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

Framing:The way that pro has set up this debate requires him to prove that religion is overall not beneficial to society and humanity. He clarifies in his round 1 that this means both in the present and past. Thus there are four arguments which my opponent must uphold:1. Religion is not beneficial to society now.2. Religion was not beneficial to society in the past.3. Religion is not beneficial to humanity now. 4. Religion was not beneficial to humanity in the past. Thus far my opponent has mostly focused on point 2, with a tiny bit of point 1. The Trap: A Secular Community:Pro suggests that quantification of non-religion can occur by examining secular communities. This is a false proposition, very few completely secular communities exist in the world, and none are of substantial size [1]. The next best thing is to examine the motive behind past atrocities: were they religious based or not? This examination will tell us whether they would occur in a world devoid of religion. Thus I will quickly list three secular movements responsible for mass deaths:1. The Holocaust (6 million deaths)2. Pol Pot's Cambodia (1-3 million deaths) [2]3. Stalin's Russia (3-60 million deaths) [3]My esteemed opponent will of course argue that there were some religious underpinnings. In the 2nd and 3rd case such an argument is unfounded, both situations were focused on the ideals of communism (an asecular philosophy). In the 1st case it has been well documented that Hitler became disdainful of Christianity; he repeatedly stated that Nazism was a secular idealogy [4]. Of course these are only examples of wars which religion failed to prevent. My source 1 from round 1 demonstrates that religions heighten altruism in populations. Fundamentally many world religions preach respect for fellow human beings. Thus we arrive at the same problem as before: comparing secular and religious atrocities is impossible because we do not know how many atrocities religion prevented. Finally my opponent uses a few out of context quotations from my own source. The actual quote reads, "Perhaps moralising gods are not required for complex societies. After all, the Romans and Greeks created large, complex societies despite having a pantheon of gods who were not exactly paragons of virtue." This of course isn't my point; I'm well aware that moralizing gods are not "required". My argument is that complex society formed around religions which acted to bind them together. As the source delineates pro-social training can be taught via religion or otherwise. However, it is most likely that religion was the enabling factor for complex societies as it represents an absolute moral code. Thus religion has enabled much of present day society and it's population. The Mind's WarI'll quickly reiterate that massive medical organizations (the mayo clinic) recommend religion as way to relieve stress. My opponent's speculation stands unfounded in the face of scientific research. He argues that religion creates stress by causing people to pray, worship, and repent for their sins. I would like to remind him that the alternative is not knowing what will happen after death (a life stress). Religions allow people to avoid the greatest perpetual stress via promises of salvation. Besides, the majority of religious people are religious at their own convenience despite what the church says [5].I will reiterate the magnitude of what we're discussing. Life stress can increase risk of death by 50%. We are talking about 6 billion people here, these impacts dwarf anything my opponent has presented. Genetic Codes:As my opponent has constructed this debate, he must also argue that religion is not beneficial to humanity. He has yet to do so. I previously articulated that humanity, at it's core, is the genome. Thus the question of being beneficial to humanity is one of genetic favorabilty and inheritance [6]. Since Pro has already conceded that aggression and violence are not beneficial to society, my point is quite easy to win. Aggression and violent tendencies are partially genetic predispositions [7][8]. And war, at it's core, is just glorified natural selection [9]. Since people with violent predispositions are the most likely to be caught up in wars those predispositions are also the most likely to be terminated. Societies with the greatest scientific advances are likely to triumph in these wars, which allows their brilliance to become a larger proportion of the genetic pool. A world with religious wars is one in which humanity thrives, regardless of society. Sources:1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com...4. http://tinyurl.com...5. http://tinyurl.com...6. Ridley, Matt. Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters. HarperCollins 2013. Print.7. http://tinyurl.com...8. http://tinyurl.com...9. http://tinyurl.com...