Firstly, the actual situation is nowhere close to nobody working; the global unemployment rate is somewhere around 10%, which means 90% of people who are able to work are working.
Secondly, not working for wages or a salary isn't equivalent to a lack of ambition or dreams... many ambitions are completely unrelated to paid employment.
I would explain how each of those six examples are most certainly arguable, whether or not they are opinions (e.g. "Abortion should be illegal", "Computers have made life easier", and "You can't debate for your life" are all opinions, and all capable of being debate topics), but it seems to me like you've lost interest in arguing this with me. I won't push you on this any further unless you wish me to; I think the real reason you chose to leave all those debates dangling is evident to the both of us, whatever you claim.
But on another note, I'm starting to think that you're probably not a troll after all. A genuine troll would probably have given outrageous explanations for my 6 examples, rather than hunt around for a reasonable defence of their actions.
I don't know the statistics, and didn't find any studies relating precisely to the correspondence between the ages of thieves and the household wealth of their victims... but I did find these:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15304/
"In 2004, people with lower incomes tended to report more crime than higher-income people did. While 35% of people with household incomes of less than $20,000 a year reported some crime, only 21% of people with household incomes of more than $75,000 a year reported some crime. In previous years, household income has not been as highly correlated with crime rates."
But note that this counts all crimes, not just theft.
--------------------------------------
I also found this, which related specifically to theft. An older study (from the 90s), but should still be pretty relevant:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/
"Households with low incomes were generally burglarized at higher rates than households with higher annual incomes across all areas of residence. Generally, within each type of area, motor vehicle theft rates were similar for all levels of income. However, in all areas of residence, households in high-income categories were generally more likely to be the victims of thefts than households in low-income categories."
The wording confused me somewhat, but I'm taking it to mean that poor households get burgled more often than rich households, whereas rich households get their cars stolen more often than poor households.
--------------------------------------
But then there's these statistics from Canada (the previous ones were US), which said that rich people are more likely to be property theft victims than poor people:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0033m/
"In contrast to their higher rates of violent victimization, Canadians living in low-income households were less likely to be the victims of personal property theft and property-related household crimes."
--------------------------------------
...so yeah, I'll just have to say that my Googling hasn't found conclusive data either way. But there is plenty of data to show that poor people do get targeted; it's not true that they have "nothing worth stealing".
It has downsides, but do the downsides outweigh the upsides?
Crime existed before computers were around; computers didn't invent theft, theft simply moved onto a new platform. Sabotage, scams, and the like were all around before the advent of computers.
Distraction from studying also existed in many forms before we had computers. Computers just gave us an alternative distraction, nothing more. And unlike many other distractions (like partying or playing sports), computers can also help you with your study.
Meeting with the Dalai Lama is quite different from actually supporting Tibetan independence. The latter would be a violation of China's sovereignty, and I wouldn't blame China for protesting it. But the former is just... the President having a talk with somebody.
It's just a sexual preference... I don't see how performing particular types of sex acts would empower women.
And even if it somehow did, surely it would not only empower women, but also men and transsexuals, since sadomasochism can be performed by people of any sex.
I personally also believe that good/evil, right/wrong etc are concepts independent of religious thought, but this would go against the idea that evil is the absence of God's love. To say that good is where God is, and evil is where God isn't, is to tie religion inextricably with these concepts.
Or alternately, publicly display downvoters' names (say, list the voters in the post title, in between the poster's name and the points), so the person who got downvoted can challenge them to explain their vote.
Publicly displaying upvoters would be nice too... when I read a particularly good post, I'd wish there was a way I could specifically tell the poster that I enjoyed reading it without having to add a reply that says nothing more than "I agree".
I don't see any merits for keeping the voting system anonymous on a debate site.
(1) You made an accusation, I argued that it was unfounded... and you consider there to be nothing to dispute over?
(2) The debate topic is abuot upvotes and downvotes, and specifically mentioned you as someone who gets downvoted a lot. In my post I explained (upon your challenge, too!) why, in my opinion, your posts draw downvotes so often. That is hardly off-topic.
(3) In this debate I first challenged you to elaborate on your stance, then acknowledged that I had misunderstood your original post, then asked two questions, which you did not answer. I don't see where any whining at all came in, let alone enough whining that might reasonably get you annoyed enough to ignore my posts.
And how about debates 4, 5, and 6, which you also provided no responses for?
I'm not afraid of death itself. It seems most likely that death is simply permanent unconsciousness. That's not scary or unpleasant at all; it's just... nothing. Literally. I'll regret having to die, because it means I won't be able to do all the stuff I enjoy doing, but I don't fear it.
I'm afraid of the process of dying though - afraid that it'll be painful, gross, just generally horrible. If I end up with some debilitating terminal illness, I'll probably go straight for the euthanasia option if it exists.
EDIT: omg. Peekaboo(666) - my 666th post is about death! It wasn't deliberate o_o
Ugh, I don't want any kind of extreme weather. My favourite climate would be one that is perpetually comfortably warm (not hot), neither humid nor dry, has little or no wind, is not sunny, not rainy, definitely not snowing... basically, just balanced.
I know it makes for boring scenery, but I'll take comfort over eye-candy any day.
