In the current world we live in, religion is not necessary

Before I being I would like everyone to know that I was of the understanding that 2nd round would be for presenting opening arguments. Pro said that I also have a burden to prove, which implies I have to have my own case, which means that round 3 would be for refutation and rebuttal, so please do not consider any of my points conceded. I would like everyone to understand that plagiarism is Not against any rules here on DDO, and it only makes sense as an arguing tool. To say that every time someone debates they have to make new arguments that have never been said, is absurd. I clearly said that “I will defend the following arguments from[1]”….‘FROM source 1’, meaning I am using their arguments, I told everyone that these weren’t my arguments and I gave credit to the source, that doesn’t even fit the definition of plagiarism anyhow. Are you going to say that if you use the Kalam cosmological argument in support of god, then you have plagiarized the creator’s work? No, or course not, because that is beyond crazy. I have presented arguments and as I clearly stated, I would and will defend them. There has been no error on my part and any voter who thinks plagiarism is against the rules, please find me some quoted evidence from the cite rules, you will not find it. In any case I had no other option but to use someone else’s arguments because the opponent submitted their own arguments when it was about 1am and I refuse and should not be forced to stay up all night to craft a 10k response to this case, I also have a life and a job you realize. So, this is going to be unfortunate for Pro as she must now lose the round automatically. She has not refuted all of my arguments, only a few and thus she concedes them because, as in any debate setting, silence to an argument is compliance with the argument. Thus even if the judges consider most of the arguments I presented as “redundant”, Pro herself has admitted that she will not refute the argument on ‘Religion influences economy’ nor on ‘Religious influences political systems’ nor on ‘Religion promotes welfare’….and thus, because these are conceded I must win the round automatically after I provide my refutation to her own arguments. But first, to defend my case. i)Religion provides mental peace, explains suffering, and strengthens self confidence I will deal with C2 here shortly. The only argument pro gives here is that because religion starts wars that it actually causes suffering, but this argument uniquely forgets that suffering and happiness are not mutually exclusive, in fact that’s one of the whole points of religions, that in times of suffering someone can explain their pain. Furthermore, to suggest that religion is the cause of those listed wars or any major war is a common and widely accepted idea, that is simply untrue. Pro provides no evidence in support of that conclusion. In reality most wars have never had a religious tag attached to them and what’s more, of the ones that did, religion was not the actual motivating factor for starting the war. If we look at what is really going on, in any major war you could cite, we can see that the cause is always political in nature and never religiously motivated. “Pope Urban II let the knights of Christendom loose on the Muslim world to extend the power of the church eastwards and create a papal monarchy that would control Christian Europe. The Spanish inquisition was a deeply flawed attempt to secure the internal order of Spain after a divisive civil war, at a time when the nation feared an imminent attack by the Ottoman Empire. Similarly, the European wars of religion and the thirty years war were certainly exacerbated by the sectarian quarrels of Protestants and Catholics, but their violence reflected the birth pangs of the modern nation-state.”[2] These are just a few examples, but other things directly suggest that war is political and almost never religiously based, such as the fact that the 100 years’ war, supposedly the last war of religion, was fought between two catholic nations, or the fact that Protestants and Catholics have repeatedly fought on the same side, against Catholics. Now, is it true that those in power could use religion as a catalyst? Sure, but even if religion didn’t exist the political problems would still arise in almost the exact same way and thus getting rid of religion would not decrease suffering because the same amount of wars would happen due to inevitable political conflicts, yet those who fight those wars would surely experience suffering from lack of an explanation of suffering, and the idea that what’s dead is truly dead, that there is no after life…ect. To support this point further, I would like everyone reading this to step outside of their comfortable 1st world lives for just a second, and imagine the great mass of those who live in poor nations. It is no doubt that most people do not live comfortably. Most people on this earth are impoverished without escape, ignorant of most of the world, starving, and abused by government and disease. For these people religion is a fundamental part of their lives. Religion is not just an idea that someone magical is watching you, religion is quite literally culture and identity, and even as an atheist I can recognize this. The resolution at hand basically asks whether or not culture and identity are necessary in a modern world, to which the answer is a shockingly obvious yes. ii) Promotes social unity, keeps social peace con’s statement here is overtly offensive, to assume that all people within a religion are in a cult shows a supreme amount of ignorance and blatant stupor. Other than her offensive statement here, pro merely cites her C5 to which I will address momentarily. But as a note, to state that religion divides us, even if true, would not apply to this contention because it means that within a certain religion there is unity, not everyone in humanity, I thought this was apparent. Thus this argument itself conceded, please add it to the conceded bucket. iii) Religion instills social virtues In what way does learning calculus teach you not to kill? Education is solely the acquisition of new skills, at best you can learn from education offhand, by developing your own morality, but education in no way teaches morality or social virtues. This will be confronted more in your counterplan below. C1.) Archaic laws Right off the bat let me make it clear, the only contentions with any relevant or plainly stated impacts are C4 and C5; the rest are basically meaningless. This contention for example has no impact…What is inherently bad about having archaic laws? Once the constitution of the United States or the UK becomes too old should we throw out of system of government for being ‘archaic’? Of course not. The only thing pro brings up is homosexual exclusive from marriage, which she never even establishes as a right. Sorry but that’s a different debate. That was her only impact to this contention and it is now null. She makes a few other, unrelated, claims as well. This is another claim from ignorance about religion, that those who are religious commit unethical activities in the name of god, first point, being that pro does not believe in god, where does he get the right to declare anything as universally immoral? Second, this is clearly wrong, 84% of the entire world’s population has a faith, yet where are all of the crazy and immoral actions being taken out in religions name? The best you can give is outlier examples. Refuted. C2.) Comfort There is no such thing as false comfort. Comfort is comfort, and it is perceived as 100% real by those who experience it. Your second and final point is basically that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, nope. This idea probably comes from those first world issues, like when you pop your tire on the side of the road and you locked your phone in the car so your stranded and no one stops to help, sure after your vigorous 2 mile walk to auto shop you may well feel stronger, but I don’t think this applies to real issues. Issues like having your husband and children killed as a fatality of the Iraq war, in a predator strike. Or having your leg shot off, or being politically oppressed by your government, forced to work in a sweat shop...ect. These things are real issues, and it is simply cocksure to state that because they didn’t die, they have somehow become stronger. Religion helps people like this in a tremendous way, and prevents absolute loss of hope. I know it’s a hard idea for us to get, but there is a breaking point to all people. God serves to eliminate human suffering and dramatically extend the ‘breaking point’ if you will, as well as provide identity, culture and morality to specific groups of people and is thus dramatically necessary, even in a modern world. C3) This operates on the assumption that what is illegal is good, and that the original wording of a given religious ‘policy’ or scripture is bad, really people use religion secondarily. C4) Even if we got rid of religion these practives would still be there, ingrained in culture itself. You agree that what is legal is good, it has been legally agreed that churches shouldn't pay taxes, if you think this is incorect, then it still goes to show that religion is a large force in politics. C5) This has no impact, because religion hasn't started any modern wars since the 100 years' war, so clearly even if it divides us this has no harm. Besides there are other things which truely divide us such as ethnicity, gender, attractivness. If anything religion serves to mend current division like those I just mentioned and getting rid of it causes their resurgence. Science This operates on the assumption that science and religion are at odds, when in reality they are not. So the answer? Do both. You operate under the false dilemma fallacy here, these two are not competing ideas. So, increase education and keep religion, culture, identity, and unity. Thank you.