In general, religion is cute, cuddly, and nice to have around.

Second speech of the day. Here goes. My opponent begins by arguing that cute and cuddly are simply figures of speech, this is true however does not discredit either point. Look to both of my points on the issue and the idea of fire and brimstone preaching. These are examples of religion in that status quo that are not nice at all. From here we begin our argument concerning the crusades. My opponent simply argues that this is not happening in the status quo and therefor does not fall under the definition of "is". This point has no grounding what-so-ever, this would be like looking at a man who had killed 3 of your family members and saying, "hmmm he seems cute, cuddly, and nice right now, considering he isn't killing anyone." Except for the fact that we are talking about the crusades and inquisition here in which thousands died. The fact that it isn't currently killing people in mass doesn't change the fact that it is not cute, cuddly, or nice. Next we have my opponents argument that wars caused by religion don't matter at all. Main points: 1. Concession that wars happen and are caused by religion. 2. Absolutely no examples of where religion is used as a benefit. 3. Examples that contain religion being used as a benefit could be achieved just as well without religion. Just because I'm not saying, "Jesus loves you" while I am feeding starving African children doesn't mean they are not getting fed. From here my opponent begins to argue that wars fought over religion don't matter because they are not today, please cross apply my point from crusades. He then goes on to justify the idea that religion helps many people by saying it is popular. This a fallacy quite commonly known as the appeal to popularity. The idea is simple, point out to people that many other people are doing something so that they feel they should do it. A common example would be on the middle school playground, "Hey Timmy, want to try some drugs? Everyone is doing them. Yum!" This is obviously fallacious. In this case the problem with my opponents point is the fact that a majority of children are brought up being religious. 18 years of having an idea ingrained in ones head is no basis for saying that religion is good because of popularity. Next my opponent agrees that religion does create fanaticism. This is a point for my case. He goes on to say that relatively few cases actually inspire violence, thus I would like my voters to look to the fact that he agrees wars have been caused by religion. If wars are not violence I'm not really sure what is. My opponent is attempting to belittle wars, but in this day in age when wars have the chance to go nuclear they can be seen as the #1 largest impact. Wars, especially nuclear wars, outweigh any benefits. Thus begins my opponents line of thought about religion encouraging good and discouraging evil. This idea has no founding in this debate for exactly two reasons. 1. No proof, until my opponent brings me some kind of proof that the "good" teaching of some of these religions actually have an impact on society we cannot accept this point as evidence in this debate. 2. Good and Evil are completely subjective and this website is an amazing example. Think of all the debates we have seen on this website about how Islam is the #1 threat to America. I have even had a debate on codified theistic satanism. Good and Evil are all a matter of opinion. Matters of opinion have 0 founding in debate. Finally my opponent finishes his speech with this, "There is no hope for an afterlife if you are an atheist. This does not give me or most other atheists the warm fuzzies. That is why atheism is such an intellectually honest position. It is a position based purely on objective reasoning, despite attractive emotional whims." This is simply not true, an atheist still has hundreds of different philosophies to choose from, just because they are not accepting a deity does not mean that they suddenly have no hope what-so-ever. An atheist has every ability to believe that the body has a soul which will go on after death on some other plane. (Almost sounds like transcendentalism.) Under religion ones beliefs are nailed down and set as one predetermined thing. An atheist on the other hand has every opportunity to change his/her philosophy to whatever suites them. Take me as an amazing example, I believe everyone creates their own meaning in life. This makes me far happier than having to believe in a deity ever would. Atheism offers choice and as my opponent says, an intellectually honest position. Choice easily beats no choice and brings greater happiness. In conclusion my opponent attempts to discredit my points about religion in the past and then attempts to prove that religion helps many through his appeal to popularity. The bottom line is this, religion is an intellectually dishonest position which creates radicalized viewpoints which lead to wars. This is EMPIRICALLY proven! The cycle has been perpetuated for thousands of years, and this is not something we can allow for in present times. War now has the chance to go nuclear, nuclear war outweighs every impact my opponent could possibly bring into this debate. Thanks.