Money is the root of all evil.

Firstly, I profoundly apologize for not responding in the previous round, however, I would like to bring it to the notice of all the readers and my worthy opponent that my unresponsiveness was due to a personal issue and was not intentional at all. Also, I would like to inform my opponent that although I forfeited the previous round (not intentionally), I haven"t forfeited the debate and will continue to strengthen my stand in this round. Now, addressing my opponent"s rebuttals: When I stated that the cause of many reprehensible and disgraceful transgressions in today's cut-throat world is money, my opponent said "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. " Readers please note that my opponent acknowledges what I claim by saying "Of course". Also, I do not understand how my opinion that money is the cause of most crimes in this era makes my livelihood and existence corrupt. "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. " Here, my opponent holds me culpable for adhering to semantics, but doesn"t give any satisfactory reason as to why he emphasized on the word "all" in this debate. And FYI, the "for instance" used by me is to make my point more clear. "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. " Ok, you said money is A root of all good, which implies that no matter how money is used the result will be good. So Sir, do you consider all robberies and thefts (perpetuated for money) to be good? After this, my opponent questions me as to which argument I was strengthening. Well, regarding that I"d like to emphasize on the very first round of this debate wherein alongside accepting the debate, I had commenced my argument by quoting the sagacious words of the renowned historian Voltaire. Moreover, it seems to me that my worthy opponent resides in a morally sound and somewhat utopian world as he evidently appears to be shocked on learning about the innumerable murders in families all happening for money DAILY, and denies this claim of mine. Let me give some examples: Franklin Bradshaw murder, is one of the most celebrated or infamous murders in American jurisprudence, wherein heiress Frances Berenice Schreuder in 1978 incited her son Marc Schreuder to murder his father, oil and auto parts millionaire Franklin Bradshaw. The case inspired wide coverage in the form of news reports, articles, and books telling of the prosecution's allegations that Frances Schreuder did not want to be cut out of her father's will and wished to continue funding her lavish Manhattan lifestyle. The Menendez Brothers Lyle and Erik Menendez were sentenced to life in prison in July 1996, for killing their wealthy parents in a salvo of shotgun blasts in 1989. Prosecutors said the brothers murdered their parents to inherit the family's $14 million fortune. The occurrence of such cases has increased over time due to the upsurging malice of money in people. When I stated that these days people spend money to buy things they don"t require and just to show people that they are rich, my opponent said "Money is a barometer of one's success, be it fair or not. " Well, this means that if a person is corrupt and becomes very wealthy by carrying out money scams (and no one knows about it) he deserves more respect than a hard-working and honest person who is not as rich as he. Is this right? Successful people are those who live a selfless life and perform their duties with passion and not those who go about destroying the lives of others just for their own benefit. REBUTTALS TO ARGUMENTS IN ROUND 2 "if we hold the Law of Non-Contradiction as axiomatically true, then it can be shown that money can not be both the root of evil and a root of not-evil (good). It is one or the other. " My opponent states that money cannot cause both evil and good. I would like to rubbish this preposterous & ridiculous claim of his as evidently, in this debate, he briefly stated "Money is a root of all good" (though he didn"t specify much) and I gave (and will further give as well) a few effective examples to accentuate the fact that money causes much more harm and damage than the little good it does. This shows that money is both good and evil (though it is much more evil than good) and hence, the Law of Non-Contradiction has no relevance here. Now, speaking of the murder of the 2 year old James Bulger (His surname is Bulger and not as my opponent stated "Bugler"). My opponent believes that by showing no involvement of money in any one evil act, he would win, which is a fallacious belief. And since the murder of James Bulger was an evil act without money, my opponent deems that he has successfully invalidated my claim. Again it reflects my opponent"s obsession with the word "all" in this debate to which he blames me to resort to semantics. "Money rests on the principle that each man is the owner of his effort and of his individual capacity to think. If this were not the case, money could not be. If man is neither the owner of his mind nor effort, the concept of trade itself cannot exist (as trade implies the mutual exchange of personal value, and personal value can not be if nothing is personal)" If I remember correctly, didn"t trade exist in the form of barter system, double co-incidence of wants as well as other methods before the concept of money originated? SOME MORE ARGUMENTS: Hoarding: In the materialistic world, people give undue importance to money and, instead of utilizing in productive activities, may start hoarding. This would adversely affect the growth of income, output and employment of the economy. Black Money: Money, due to storability characteristic, is the cause of the evil of black money. It provides people a convenient way to evade taxes by concealing their income. Black money, in turn, encourages black marketing and speculative activities. Moral and Social Evils: In the modern times, moral values have been sacrificed due to the malice of money. People have become so much money-minded that they openly indulge in corrupt practices to satisfy their greed for money. Money is also the root cause of thefts, murders, frauds and other social evils. Fake Friendship: These days, there are many who befriend rich and affluent people with the sole motive of taking advantage of their opulence. Such people develop a facade of being concerned about their rich pal, but are actually fair-weather friends, merely attracted to his money and the attention it brings, nothing else. SOME SHOCKING NEWS: In January 2014, a man was stabbed to death in Bihar (India) by four people when he refused to pay them Rs.10 (0.169 $ or 0.1") to buy chewing tobacco mix with betel nut, police said. In New Delhi, recently a 14-year-old child laborer stabbed three women to death because one of them told his mother he had borrowed 50 Rs (0.844$ or 0.5") from her. Several incidents of this kind have taken place in the world, where because of money, numerous people have lost their lives. Now, some statistics: 2,000,000 home burglaries are reported each year in the United States. 2,500+ cars are stolen per day (i. e. almost 2 cars a minute). Every 13 seconds a home intrusion is committed. Aren't all these done for money? Well, I believe I have provided enough evidence to show that MOST evil in today"s world is caused because of money and the amount of evil done by money is much more than the good done by it. With this, I urge the readers to side with me. :)