Ok to kill Thousands but not millions

1. "Man kills for political reasons and religious reasons." I disagree and I agree. I disagree because there is a major difference between a puppet and a puppeteer. It is true that the puppet is the one doing the actions but the person or people behind the scenes are the ones that are ones that are truly responsible. So without the puppet, the puppeteer is nothing and vice versa. Similarly, the man that kills, kills because he was ordered to and in order to keep his family fed and his superiors' trust, he has no choice but to do what he is commanded. Therefore the political reasons and religious reasons he may be killing for, are not necessarily aligned with his own. Then again, all political have been cloaked as religious wars or otherwise. No war has been fought solely on the basis of religion; the crusades are an excellent example of what a political war looks like when masked by religion. I agree with this statement because it is man does kill in the name of whatever they believe in so there's no running away from that fact. 2. "Religion causes war" False. Religion never causes war when it explicitly commands us to regard each member of the human race as members of one's own family. On the contrary, it is the constant clashing of man's absurd interpretations, quick judgments and failure of investigation that generates such animosity and eventually war. So in reality it is the man that wages war for personal benefits where as religion teaches to avoid it. War will be totally abolished if man chooses the power of love over the love of power. So you tell me which religious text teaches that war is necessary for the human race. Religion draws the much needed line between man and animal and teaches us that we have capacity to be united if we choose to do so. The important word is "choose". Religion teaches us that God (whether you believe in Him or not) gave us the ability to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong and the consequences each choice holds. This comes back to the title of this debate, "It's OK to kill thousands but not millions"; when Religion gives humanity the necessary tools to create peace then why kill at all for the personal gain of power-hungry people who couldn't give a hoot for the condition of the people fighting for them? I, in no means direct this at you, but if I agreed with this debate I would be no different than the monster within the stories that teaches children what wrong truly is. So I ask you this, with all this guidance that religion gives us, does killing another human being make us any more human? (Since I established that man is the cause of war and not religion, something to keep in mind: Abdu'l-Baha, the Son of the Prophet of the Baha'i Faith, says in "Foundations of World Unity" that, "Divine religion is not a cause for discord and disagreement. If religion becomes the source of antagonism and strife, the absence of religion is to be preferred. Religion is meant to be the quickening life of the body politic; if it be the cause of death to humanity, its nonexistence would be a blessing and benefit to man. Therefore in this day the divine teachings must be sought, for they are the remedies for the present conditions of the world of humanity." p.22-23) 3. "Should religion and politics be kept separate?" Yes. 4. "Humans are the only ones that kill for sport" Biologically, humans are mammals and mammals are animals. Fortunately, we are not the only ones that kill for sport. Among the animals that exist on this earthly plain, cats, ants, chimps, wolves, and dolphins (believe it or not) kill for the sport of it. Torture is not only limited to humans because scorpions and and snakes are among the species that generate agony in their prey through venom. However, humans are the only ones that interrogate and systematically torture other humans for sensitive information. So basically, there's nothing special there. 5. "...it is okay for humans to kill" Still false. Since I established that killing is a useless form of conveying a message, then why would it be still okay? Killing others to prove that killing is wrong, is a hypocritical way to solve a problem that will likely get worse if war was decided to be the "only" solution to a problem. The word "decided" brings us back to the above paragraph of "choice". If we work backwards, we can see that our physical actions are the direct offspring of the verbal decisions that we make between the 2 choices our mind presents us, i.e. right or wrong. For example, a General is in charge with the well-being of his army and the fate of the enemy, therefore those critical decisions paint the last image someone will see before our eyes close on this world forever. So which one is more logical to see before death: the steel barrel of a rifle that is as cold as the person's heart that wields it, or the faces of family members and loved ones? 6. "World news" Agreed. However, the title of this debate has nothing to do with what the news agencies show us. If anything, the news agencies you speak about are Western based and generate an indecisive stance on a situation. Other news agencies around the world share a different perspective on events that have occurred so unless we go through the broadcasting style of every news agency, it is unfair to mention them in relation to the title of this debate. 7."History of British Concentration camps, WW2, etc." I fully understand the statistics of the casualties you have mentioned, however these all happened in the past, so should this be proof enough that killing is wrong? One, Two, Ten, Hundreds, Thousands, Millions, Billions, it makes no difference; when you've killed one, it's as if you've killed the whole of mankind. For example, if you stub your toe, your whole body feels it. Humanity is exactly the same. If you just read that and said to yourself "pfff no it's not" then this is proof that we as humans, need to change our ways because killing for any reason whatsoever, is hypocritical and ridiculous. In conclusion, as Con to this debate, I in no way promote pacifism, rather sensible and fair justice, even if it means capital punishment. But there is a clear difference between the fair trial and judgment of a criminal that the invasion and genocide of a people that we know nothing about (there's no justice in that). The existence of war is proof that we as humans are not working hard enough to change the way we currently view problem solving. This is a mad world because we choose not to change it. We live in a world where the father has to bury his son and has to pay someone else to bury him. Where's the honor in that? We live in a world where the toughest of men still cry out for their mother's embrace in the height of battle. Where's the respect in that? We live in a world where flags cover more bodies than they fly in the wind. Where's the pride in that? We live in a world where religion is avoided in order to KEEP friendships. Where's the sense in that? We live in a world where we're not allowed to ask why. Where's the the justice in that? There are still people on this Blue Marble that haven't even seen what the ocean looks like yet and we're killing eachother over lands that some people don't even know exist. The sad thing, is that our Earth soaks up more blood than it does fresh water and the last time I checked, blood and sunlight don't make a flower grow. So my questions to you are, when will humanity learn that unity is all we have in this vast and empty universe? Why is 1% of the world dictating the fate of 99%? What does it mean to be human? My friend, it should be a crime to bring children into this world, for the womb of the mother is a world where the child only knows one thing, and that....is love. If I agree with killing thousands but not a millions, even after all the lessons history gives us, then I am nowhere near understanding the true functions of a human being.