Mother Teresa was not so saint-like

In response to your points: 1) How can you say that it doesn't matter where the money came from as long as it went to the charity? Charles Keating was directly related to the American saving and loan scandal. He had done wrong.(http://en.wikipedia.org...) Despite the lack of sincere money in which he donated, mother Teresa accepted it with open arms as it was to her benefit. The fact that she did not refuse and vouched for him in court purely because he donated large sums of money shows a great immorality in itself. It shows that she cared more about money than justice. Her reasoning for vouching for him was a weak and selfish one. Instead of looking at the big picture of justice she judged a man on how much money he donated, i.e how much she was benefited. It was entirely up to her whether to accept fraudulent money or not. If she did not know that the money was fraudulent initially then she certainly did at some stage as tried to manipulate the court to go easy on him because he gave a lot of money. She could have returned the money back at any time yet she didn't. By doing this she essentially preached against justice being served. Also I might add that it was well known that the charities, or Mother Teresa, were in no way stuck for money. 2) There may have been a complication with the resourced link, this should clear it up (http://www.forbes.com...) You say "no one knows about the exact donations and spending of the charity because it did not disclose its donation and spending at any point of time" This is true but it is not the amount of money donated where the lack of morality lies, it's the 7%. Although we do not know the exact figure, we can assume that it is at the very least a relatively large sum of money however this is irrelevant. If only $10 was donated to the charity that year, only 7% of that going to the charity is as extremely immoral as if it was $100,000 donated. No matter the sum of money, the extremely immoral and unjust intention to only give 7% is still there. My opponent then makes a timeline of claims on where the other 93% of money allegedly went to, however these claims are invalid here as the report of the 7% was ONLY for the year of 1991, as stated: "A report in a German magazine showed that "IN 1991", of all the donations aimed towards the Missionaries of charity, only 7 PERCENT was used for the charity." Saying what supposed good things she spent on in years such as 1952, 1955, 1960s and 1970s is invalid here. However if only 7% of money donated was given to the charities in 1991 it could be logically concluded that a similar occurrence happened in other years. At the very least, it would show mother Teresa's plain immorality, unjust and selfish ways. 3): "Mother Teresa's policy was that "AIDS is bad but not as bad as condoms are bad" You say that Mother Teresa was right in her view and that "At this time, condoms were privately manufactured and sold commercially at high prices which could not be afforded by all, thus only available to wealthier individuals. India had become very poor at that time because the British had taken away all the prestige from the country." Are you saying that it was good for Mother Teresa to condemn contraception simply because it was expensive? Firstly she only condemned them because of her religious beliefs, not because they were expensive or because some people were allergic to latex or that people had half knowledge on them (although those reasons would be ridiculous in their own right) As you said, India had become very poor country. This poverty mainly resulted from the mass amounts of overpopulation as a result of a lack of contraception. This also resulted in a mass amount of diseases such as HIV and AIDS. This was and for the most part still is one of India's main problems. How can mother Teresa preaching against the solution to one of India's main problems be justified? . Despite whatever religious views she had surely it is not worth the lives of thousands. She was perceived as helper of the people however this is very misleading. She actually preached against saving a lot of people's lives essentially, knowing that she had a very strong authorisation i.e people would listen to her. This is disgracefully immoral and selfish. If she was really for the people, she would have swallowed her pride if it meant preaching to save multiple lives, prevent deaths/diseases, prevent overpopulation etc. It suggested to me that she cared more about spreading her religious ideals rather than saving lives. 4) I would like to tell my opponent that the first part of my number 4 argument is very valid as it is backed up in Hitchen's documentary. It would be a bit of a coincidence if it was somehow the exact same "false" information on both citations don't you think? You say that there have been many controversial articles in the Lancet however notice that on the wikepdia page in which you reference, there is not only nothing about this claim but there is nothing about Mother Teresa in general under the heading "Controversial articles". Also Robin Fox was the editor of the Lancet in 1991. It is highly unlikely that the editor would lie about such claims. This plus the fact that the same information is told in Hitchen's documentary means that we can pretty much rule out the possibility of a lie in either case. Your reference which supposedly shows how Hitchen's documentary didn't reflect the truth does no such thing. It just tries to cover it up by saying the supposed good deeds that she did. It portrays no hard evidence that what is portrayed in Hitchen's documentary is false. If you watch the documentary on the other hand, you'll see that it does in fact have strong references, citations personal interviews, primary sources etc. 5) I did not once mention the Bharat Ratna. However yes of course I am doubting her awards. It is very easy to award someone for a) appearing good on the surface and b) when they feel they should/when there is a mass regard for the individual. Mother Teresa sometimes appeared to be good on the surface of her actions (some of them) to the public however as they say, ignorance is bliss. When you much of her work, actions, speakings you see a very immoral, unjust and selfish figure, as I have shown. You say "If she would have been selfish, self-interested, self-centered, egoistic, greedy or narrow-minded, she would have not received such an honour" This is not necessarily true at all. The problem was that many people believed that mother Teresa must be good because of her holiness. They either didn't see a problem with a lot of her deeds because a) they felt that she must be moral because of her holiness or b) they were simply not aware of the underlying immorality of many of her actions. This, mixed with a gullible public demand for Mother Teresa meant that it was very easy for her to be mispercieved and given such an award. Hitler and Stalin won many honorary awards might I add but I'm sure you're not going to argue that they deserved them. It's all to do with manipulation, ignorance, gullibility and a biased nature. I have already argued and made points about the problems with Missionaries of Charity. It is interesting to mention AIDS and HIV. It's very hypocritical that Mother Teresa preached against the use of contraception yet held houses for people with such diseases. If I was a patient in one of these I would be disgusted. You have not sufficiently countered me, you have merely tried to cover up my arguments by making claims of how supposedly good she was yet my arguments refute your claims under the headings of "Issues regarding donations", "Issue regarding use of donated money", "Immoral speakings/teachings", "Quality of medical care" and "Sincerity of helping people".