Spreading atheism brings more benefit to an individual or to a society than not spreading it.

While I appreciate Con's argument and rebut, my motion shall not falter in any way and I wish to show the audience more as to why. A1.1 Con claimed that he did not break any of his own rules and justifies it poorly. this is statement 2 agreed before debate : "2) There is no afterlife. Example: benefits of getting into heaven cannot be proposed. Only the benefits we can receive in this life can be argued here." I qoute here, word by word from Con. It clearly states there that : "Benefits of getting into heaven cannot be proposed." and Con mentioned in Round 3 that : "one is still allowed to use the term as long as the existence of it does not help either house"s argument" According to Con's primary argument in Round 2, he stated that Christians will do more good and will be afraid of conducting evil DUE TO BEING JUDGED AFTER THEIR DEATHS hence with the existence of religion, crime rate is reduced and the spread of atheism denies that. How is Con not breaking his own rules? Con used the event of "Last Judgement" (afterlife) in order to proof his point. I hope everyone is aware that this is NOT a false accusation. A1.2 Con believes that I misunderstood the topic but Con did not pay attention to my argument. Here, I quote Con word by word again - "I am not arguing that a religious community is better than an atheist community." As you can see, Con is not arguing that a religious community is better and from this statement we can at least deduct that con DOESN'T disagree that an atheist community IS better. Moving on, Con argued that spreading atheism to a Christian community would increase crime rate. 2 major things to be noted. 1 - Con, in order to prove such a statement, you need EVIDENCE not just pure deduction from your opinion. and the only reason i mentioned that religion can be dangerous too was to prove that your point CAN be invalid. 2 - Con, you are sorely mistaken. My job as the Pro is NOT to prove that attempt to change a religious society to non-religious would benefit the society but to prove that SPREADING atheism brings benefit. example : If Atheism is spread, people become more exposed and informed, people learn more from the theory regardless REJECTING or ACCEPTING it but to LEARN from it. It is a choice that we are all entitled to. A1.3 I did not say that spreading atheism would help decrease crime rate or increase bad things from happening, i merely pointed out that you using religion as a way to prove your point is not valid by showing real life examples. A2 Con has completely mistaken my point and believes that i failed to support my case. I qoute Con "I totally agree with researches to prove whether god exists." Indeed, and I agree with your statement BUT part of proving and understanding whether god exists or not is through the education of Atheism. Which shows that Atheism does bring benefit as again as i mentioned, it exposes people to a different kind of theory, one of which they deserve to know of. When i used the examples of Aliens and Gods in Round2, I was merely proving that spreading unproved knowledge (which includes atheism) IS NOT a waste of time and resources which Con so heavily believes that it is. And by proving so, it DOES support my case as I am arguing that since Atheism is a form of knowledge and a field waiting to be explored even more, it is NOT a waste of time and resources to spread atheism as it is beneficial for the masses to know more. B1.1 Con updated his stand from Atheism not being a form of knowledge to "Unproved Knowledge" Here we can finally see that Con realizes that Atheism is in fact a form of knowledge (and a very interesting one) Con merely suggests that Atheism is unproved which i completely AGREE! I've stated in my primary argument that as long as there is chance for certain knowledge to be true, we as humans can learn and nourish from it. Example : Atheism finally proved to be untrue. Now we finally reached to the LONG AWAITED FINAL CONCLUSION that God does exists! Yay! BUT WAIT. how do we achieve that? Through spreading Atheism of course! We should always inform people of new forms of knowledge and this is what makes us humans so unique - Knowledge. B2.1 I've already shown that Con mistaken my point of argument in A2 and I have already shown that it is beneficial to spread Knowledge as long as there is a chance for it to be true. B3.1 Con : "Yes. Atheism is a form of knowledge, but not a proved one." Again! Con suggests that as long as Atheism is unproved, his argument stands. I have already shown the my primary argument in round 1 that unproved knowledge still DESERVES to be spread and heard (plus refer to B1.1) B4.1 My argument stands on the basic fact that I believe people should be informed of all forms of knowledge to develop their own choices and personality. and while con said :"Some personalities are better left undefined". I urge the audience to understand : Who is Con to think so? Thank you very much and may the best win.