Watch the full debate here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gs-ViqeSpqeRZn0.html

They're debaters, their arguments are not necessarily their own opinions, and definitely should not be assumed to be such.

Weak arguments. It`s imposible to debate this issue without the context of the conditions necessary to create billionaires.

See a spirited debate on this subject just doesn’t feel right when there’s people living outlandishly comfortable lifestyles in the same country as people that are starving. Allowing that to happen is immoral, and I feel like arguing that it’s not immoral is a little irresponsible.

This girl is spot on. Just achieving 9 zeros in your bank account doesn't necessarily make you immoral. There is more to look at before calling a billionaire immoral. But calling a billionaire immoral is different from saying it is immoral to be a billionaire! For the purpose of this debate, I think both teams should focus on the journey towards a billion. E.g. how is this wealth created? (Corruption? Tax avoidance?) Industry of the billionaire? Value-add to the economy? Negative externalties (E.g. Climate change as cited often in this debate)? Personally, what the billonaire does with his money AFTER he achieves his billion(s) is personal choice. Sure, the middle class and the poor would hope that the billionaire gives back but to me, that is entirely up to the person himself.

03:22; She should have lost the debate when she used Bill Gates as an example. She should have researched how Bill Gates became a billionaire.

There is obviously a lot wrong with her entire argument but I’m just curious about whether she is ignoring or is just ignorant of the fact that billionaires who lobby lawmakers to pass laws that favor them or, as she said, fund climate change denying organizations don’t do so out of simple malevolence but are just trying to protect the means by which they earn their obscenely massive amounts of money.

99.9999% who are not Billionaires should begin to see that the reason why we need charity is bc. 1. People don't earn enough to support themselves bc billionaires need to be ultra rich 2. Why are ppl not paying their fair share for medical expenses, bc they are not paid fairly for their contributions to make billionaires ultrarich 3. Economies can not circular bc the billionaire hoards the money that should circulate. 4. It's like playing a game of Monopoly and giving everyone $10 to play while one person gets $100,000,000. Guess we will win? Guess what will happen to the other players... is that justifiable if the one who owns everything says, "this round you don't have to pay "rent" this turn? When normal ppl play with billionaires, they don't have a fair change to do anything. 5. By saying Billionaires are not immoral is to avoid all the injustice that happens when a society allows Billionaires to exist. I don't know why these ppl are defending Billionaires not the majority of ppl who do. Without proper education, it is easy to persuade yourself that billionaires create job. So does the small business owners but they are treating their staff fairly.

I think her defence of billionaires is an extremely weak one, albeit it does the job for the opposition is no better, her case that billionaires 'being' billionaires aren't immoral is wrong. Assuming that billionaires have a lot of disposable money lying around that does nothing for the economy (not usually the case because it's usually tied in stocks or other investments) then they have made the 'choice' not to use it for the benefit of the community that helped them reach the status they have. It's a 'choice' to hoard the money beyond their immediate needs and not apply it productively whilst there exists poverty and whatnot so this could be considered as an immoral 'state of being'.

Ahh yes. Being is a billionaire in of itself is not immoral. But the actions that a billionaire makes because he can is is... ok

Only acts can be immoral? OK, well I say that the *act* of making this argument, dismissing the proposition in what I see as a sort of "argumentum ad logicam" (fallacy fallacy) way... is...... *immoral*. Arguing this side was an immoral act. Stop it.

"You don't earn a billion dollars, you take it." AOC

This proposition argument seems logically inconsistent

Not even touched on wars. War is the industry of rich people.

Her argument on behalf of billionaires not being inherently immoral was flawed when she used the Scandinavian states as an example of an egalitarian society where they outnumber their peers in the US per capita, and make more climate change related monetary investments than all others globally. She conveniently forgot to include the fact that Iceland seriously prosecutes/ incarcerates its white collar finance criminals, and I am willing to bet that these nations also have strong laws on the books that prevent billionaires from avoiding their tax liabilities, and from outright purchasing politicians and political parties like citizens united and the koch brothers did in the US.

This speaker squandered a significant portion of her allotted time to promote her political aims. That said, Ms. Dube's position that it is neither moral nor immoral to be a billionaire, but that morality is defined by the actions of the billionaire, is ignorant of the means by which said billionaire might have extracted and accumulated wealth from the society of which the billionaire is a member. There is no other suitable word to describe this speaker's fundamental misunderstanding of the social construct that is exchange value, or the social power that the accumulation of exchange value enables. I must admit that my initial opinion of this speaker was unfairly influenced by the commentary of the first speaker, who revealed that Ms. Dube was of Emerati origin - a society where the citizen population is accorded a dividend of the country's oil wealth, and where menial work is contracted to low-wage immigrant labor. I don't expect that Ms. Dube considers the moral implications of inherited wealth, or inherited poverty for that matter. She seems to double-down on her misunderstanding of exploitation, however immature, by suggesting that what distinguishes billionaires is their ability to save their money, while failing to consider the manner by which this money is 'made', and later triples-down on this ignorance by suggesting that billionaires "create jobs" and "create innovation", thereby elevating "billionaires" to god-like status. That said her efforts in forcing emphasis on certain syllables to mimic a British accent does not go beyond notice. I'm reminded of a classic song of the working man's plight, which accurately contrasts struggle with privilege. A portion of the song's lyrics are repeated below: ♫ 'Cause when you're laid in bed at night Watching roaches climb the wall If you called your Dad he could stop it all ♪

SUMMARY: - Welcome everyone ! - Random BS ! - Thank you !

3 Indian origin speakers at a debate unrelated to specific Indian interest 🙌

Once again, the Good Talkers can excuse any bad behavior; all future lawyers/politicians?

"Judge the billionaires based on their wealth or like we judge others based on their actions" ... uhm ... Billionaires' actions => wealth so yeah by judging their wealth you're actually judging their actions, the actions that made them insanely rich

It isn't really a question of the system not being egalitarian. It's nature that simply isn't. The system has no such intentions. Naturally, biological beings simply don't have all the same resources and abilities. It's the fundamental driving force of evolution that allows life to exist. It's up to us to make the world what we want, by being that. And to think that billionaires are evil shows that you are someone who fundamentally wants to prevent people from growing, period. Most billionaires are very philanthropic, and for a reason: the drive to do something profound and bigger than yourself is a fundamental requirement of creating wealth.

This is the same for politicians, cops, soldiers, people from outside the west etc... It's not immoral to be something, but to do something that goes against the agreed upon norms of a community. Therefore we can no more condemn other countries for what is accepted there, than they can do the same to our countries. Also, morality is meaningless, and is shaped not by what's within.

Can't BE a billionaire without DOING evil stuff so barf

BS argument

You can't prove I'll blow up the world just because I have a nuclear weapon. Can you prove that by me having a nuke that I'll blow up the world? Therefore, I should be able to have one.

There are also those who would argue that it is not immoral to steal or cheat. So?

If it’s immoral to be a billionaire then you need to look towards your government as the leader of that club. They do a lot more harm than the individual.

We should not be judging those by the size of their wallets but by the character in which they conduct themselves. Money can be used for good and evil, but the person with the bank account decides the outcome of how we perceive their righteousness. Billionaires don't have billions in cash, their wealth is built within their business' not their pockets. They don't have money. They have wealth.

I am reminded of Piketty, who wanted extremely high "confiscatory" tax rates, not to better finance government, but to discourage people from having high incomes at all. Even though his suggestions would result in lower standards of living for the working class.

She said so much but said nothing at the same time

It’s moral to be a billionaire and long as you give away 99 billion dollars…that means you are a billionaire who gave away 99% of their money….. they tax rate on a billionaire should be much higher than 99%, like, 99.87% , leaving you with over 2 millions dollars plenty to live on for you and extended family….

I am glad she is not my president nor politician. She would be the kind of person, that sells out to convinience..... Horrible human being.

i lowkey admire her attempt at supporting this argument. debate is not easy y'all. i remember being so heated in high school when they made us debate "illegal" immigrants rights. her argument was so weak but idk how else she could have put it 😭😭 saying billionaires aren't immoral is like saying the sky isn't blue.

Good intentions has a pathway absolutely . Both sides selfish or righteous

Surprised to see so many of the comments think it is immoral to be a billionaire. Why?

Her argument is flawed and ignorant. "We should all strive to make the world a better place, but we feel that it's billionaires responsibility because they have more wealth and power", such a contradictory statement, ofcourse the billionaires have more responsibility, by definition having acquired so much power and continue to influence in ways that only a "common man" can imagine.

She has a huge mound of intelligence.

Liquid Billionaire? Or on a screen cost of living the manipulation of numbers is highly annoying

Millionaires are millionaires by virtue of exploitation of labor and continue to do so

Wouldn’t it be great to have the option of being a billionaire or not. Until I am one. It’s immoral 😀😃🤣😂

Her opening arguement is weak. Billions of dollars arent immoral in it self. Its what you do t9 get it.

Wow it's like playing with words and saying a warlord is not bad if he/she doesn't do the killing. Is not paying staff enough bc you want to become extremely wealthy so they are overly stressed, eating cheap and unhealthy foods, working in harmful conditions, etc. not immoral? If i don't pay someone enough for them to get medicine and they die, is that not immoral?

i cannt for the life of me figure out her accent. californian-british? thats the best i can come up with.

Billions is Just imagination away

Can someone explain to me how "point of information" works? I see that when an individual is arguing for or against a motion, a member of the audience will stand up and say "point of information" or something akin to that. The speaker can then choose to indulge the point of information or to refuse to hear it. What is this "point of information" stuff? What is its purpose other than to disrupt the speaker?

Extreme wealth is something neutral, it's how one uses for good, for God & men or for evil. God bless, Revelation 21:4

Well structured debate. You demolished the previous persons debate in a couple sentences. Nice job upholding the basic values in which the enlightenment brought about.

Did Immortal billionaires create mortal Kombat?

She never adequately returns to these salient points effectively in her speech as has stated more than once that she would do so, but nice dress and imitation accent

Which type of billionaire?

She has conceded more of his points...🤣

to justify the unjustifiable!

7:46 .. not for what they're doing - but at their actions . *lol*

Sorry I dont agree.

She is good

Kant crying

When a human accrues $billion$+ I believe there ought to be a moral and ethical consciousness that encourages the propensity to before oneself, consider current and future global disparates

Cool events.

Well done stomp your foot for affect she is good get nastier

Who the hell is anyone to judge anyone else for who they are, what they are, how hard they work and what they've accumulated. The problem today is that people are concerned about what everyone else is doing, instead of worrying about what they should be doing. We all aspire to being more and accumulating wealth. We all have choices to make, right and wrong, good and bad. None of us should be judging, we are imperfect in an imperfect world. The left wants to rule, calling it progress and the right wants liberty, which is true progress.

Regardless to any tax inteference?...Ummm

I think Sara dude is a beautiful lady and I want to take her out for Dinner to see would I Made a suitable Partner for her and be acceptable to Her Parents

None of those against, so far, have said a thing about the actual accusation that becoming a millionaire is immoral. I would propose that the nays have an inability to see the harm that is done when people amass that kind of money. Perhaps they too are immoral. You cannot see what you, yourself, are.

2:45 - "completely independently"? No. Semi-independently, perhaps, but the impact of their actions is greatly disproportionate _by nature of_ their wealth. It's a lever. One could argue that it's no more or less moral to step on a lever with a 1-meter pivot distance, or a 10-meter one (hypothetically), but the latter will exert a whole lot more pressure on something sitting 50cm from the pivot. Similarly, a casual and seemingly-benign action from a billionaire might have *FAR* greater negative impact on things than even a deliberately harmful act from someone without the same sort of leverage. Maybe you're technically correct in a certain sense that it's the acts rather than the condition, but... to state it in a fairly American way: them's weasel words. It's like saying "this paint isn't black, it's just a darker white than you're used to". Actually, no, that analogy doesn't hold the strength of how *immoral* your *act* of making this argument is.

Why so much insecurity and low confidence that you have to change your surname from dubey to dube to sound western. Its sad

I don't see any reason why poor people hate rich people because it's not they fault that they are poor.

Of course it's not immoral to be a billionaire

U inspired me for public speaking

Assaming billoineon have her l

I agree it isn't immoral to be a billionaire.

Well argued! It was nice to see the weak arguments of the previous student dismissed in the first couple of minutes. I don't know if I agree with you but this is how you argue a motion.

What is mortality anyway. How Petty and egocentric One Must be...

pretty face though

I don't see any reason why poor people hate rich people because it's not they fault that they are poor.