Riches can not please man

Welcome to DDO new meber glad to be in one of your first debates. do note you set the rounds in the debate to five and the debate time period is 3 days to post responses. that means it should be easy to to post you round on time but it could drag the debate out for a while, like weeks even depending on how soon you get what round in on time.So if you should start to consider you are bored with this website or this debate remember your honor is at stake to finish what you started. Jesus would have you keep your commitments to this debate with me and do your best to not forfiet any rounds. the time for you to choose to quite should be after the debate is over in the voting period but not while it is going on. if you absolutely must forfiet a round or it beyond your control please give the courtesy of notifying me what happened or at the least that you are sorry but still acknoweldge the debate goes on. This is a courtesy many brand new members for some reason do not give often but should.That out of the way I do hope you do chose to stay on this website after this debate as it really is a great website well worth sticking with, I look foward to this debate with you and seeing just how deep you can go with this subject.To Begin this debate.....The resolution does not specify that 'Riches not please men without God' but rather just 'Riches do not please men'That said, the question of wether Riches please men who do have the lord in there life is covered under that too.So while you do need Jesus to have real Joy, is it realy fair to say that afterword none comes from your welth at all?1) with greater welth I would not be plauged with worries about the state of the economy as my finances are securely not at jepardy, and thus my life in a fiscal stable order2) with greater welth my dreams and ambitions would be closer at hand and in my reach to just go out and do as lack of funds is often what is an obstical in whatever it is we think god put us on earth to persue. perhaps my dream could be to become a Senator, running for office takes a lot of cash to risk. perhaps I have dreams to start a busness, that takes cash to start. perhaps I have dreams of getting all the scouts in my troop the chance to go to camp, with greater welth I could just annually pay for there trips rather than have to raise the funds for it all the time at other peoples charity.If I want to do something, having the money to do is often what stops me from doing, always having the money to do whatever I want would be so freeing, its hard to think that would not cause me to be happy.3) with greater welth any relationships I would get in in the future would be more secure and last longer. Its a well documented fact that the joy between new married couples starts to go away into angry fights with money problems http://www.daveramsey.com... If I had money to just burn though I could easyiely shower my future girlfriend with gifts making her happy thus making me happy.for purposes of this debate I define 'having riches' as having Mitt Romenys kind of cash. interesting to note if you google images of Mitt Romeny I cant find any pitchers of him where he is not relitively happy. and why would he not be, he has massive welth, secruity, a wife, a faith that wouldnt frown on him having more wives if he wanted some, he has kids, grandkids, prestige.In general though I think this debate could continue just the same if we though of 'riches' in a broader term that includes things like famely, a loving spouse, and fame and power. They are a kind of 'riches' that I know fits with the spirit of the point of the debate I know my oppoenents wants to have, and I will argue with that definition of riches if my opponent wants to, I know I kind of want to.