Mother Teresa was not so saint-like

"My opponent cannot attempt to win this by just showing that she was acknowledged as holy". I wholeheartedly accept that no one can win by debating on the same point. And also, no one can win in the first round of the debate. So be calm and do not get excited so much.My counter arguments are pretty straight forward. Your argument numbers are followed by my counter argument numbers.So, here I go :1) "Mother Teresa's view was that if someone offers charity for the poor it should be accepted for their sake regardless of the GIVER." She was absolutely right in her view. Her ambition was to serve the God by being kind and helpful to the poorest of the poor, no matter in what circumstances they are in. I do not understand why my opponent is trying to distract the debate from Mother Teresa to Mr. Charles Keating. She respected her aspiration and worked towards it. Her work was to serve the poor as much as possible, then why would she bother about the money? If the money is flowing in, its good for the charity and ultimately for the God's poor. It was not her fault if the money had been donated by a fraud or an honest person. The money was used diligently and wisely. And, remember one thing, once is donated to the charity, the fund is not returned back to the owner.2) "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." :- First of all, Please give the proper link. It does not seem to be in complement with your argument you made. Kindly do not put the link just for the sack of 'more resources used'.- Well, back to the topic, I wanna tell all the viewers that the antagonist does not know 7 percent of how much money. In fact, 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. In 1998, an article in the German magazine Stern estimated that the order received about US$50 million a year in donations. Other journalists have given estimates of US$100 million a year. There may be hundreds of more assumptions confronted. We do not know how much the money is donated but what we know is that the charity had been receiving some donation. I, now, will tell you where the money had gone apart from that 7%. In order to respond better to both the physical and spiritual needs of the poor :- -> She, in 1952, With the help of Indian officials, converted an abandoned Hindu temple into the Kalighat, the Home of the Pure Heart (Nirmal Hriday). Those brought to the home received medical attention and were afforded the opportunity to die with dignity. -> She opened a home for those suffering from Hansen's disease, commonly known as leprosy, and called the hospice Shanti Nagar (City of Peace). The Missionaries of Charity also established several leprosy outreach clinics throughout Calcutta, providing medication, bandages and food. -> In 1955, she opened the Nirmala Shishu Bhavan, the Children's Home of the Immaculate Heart, as a haven for orphans and homeless youth. -> By the 1960s she had opened hospices, orphanages and leper houses all over India. Mother Teresa then expanded the order throughout the globe. Its first house outside India opened in Venezuela in 1965 with five sisters. Others followed in Rome, Tanzania, and Austria in 1968; during the 1970s the order opened houses and foundations in dozens of countries in Asia, Africa, Europe and the United States. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) - She also founded :- -> The Missionaries of Charity Brothers in 1963. -> The contemplative branch of the Sistersin 1976. -> The Contemplative Brothers in 1979.and -> The Missionaries of Charity Fathersin 1984. -> She also gave the helping hand to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy victims, 1984. (http://photos.newhavenregister.com... ; http://photos.newhavenregister.com...) 3) "Mother Teresa's policy was that "AIDS is bad but not as bad as condoms are bad". - She is correct again. My opponent might not be knowing but thegovernment of India had established thefirst national family planning program in the world in 1952 only. 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 Britishers had taken away all the prestige from the country. - At that time, couple's knowledge of reversible contraceptive methods was limited. And we all know that half knowledge is very dangerous.(http://paa2011.princeton.edu...)- Some people had an allergy from the latex, an important component in condom.4) I would like to tell the viewers that the antagonist has provided an absurd information in his 4th argument. It can be proved by the following points :- - The paragraph my opponent has chosen is from an article which has multiple issues. The article needs additional citations for verification. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)- My opponent has used the word Lancet. To give a brief idea about what lancet is. The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. There have been many controversial articles published. You can use the link. (http://en.wikipedia.org...). If there are many controversial article, then how can we allege that Robin Fox is correct in his journal?- Also, the Christopher Hitchens launched an aggressive attack on Mother with a documentary and book aimed to inflame: Hell’s Angel and The Missionary Position. These polemics did not reflect the truth, but did manage to fool a number of people.http://www.firstthings.com...5) I think the opposition has done a very heinous thing by doubting the India's highest civilian honor, the Bharat Ratna recipient, Mother Teresa. He is debating that she did nothing in her life but baptized others to Catholicism. He is questioning the quality and the ability of Mother Teresa. If she would have been selfish, self-interested, self-centered, egoistic, greedy or narrow-minded, she would have not received such an honour. She received the Bharat Ratna because of her selfless love towards the poor, her intense work for the poor. Also, not to forget, she has also been awarded the Noble Peace Prize in 1979. Her Missionaries of Charity got started with only 13 nuns and continued to expand, and at the time of her death it was operating 610 missions in 123 countries, including hospices and homes for people with HIV and AIDS, leprosy and tuberculosis, soup kitchens, children's and family counseling programs, orphanages and schools.Now I ask you a question and this question is open to all the viewers on this site. Can you, can anyone on debate.org, do at least a percent of the work she did in her life-time? I think 2-3 life time would also be very little to do such a humane work. She was a great help to the Indian society. She helped the poor to be strong. It was her who said "I alone cannot change the world, but I can cast a stone across the waters to create many ripples." That is the statement that joined millions of people in unity.I think, I have sufficiently countered you. Its up to you bro. Waiting for your response.