I disagree with the statement that organized religion is a net negative for society. This idea likely comes from specific examples of abuse or terrorism which critics may point to. Although that is understandable, and terrible, it does not in any way necessitate that religion is a net negative for society. In fact, I would argue that religion is undoubtedly a net positive for society, regardless of the religion. The vast majority, if not all major religions preach positive values which help to keep society safe and organized, and have done so for thousands of years. The truth is religion influences more policy and law than we may think at face value and is directly responsible for why our societies run so smoothly in most places worldwide.

The examples given, as I mentioned in my opening argument, are very specific examples. Examples which do not represent any religion wholistically. According to the Pew Research Center, 75% of the global population follows an organized religion. Most organized religions feature rules such as the golden rules and central commandments intended to keep the in societies; such as “do not kill”, “do not steal”, and so on. These rulings have influenced modern day laws through advancements such as the Manga Carta which are direct results of religious rulings. The Magna Carta then went on to heavily influence modern day constitutional law and democratic policy. Therefore I would argue that there is a net positive for society as is evident by my previous point on law and lawmaking.

I want to point out that my opponent is creating a straw man argument that they feel is easier to argue against as opposed to sticking to the original question. They are trying to make the debate about “handing religious institutions authority” but as we can clearly see the original question is not what he is discussing, but rather, whether religion as a whole is a net positive or negative for society. As my opponent said themselves, “I’m honestly not sure how to argue back” which is evident by their attempts to change the topic of conversation. I would appreciate a redirection back to the original subject, as well as staying on said topic, as I have thus far. I would also like to add that using examples of bad things religious people do is not an argument against any religion. If a religion says to not kill and one of its supposed followers commits a murder, this does not fall on the religion as it literally tells them not to do so. Please do not confuse the shortcomings of followers with a critique of a religion that outwardly and clearly is against the actions that some of its followers may commit.

Once again my opponent is very clearly trying to change the conversation from the original question, because in their own words they don’t have an argument for the actual question being posed, and the points being made. I would appreciate sticking to the original topic, otherwise I think a forfeiture of this debate is due for my opponent. The question is very simple, “organized religion is a net negative for society”. Let me be clear, it is not about whether you feel the topic should be about giving any religion entity authority. I’m sorry, but your feelings are irrelevant in an intellectual conversation. Please stick to the topic of which you chose to argue.

My opponent is still not answering anything relevant to the conversation or chosen topic. They claim that religion gives people and a moral compass but fails to see that the very religions he is against and the ones which influences the Magna Carta as well as the very laws that keep my opponents own society alive and well. Religion is undoubtedly a net positive to society as the original questions poses, and my opponent refused to answer adequately. Precisely because people like my openneneny is able to freely participate in such debate in a safe manner because of the influences of the religions he is opposing.