The Instigator
imsmarterthanyou98
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 976 times Debate No: 40256
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

My statement is short and simple . It is that major forms of religion (such as , Judaism, Christianity and Islam just to name a few) is mostly detrimental to the advancement of society,science ,education and humanity as it surely does not help the overall well being of anyone and this includes fundamentalist belief and extremism forms of religion. Also belief in moral codes handed down by the beliefs in monotheistic and poly theistic religions .Before we continue I must say it is not my intention to pick on any one religion most of them have the same attributes: 1) belief in the supernatural, 2) a moral code with supernatural origins, and 3) the need to spread their beliefs to the uninitiated. I will not be arguing on the existence of any god as that is another debate entirely I will simple be arguing that religions teaching itself and their followers and that it cultivates narrow-mindedness, arrogance, ignorance, delusion, unjustified hatred of others, and unjustified violence toward others opponent is to use logic , facts and reason in his arguments and so am I. This is my first debate on this site so forgive me in advance if I do not know the proper etiquette.
Well I am looking forward to someone challenging my statement my opponent is to show that major forms of religion are beneficial to the overall well being of society and that it is beneficial to the world.
Mikal

Con

I accept this debate and wish my adversary luck. Seeing as how there are no guidelines, I am only going to use this round as acceptance.
Debate Round No. 1
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

My opening argument is as follows.Religon is mostly overall detrimental to the advancement of society,science ,education the overall well being of others and humanity and religion is is not beneficial and that it has been and currently is he catalyst of countless horrible atrocities in history and in our society and is currently is an impediment upon the advancement of our society ,and government and many more things. let me say what I consider to be rationally detrimental to society and humanity.Religous motivated violence,Quashing of science and impediment of education and the teaching of creationism in public schools , political oppression for religious reasons,the discrimination of same sex couples because religions beliefs and ethics. I find these things are not beneficial being of society and humanity and any of us are entirely inspired and supported by religion.

Religious inspired violence.

First some devout religious followers have done horrendous acts of violence entirely for their faith and religious reasons. Religion has procured and cultivated Religious extremists such as the Taliban in the Islamic world or even the Christians here in the USA who don't care about separation of church and state ,democracy or respecting other people's right to live differently from them. This is irrelevant to them. because in their mind the only thing that matters to them is making God's will happen.
In their mind, God created everything that exists... and therefore, God's will trumps everything so with religion producing and cultivating such illogical ideas and belief's usually starting in young intellectually defenseless children who are taught such things before they have critical thinking & can think for themselves they are forced to believe that the world around them is, quite literally, irrelevant since their religion has imprinted upon them that the next world is what truly matters.
suicide bombing, "honor" killing such as the attack on the world trade center was a direct cause of Religion Islamic extremism..USA one is also one of the most religious first world countries in the world with a huge rate of gun crime, murder, imprisonment compared to less religious western nations.

political oppression.

The unverifiability of religion leads to many forms of political oppression in another way It makes religious leaders and organizations extremely powerful in politics because according to them they have God on their side. Also again their followers usually have religion forced down their throats by their parents as young children as they are told to implicitly believe whatever their religious teachings and leaders tell them . They are taught that their religious leaders have superior virtue, with a connection to God they've been taught that they should trust their religious leaders and if questioned they are filled with vivid, traumatizing stories of eternal burning and torture. A pew survey of 198 countries found that the share of countries with high or very high restrictions on religion rose from 37 percent in mid-2010 to 40 percent by the end of 2011.

Same sex marriage for one.

In the United States, when same-sex marriage has been up for popular vote, it has been shot down by many followers of religious groups .It has been consistently defeated largely because the full force of several organized religions, especially the Catholic and Mormon churches, have marshaled against it. how can this be helping our society by aiding discrimination and suffering of others?think about the trouble and pain that same sex couples have had to endure just because a holy book says its imoral.Is this helping their well being and to live a better life? I dare say no.

Quashing science and education.
religion our undercuts science and education

Forcing abstinence-only sex education on kids? Teaching creationism in public schools? that cant be productive nor logical. furthermore school boards all across this country are still spending time and money debating whether or not to have the well established theory of evolution taught in the schools. while they could be using these resources to actually teach they're spending debating this incredible unfathomable stupidity and thus denying our children the ability to learn and think rationally this is in no way helping them become productive and intelligent citizens of society . The impediment of scientific advancement from Galileo ( took the church until 1992 to apologize) to current Stem cell research bans coming from a direct cause of religious ethics,morals and organizations that are a massive roadblock to the advancement of science.

So when religion teaches that believing in the invisible is more important than understanding the perceivable... that personal faith is more important than critical thinking... that that what God supposedly says about the world is more real what's in the world itself ...such things are the root of much evil.
Mikal

Con

Let us review Pros resolution.

He is claiming that religion and faith are not beneficial to the well being of humanity and society.

Religion - the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. (2) The belief in a God or group of Gods[1]

Faith - strong belief or trust in someone or something [1]


So when we break this down. Essentially he is saying that the belief in a higher power is not beneficial toward the well being of humanity. This is not limited to strictly Christianity or any set religion, but he is saying any major religions can cause the contentions he mentioned in his opening round.

I am an atheist and I can see where Religion can cause harm to people, but saying it is not beneficial to humanity at all is a long step. Remember we are not weighing whether or not religion has caused more harm than good, or whether it has caused more good than harm. This is a debate about whether it is beneficial to humanity or has been beneficial to humanity. I am going to start with offering rebuttals to his contentions and then offering some contentions of my own.

Religious inspired violence.

This is and always has been the case. That religion can act as a catalyst for hate and war. Regardless that is irrelevant to the debate. Since we are not weighing whether or not there is more harm caused by religion than good, bringing up the violent acts that religion has caused is a non sequitur. None of the violence done in the name of religion cancels out the good that is done in return. Another major question is whether or not violence would have still happened if there where no religion. Almost any major conflict that one can name, has mostly been a fight over land and territory. While religion has been a catalyst in some of these situations, even without the influence of religion there is a high probability that it would have still occurred.

Political Oppression( Such as same sex marriage )

This is taking the beliefs of some and applying it to all. Granted the debate over whether or not gay people should be married, can be made outside of religious intent. We have mostly evolved past the severe tyranny that religion had over the masses at prior periods in time. There are still a lot of Christians that support same sex marriage as well[2]. I know a few gay people whom go to my old church and they are accepted and firmly believe they are going to heaven. They even had their marriage in the church.

The question is often brought up because of Sodom and Gomorrah, and how it was destroyed. If you broke the bible down back to Greek and Hebrew some of the verses have an entirely different meaning. While there was same sex marriage occurring in the cities that were destroyed, there was also adultery, types of pornography, open sex, corruption within the government, and even their treatment toward messengers from the lord. It even says in the bible specifically that ten holy men could not even be found in the city. They were destroyed for their transgressions and people automatically link homosexuality as the main cause of that because of verses taken out of context. View [3] for more information.


Education

This is only some less educated and persistent Christians that force this. Even the Roman Catholic Church has changed its doctrine and a majority of the church including arch bishops and even recent popes accept evolution as a fact. They have just changed to more of a theistic evolution belief. That is accepting the fact that God guided evolution. Even the Arch Bishop of Canterbury debated Richard Dawkins on a piece of this information as well[5]. If the video does not show up in my sources, look at the top right of the page.

What my adversary is doing, is taking the harm religion has caused and focusing on that. He however has not mentioned some of the good religion has done.

Contentions

(1) It gives people faith and hope to live. When people whom may be having a bad life or are going through bad times it gives them hope to live. In specific regards to when a loved one dies, they can live their life with the hope of seeing them again.

(2) Charity in the name of religion is also one that stands out. People who believe in Christ often will give up their life to go minister and help other people in rural areas. Anywhere from Africa to Afghanistan, where most people would be scared to testify. Religion serves as a way to serve people whom are in poverty because of how some religious people perceive the message of Christ or their religious books.

(3) We founded America on Christian principles.

(4) If you ignore some of the stupid parts of the bible, there are good messages as well. The golden rule and so forth.



[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.gaychristian.net...
[3] http://www.str.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5]
Debate Round No. 2
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

Let us review my acceptance statement.

"It is that major forms of religion (such as , Judaism, Christianity and Islam just to name a few) is mostly detrimental to the advancement of society,science ,education and humanity "

Con has disregarded my acceptance statements completely .I said Mostly and overall .The Merriam Webster definition of mostly is as follows.
": for the greatest part : mainly"

In my opening statement I stated the above more than once such as this.

"my opponent is to show that major forms of religion are beneficial to the overall well being of society"

Let us look at the definition of overall again From the Merriam Webster dictionary.

": with everyone or everything included: as a whole : in general"

^ Very clear.

Let's take a look at some of Cons arguments.
"Religious inspired violence.

"this is and always has been the case. That religion can act as a catalyst for hate and war."
"Almost any major conflict that one can name, has mostly been a fight over land and territory. While religion has been a catalyst in some of these situations, "

Con has agreed with some of my contentions.

Furthermore let's take at look at his arguments and contentions.

"Remember we are not weighing whether or not religion has caused more harm than good"

However this is exactly what we are doing as I've mentioned several times in my acceptance statements.

"While religion has been a catalyst in some of these situations, even without the influence of religion there is a high probability that it would have still occurred."

So according to him even without the influence of religion there would be a high probability that these wars listed below would of happened? Again just a very small part of the acts of violence & wars that religion is responsible for.Surely not the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org...


Oppression -same sex is just 1 of the examples I could give.

For example the rights of women? such as the Muslim Burqa, but also in conservative Christianity which discourages women preachers and in gender-specific commands of orthodox Judaism such as married women wearing a ‘Tichel’ and covering their hair. even in 2010, as reported in Christianity Today magazine, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that Christians in some countries in Africa still practiced female genital mutilation
Education

My opponent has ignored my statements about impediments of stem cell research and even so his contentions are severely flawed.

"That is accepting the fact that God guided evolution."

This is not a fact for there is no evidence to support this on the contrary we have observed evolution to be quite random and without the need for god.

"This is only some less educated and persistent Christians that force this"

https://www.au.org...


My adversary is wrong on this well.

Furthermore
"What my adversary is doing, is taking the harm religion has caused and focusing on that. He however has not mentioned some of the good religion has done. "
I see that religion has done a very small among of good however that by no means out weighs the bad that religion has done in many societies and humanity.

Religious charity.

While there are many religious charity's sure however in many such you must be a worshiper of their religion or god ect.Also there are many secular charaitable foundations that are doing alt of charitable works with the absence of religion such as Richard Dawkins Foundation’s effort to raise money for survivors of the Haitian earthquake for one.
A list of them are here
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com....

Hope.
It gives people faith and hope to live.While in part I do agree it may give some people a small sense of hope and comfort however this small sense of security and comfort however amounts to little compared with the much atrocities it does as I stated in round 1.

"We founded America on Christian principles. "

This statement simply does not hold to the historical evidence.
Indeed, most of our Founding Fathers, although they respected the rights of other religion, held to deism and Freemasonry tenets rather than to Christianity.

Further more the United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to Christianity.Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion.

So that's wrong.

The bible

Like I said in my acceptance statement it isn't my intention to pick on any single religion but even so there are a very small amount of morally sound messages in the bible however this bible he speaks about is filled with thousands of contradictions and many statements that are unmoral and unrational such as “Men are superior to women, Jesus is superior to men and God is above all. Women should worship all of them”.

Agian we see how Religon is not benefical with everyone or everything included.
Mikal

Con

I think my adversary is slightly confused and may be resorting to failed semantics to try and piece together what is left of his argument.

When you Claim that

"Religion and faith are not beneficial to society"

Then go on to say

""It is that major forms of religion (such as , Judaism, Christianity and Islam just to name a few) is mostly detrimental to the advancement of society,science ,education and humanity "

P1 : If Religion has been beneficial to society, the resolution is false.
P2: Harm caused by religion is a non sequitur, because it does not negate the good done by religion.

Defense of Premise 1

When examining Pros resolution, notice the claim he is making. He is saying Religion and Faith, Which could include major sects of religion, are not beneficial to society. Meaning that if religion has ever been beneficial to society, or remains beneficial to society his resolution is false. So lets exam the good brought about religion.

America Founded on Religious Principles

The first thing I want to cover was just a blatant error by Pro. I claimed America was founded on Christian principles. He responds with this

" Indeed, most of our Founding Fathers, although they respected the rights of other religion, held to deism and Freemasonry tenets rather than to Christianity. "

Deism - The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. [1]

Examine what religion is, I notated this in the first round. The belief in a God or Group of Gods, and possibly the worship of said God. Deism is the belief that a God created the universe, but does not meddle in the day to day affairs of it. Deism is a religion, hence why people call their religion Deist. It is more of a prospective in some regards, but it is a religion none the less. I literally have no idea what pro was trying to do when saying that the founding fathers respected the rights of religious people but were not religious because they were Deist. This kind of baffles me. Even if we shifted the word to "Deist" instead of "Christian" the same result would occur. A Positive impact from religion, which in turn negates pros resolution.

He also claims that America not founded on Christian Principles

This is a blatant error as well. The founding fathers were influenced by Christian ideology.

"One possibility is simply that the Founders identified themselves as Christians. Clearly, they did. In 1776, every European American, with the exception of about 2,500 Jews, identified himself or herself as a Christian. Moreover, approximately 98 percent of the colonists were Protestants, with the remaining 1.9 percent being Roman Catholics.[2]"


When addressing the question “Did America have a Christian Founding?” , it is important to consider that normal Christians might be influenced by Christian ideas, just as it is possible for an orthodox Christian to be influenced by non-Christian ideas. This is an excellent case that can be made for the fact that Christianity had a profound influence on the Founders.[3]

Hope

The harm religion causes does not negate the good it does. See P2 later on in this round.

Charity Work

My adversary argues that people can do charity work outside of religion. This is a fact, but again that is not a part of this debate. He has to acknowledge the charity work done in the name of religion as a benefit of religion.

Defense of Premise 2

My adversary wants to weight the good vs evil of religion. That is not a part of the debate. We are arguing that religion is not beneficial to society. We are not arguing religion has caused more harm than good.

Again lets's review the resoultion

" My statement is short and simple . It is that major forms of religion (such as , Judaism, Christianity and Islam just to name a few) is mostly detrimental to the advancement of society,science ,education and humanity"

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

He is saying there is no benefit that religion can give to humanity. I have shown this to be false, and we must be aware we are not putting the good vs bad on scale. We are simply debating is religion beneficial to society at all.






[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

[2] DeMar, America’s Christian Heritage, p. 13.

[3] Peter Marshall and David Manuel, The Light and the Glory (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Fleming H. Revell, 1977); John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1987); Tim LaHaye, Faith of Our Founding Fathers (Brentwood, Tenn.: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1987), pp. 90, 113; William J. Federer, America’s God and Country (Coppell, Tex.: FAME Publishing, 1994); David Barton, Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion, 4th ed. (Aledo, Tex.: Wallbuilder Press, 2005); and Gary DeMar, America’s Christian Heritage (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003).



Debate Round No. 3
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

I believe that my adversary might have failed to understand or is possibly in denial of my statements in round 1 as I will show several times here that what con says is blatantly wrong.

"We are not arguing religion has caused more harm than good. "

We can see here that Con has perhaps not understood the debate as that is exactly what we are doing as I demonstrate below also notice that Con has not made any rebuttals to my statement which put very clearly.

"It is that major forms of religion (such as , Judaism, Christianity and Islam just to name a few) is mostly detrimental to the advancement of society,science ,education and humanity "

unfortunately my adversary dose not seem to understand the definition of mostly or is in denial of it .

Merriam Webster definition of mostly is as follows.

": for the greatest part : mainly"

"Mainly , for the greatest part" so when we review my first contention we can all logically understand that according to the definition of mostly it is that for the greatest part or mainly religion and faith is not beneficial to the well being of society.

So Con has not once shown that religion for the greatest part or mainly is beneficial to society.

I made the above clear several times as we see here.

"my opponent is to show that major forms of religion are beneficial to the overall well being of society..."

Let us look at the definition of overall again From the Merriam Webster dictionary.

": with everyone or everything included: as a whole : in general"

So my opponent has not once shown how religion is with everyone included and in general beneficial to the well being of society.

Religious inspired violence.

rights of women

“Men are superior to women, Jesus is superior to men and God is above all. Women should worship all of them”.

same sex couples.

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

we see can clearly see how Religion is not beneficial to society or the well being of others with everyone or everything included further more .

Below me is a list of ideas and morals that the just the Christian bible endorses if we put these together with my other contentions as i stated in round 2 we can clearly see that religon is overall not beneficial to the well being of society and humanity with everyone included.we can clearly see .

http://www.evilbible.com...

http://www.evilbible.com...

http://www.evilbible.com...

http://www.evilbible.com...

http://www.evilbible.com...

As we can clearly see above when religion teaches and endorses such things are clearly overall not beneficial to the well being of society and humanity with everyone included.

I will say it again seeing as my adversary did not understand it last time when religion endorses and is the cuase of slavery , Ritual human sacrifice , sexism , rape , oppression , impeding science and education and the horrendous acts of religious inspired violence and wars we can all clearly see that the small amount of good that religion might inspire does not negate the huge amount of harm it does and that religion is clearly overall not beneficial to the well being of society and humanity with everyone included.

So when we put it all together we can clearly see that religion is overall not beneficial to the well being of society and humanity thus my argument stands.

we can see that Con has failed to understand the point of the debate or is in blatant denial of it.

Hope and Charity Work

the small amount of good religion inspires does not negate the bad it does and furthermore as I have shown there are plenty of secular charity organizations that do just as much if not more than religious ones.

Hope

America Founded on Religious Principles

Notice how Con did not comment on my previous statement

The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to Christianity. Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion.

But even if so his contention that the us was partly founded on Christian principles if these things are partly inspired by religion this in no way negates the enormous amount of evil that religion does.

So agian when religion teaches that believing in the invisible is more important than understanding the perceivable... that personal faith is more important than critical thinking... that that what God supposedly says about the world is more real what's in the world itself ...such things are overall detrimental to us all.

Mikal

Con

I almost don't feel the need to respond to anything this round because of failed semantics and failure to support his resolution. I will however, address some of the issues he has brought up.

Again let us review the resolution.

"Religion and faith is not beneficial to the well being of society and humanity"

Here he is claiming that religion and faith are not beneficial to humanity. No matter how we view this sentence, it speaks for itself. He is not saying religion is mostly harmful, but clearly states that it is NOT beneficial at all.

He does then go on to state that major sects of religion are "mostly" detrimental but then also goes on to say "it" referring to religiond "does not help the overall well being of anyone"
Again I direct you to my prior round. The resolution is not "Religion causes more harm than good", but is "Religion and faith is not beneficial to the well being of society and humanity"

So even in spite of the obvious title of this debate, when we piece together the topic itself. He is clearly claiming that " A majority of major sects in religion are detrimental and does not help the overall well being of anyone".

Saying that religion in itself is detrimental in some aspects of life is quite obvious, the issue with the resolution is that he tagged "not beneficial " to it. He claimed this both in the title of the debate, and in the sentence that he wants to keep positing but fails to show this part of it "as it surely does not help the overall well being of anyone".


Again I will direct you to the 2 main premises that I can offer to cancel out his resoultion.

P1 : If Religion has been beneficial to society, the resolution is false.
P2: Harm caused by religion is a non sequitur, because it does not negate the good done by religion.

Again this is essentially saying, that because of him stating that religion is not beneficial or does not benefit anyone that if any benefit is gained from religion then his resolution is false. The next premise goes on to state that the harm caused by religion is not a factor in this debate, because if anyone has ever benefited from religion, then obviously it is beneficial and his resolution is false.

In defense of contentions

After this my adversary goes on to list a vast majority of ways religion can be detrimental. A majority of which I have already successfully refuted. Again I will state that harm does not negate the good, with the resolution he has put forth. I will offer brief rebuttals again, since I have went over this already. Even if everything Con presented was a fact and it was morally unethical, again it still would not negate the good that has came from religion.

Religious Inspired Violence

I can not deny this claim. Religion can act as a catalyst for violence, but can just as well act as a catalyst for someone to go out of their way to help their neighbor. It all depends on who is reading what, and how they perceive what they are reading. Again even acknowledging that religion has caused wars in the past such as the crusades, we must also consider the good that has been inspired by religion. Such as charity work in the slums, people going over seas to make sure people have medicine, church planting and donations of food to poverty stricken areas all fall under this category.

Same Sex Couples

The verse pro offered is out of the bible. This does not account for all major sects or religion or even religion as a whole. It does not even account for all Christians. There are a vast majority of Christians that believe the bible is nothing more than a metaphor. A lot of Christians read it and just take the good verses out of it as a way to better their life. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Do not lie, cheat, or steal. Some Christians can read this verse and just consider it a parable. Not everyone takes it literally.

More Violence

He then lists rape, sacrifice, and a vast majority of other issues religion has caused. For defense of this see religious inspired violence.

Hope

He says

"the small amount of good religion inspires does not negate the bad it does and furthermore as I have shown there are plenty of secular charity organizations that do just as much if not more than religious ones."

At this point the debate is already over. This is actually a concession if you think about it. He even admit religion does a small amount of good. Meaning that religion is beneficial, therefore his resolution does not stand.

In Closing

At the end Pro has accidentally conceded this debate to me.

He states

"the small amount of good religion inspires does not negate the bad it does and furthermore as I have shown there are plenty of secular charity organizations that do just as much if not more than religious ones."

Even in his mind he has acknowledged that religion has caused a "small" amount of "good". Meaning it is beneficial.

Since the resolution is

"Religion is not beneficial to society and humanity"

We can now logically conclude that his resolution is false.









Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
pity I didn't get voting rights and get to this debate in time to vote!
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Philosophically and historically, many of pro's concepts are poignant.

Religion has slowed down the world progress and caused damage in many societies that have not been outweighed by good.
The good would happen without religion, in fact more good and less harm would be occurring if religion never existed.
The morality of religions was developing in spite of religion.
The morality of Christianity existed 500 years before Christ was born;
Jesus only borrowed Eastern philosophy (Buddhist or Confucian) and incorporated it into Judaism.
That's his only claim to fame,
The rest of the N.T. was nonsense.
Posted by TetsuRiken 3 years ago
TetsuRiken
Never found a good use for religion more than brain washing and war.
Posted by TrueScotsman 3 years ago
TrueScotsman
Pro has been listening to too much Christopher Hitchens.
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
LOL @ pro's username, and his argument.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
imsmarterthanyou98MikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO's successfully demonstrated that in some cases religion does cause some harm. Those arguments were not enough, however, to argument was insufficient to affirm or prove the resolution that "religion and faith is not beneficial to the well being of society and humanity", and therefore CON wins by default. Even still, CON was able to successfully persuade PRO that there was a "small amount of good [to] religion." So, while PRO may still claim that whatever good does exist "does not negate the bad it does" that there is any good PRO recognizes and especially which CON demonstrated, is enough to award CON the win.