warmaker : so do i but in debates like this its not about what you believe, its seeing who can form the best arguments.
Ok, il pick it up again i guess.
Yes the us donated 7% but how much was taken? International banks take double figures out of poor countrys due to interest rates, if you take 20 steps back and 5 forward is tha progress? If you take 20 % of a nations gdp and give equivelant of 5 is that generosity? Its delusion, so we can sleep in our beds thinking we've done our bit, when in fact we've taxed there bread and thrown some crumbs. The idea we are doing good is simply a wishfull falacy aimed at keeping us deluded, deluded that we are operating at the peak of possibility.
How much do companies hoarde? They keep money out of circulation, if theres 10 loaves of bread but only 3 available its more expensive and less obtaneable.
This recesion is fueled by that, no one wants to spend so theres not enough money flowing to feed markets.
Walmart, so kind, yet they take out life insurance on employees who they think may kick the bucket, they pay peanuts for there store brand food by taking advantage of poor suppliers. Who makes microsoft components? Whoever works for chips is who, the labourers get little and microsoft get gold.
At the core food is what maters, so long as you get that little else is needed, for more important things like fuel and heat then the state could do it, money would be out sourced.
If religion is what it clames to be then surely without money people would be free to help each other, and to there benefit, without class segregation.
Community and government pick up the slack, with no hinderance like financial cost the scope of potential human achievement would increase.

thenumberone : i think its about even for replies to both sides? if it isnt well then o well i think its time we put it to a vote everyone person who put any type of imput into this debate can vote once. so is money the root of all evil? or is it not?

Considering i was the only one who argued for i should vote that, but, as i have stated, i dont actualy agree. My points were valid flaws but the pros outway the cons.
I vote no, it is not.

Well since no1 is voting the new subject is religion is it the root of all evil? or is man just stupid?

hehehe, sweet, i got my topic.
Il argue for.
Where to begin, i have about 6k years to choose from.
Well, religion started with human sacrifice, the idea we owe our very selfs to a higher being, in that sense it devalues human life, we are simply expendable because, hey, no one ever really dies.
Religion helps one of mans worst attributes, aggression.
Those in power have always used it to achieve there own ends and there followers have simply followed along single file behind them.
You have the genocide by nazis, in africa, the balkans, asia, because they are different religions and colours, feeling gd has blessed them with ,more success than thre neighbours because they are superior. It fueled the crusades, it fueled the jihad, the muslim invasions of europe, the european conquests o the world, the ira, islamic extremists etc etc.
It allowed democracy to be subverted, with prohabition in the us, banninmg of contraception in multiple countrys(when you look at the catholic chrch, do you realise without them aids wouldnt be half as widespread as it is?fewer teen pregnancies, and to be honest, less poverty), Executions of non believers.
In the one period where religon was king in europe europeans were at there alltime worst, that time period was called the dark ages. Is it coincidental that almost every poor country is exceptionally religious.
How come all the wealthy countrys are far more inclined to seperate religion from politics?
In the time period after 1700 in europe, where religion was once more put back from the front lines humanity moved faster than it ever had before, the more sectarian society became, the faster the advancements, religion bans things for going against there codes, hindering our ability to be all we can be.
And how about slavery?condoned by the bible.
rape?pedophilia?condoned by the quoran.
And in todays society we still chase gays down the street killing and mutilating them despite it not effecting us in any way what so ever.
Do you think we would care if religion never said it was bad?
Before being influenced by christianity the roman empire was very open to homosexuality, and they are regarded as the bringers of civilisation.
Yes, you could claim that religion has delivered good things, but for every good i could give you ten wrongs.
Of course if i said this in the middle east id be executed, god really brings out the best in people huh?

NotJon :
warmaker :

theres a new topic.

IF YOU CAN GET A MASS MAJORITY OF PEOPLE TO BELIEVE, FOR INSTANCE, BLUE IS THE COLOR OF EVIL, THEN THEY WLL PASS THE WORD ON WITH THEIR OWN REASON WHY. AND SO ON, AND SO ON...

I might get some serious hat email for this, but religion is the root of all evil. That is what most wars are started over now a days.

I find this pretty funny and logical at the same time. Lewis Black might make this more comedy than facts, but behind the madness, there is genius. Some debates are true in the show.

Ok i choose... Nationalism next.

thenumberone : For those you might reply to this post and have no idea what Nationalism is here is facts about it

Nationalism is a political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a nation. There are two major perspectives on the origins and basis of nationalism, one is the primordialist perspective that describes nationalism as a reflection of the ancient and perceived evolutionary tendency of humans to organize into distinct grouping based on an affinity of birth; the other is the modernist perspective that describes nationalism as a recent phenomenon that requires the structural conditions of modern society, in order to exist. There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious, or identity group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.
The adoption of national identity in terms of historical development, has commonly been the result of a response by an influential group or groups that is unsatisfied with traditional identities due to inconsistency between their defined social order and the experience of that social order by its members, resulting in a situation of anomie that nationalists seek to resolve. This anomie results in a society or societies reinterpreting identity, retaining elements that are deemed acceptable and removing elements deemed unacceptable, in order to create a unified community. This development may be the result of internal structural issues or the result of resentment by an existing group or groups towards other communities, especially foreign powers that are or are deemed to be controlling them.
National flags, national anthems, and other symbols of national identity are commonly considered highly important symbols of the national community

Seimika : Next time and this goes for everyone just put a link to a definition. Don't waste space and copy paste the definition. It is frowned upon here if you copy/paste works/definitions that are not your own and can simply be linked to.