Christian Religion Is Beneficial For Society

I vote Pro, here's why:

1. I buy that IF Christianity traumatizes children, this doesn't benefit society. The debate, however, isn't about morality but social health.

2. I buy that crime rates go down under Christianity.

3. I buy that marriages are stronger under Christianity.

4. I buy that the sense of community goes up under Christianity.

5. I buy that criminalizing masturbation, which is the pragmatic act of lust, is bad as it creates the equivalent of thought crimes.

6. Since I buy that the creation of thought crimes, is bad, I buy that this proves that Christianity is outdated.

7. I buy that porn is freedom AND disgusting.

8. I buy there is no evidence of bullying to children, but the good and bad things of Christianity affects children.

9. I buy that punishing gays and atheists is not freedom.

In conclusion, social health is measured through the traumatization of children. This is a flawed definition, but it is the only one I'm given by Con. With that, I buy that Christianity doesn't directly bully children, so I have to evaluate how each issue affects children. This work isn't done for me, so I have to sort it myself. Children can be targets of crime. Divorced houses probably uniquely hurt children. Children need community like any person. Children can be punished for being gay or atheist, and this is bad. Children also lose access to porn, which means they lose access to freedom. (As a sidenote, I don't personally agree with what I'm typing totally, but I'm voting on a debate, not typing my thoughts.) Since all the issues affect children, here's how I rank their importance. Divorce, sense of community, freedom/porn access, identity affirmation, crime. Since Pro has the two largest factors, I give them the ballot.

Notes for Pro
1. Answer this punishing gays and atheists warrant, as it is damning.
2. Extend your case. If I didn't extend it for you since it was unanswered, you would surely lose.
3. Give me some weighing. Why is crime more or less important than freedom to access pornography?
4. Answer the argument they made that traumatization of children is the metric for social health, because a much lazier judge would use that to ignore all your points and not do the work I did.

Notes for Con
1. If you are liblarping or being outrageous intentionally, I like it. However, you can make that competitive and do it as either better argumentation in general or a kritik that forces us to question how we engage with the "outrageous". I would be honored if you wanted help turning your unique style of engagement into a competitive strategy.
2. Assuming that this isn't some kind of performance, You need to answer the specific warrants of the Pro. You answer crime, but you just call masturbation crime and don't answer that things like murder go down.
3. You need to weigh freedom and bigotry against the Pro and tell me why yours matter to social health more than Pro's case.

So Pro starts off by defending the benefits of Christianity by observing the effects it has on reducing crime, lowering divorce rates, and creating stronger relationships between people.

Con tries too hard to force a narrative that Christianity’s toxicity is harmful to children. (The concept of eternal fire.) He doubles down on the trauma it causes and goes as far to wish this suffering on Pro and make deliberate personal attacks.
This argument would have been successful if he went into detail about specific disorders like PTSD and talked about the damage cults do.

Pro refuses to take the bait and calmly refutes Con’s arguments by mentioning that Hell is a deterrent for crime. Con proceeds to make a lot of disturbing statements for shock value like suggesting Pro needs to be crucified.

Con approached this debate with a lot more aggression and hostility than in other debates.

Spelling and grammar was equal. Conduct goes to Pro clearly.
Pro used sources, Con didn’t.

All in all, yikes.