, perhaps the city in the U.S. with the least Christian influence, voted overwhelmingly in 2008 against the decriminalization of prostitution. http://www.filthylucre.com... Japan, with fewer than 2% Christians, has very strict anti-drug policies. http://www.kansaigaidai.ac.jp... "Utah passed legislation Tuesday banning discrimination against gays with an historic endorsement from the Mormon Church." http://www.cbn.com...-/ The point is that Con has an invalid stereotype of what is Christian. To prove that modern Christians are misogynist or anti-Semitic, he should cite statistics on modern Christian preaching to that effect an then show through polling data that Christians conform to those beliefs. He has not done that. I suspect those generalizations could be proved for, say, modern Islam, but not Christianity. A1. Christianity provides a reasonable moral compass Standard Christian teachings like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "do not steal' are sound. These widely-believed basic principles of moral behavior are far more important than oddities like Young Earth Creationism that have little practical impact upon society. Christians are endlessly discussing what the Bible really means, and the long term result is a socially evolved doctrine. That's the virtue of having passages that are in conflict, indefinite, or allegorical. By trying to divine the "true meaning," Christians have slowly evolved the interpretations based upon the experience of culture. Where I live, nutcase environmentalists have succeeded in banning the sale of dark-colored cars, and are working to ban large screen televisions. http://bighollywood.breitbart.com... More seriously, they restrict water supplies needed to grow crops and to support workers. They have prevented building dams needed for flood control and water supply. http://www.npr.org... Christians are not making me pray to their God, but the alternative orthodoxy is making me bow to their sacred minnow. A2. Christianity provides a stable community I don't believe in supernatural powers. Consequently I think churches are social institutions. As such they provide the benefits of social institutions. Church members gather and support each other, share common traditions, and are psychologically empowered to perform good works that benefit the larger community. Churches feed the needy and care for the poor. The Salvation Army has unfounded religious beliefs, but it is more important that they are dedicated to helping others. http://www.salvationarmy.org... There are over 4000 Catholic charitable organizations.http://www.newadvent.org... Especially considering the alternatives, Christianity does more good than harm in the modern world.