Money is the root of all evil.

Let's address each of his points. ". .. he should not opine that I am completely against money" Interesting, considering you opted for the "Pro" position in a debate entitled, "Money is the root of all evil. " "I simply believe that the cause of many reprehensible and disgraceful transgressions in today's cut-throat world is money" Of course. It's also your means of survival, means of pleasure, and means of consumption. The verdict you pronounce upon these, is the verdict you pronounce on your life. If your livelihood is corrupt, so is your existence. "Moreover, I am saddened by the fact that my opponent has given redundant and superfluous importance to the word "all". " In an extremely desperate attempt to invalidate my previous arguments, it appears my opponent resorted to semantics rather than reason. His "for instance" clause holds no weight, relevance, or purpose to the topic. "Moreover, my opponent said that in order to prove me wrong, he simply had to "give a single example of evil which is absent of any monetary aspect or quality". Similarly, I can reciprocate and prove his argument "Money is the root of all good" invalid by stressing on the word 'all' and giving an example of a good act which has no relevance or relationship with money. " The former quote is correct and accurate. The latter is not. I never said "Money is the root of all good. " I specifically stated that money is A root of all good. Not THE. I'd appreciate accurate quotations henceforth. Additionally, his "reciprocation" does nothing to refute my single example. In fact, I'm not sure it does anything at all. "Hence, I suggest that immense emphasis should not be given to the word "all" in this debate. " It seems, once again, my opponent resorts to semantics rather than anything of substance. "Continuing my argument, I would like to strengthen my position with the following:" Wait, what? What argument? Thus far, no refutation has been proposed, and no argument for the case that money is the source of all evil has been stated. Where is the argument? What "position" are you "strengthening"? "These days it has become quite a prevalent practice of people spending money on things they don"t require just in order to look grand in society. People have developed notions like "Money is everything" and that society judges people according to how much money they have. " Has it it become a prevalent practice? For whom? Where? And even if this was so, is the spending in order to gain social approval evil? Is it wrong to spend that which one earns on what one chooses? Is it evil to work toward an image of grandness? Society does judge people according to how much money they have. Are you offended by this? Do you disprove of this "judging"? Bums and billionaires are not equal. Money is a barometer of one's success, be it fair or not. Is it wrong to discriminate on success? On virtue? On wealth? Is your disdain of money rooted in the fact that you despise those who are successful? Is it rooted in the fact that you despise the notion of individual wealth? In the concept of "mine"? Please enlighten me. Additionally, I don't think many were aware, till now, that "sons murdering their fathers or other relatives just for the sake of acquiring their property and money" is occurring daily. My opponents last few claims are quite simply incoherent nonsense. Greed? Murder? Family? Unconditional love? None of this has anything to do with the argument, which is whether or not the absoluteness of evil is rooted in money. If my opponent doesn't understand what his position is, this discourse will be futile. In the end, we are left with no refutation of my argument regarding the murder of James Bugler, no arguments for the existence of all evil being rooted in money, no argument against the soul of productivity and good being rooted in free trade and money, and a nonsensical hodge-podge of statements calling for a redefine of the word "all". I await my opponent's response.