It is immoral to be a billionaire while poverty exists

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "It is immoral to be a billionaire while poverty exists". Your opponent's style: Bernie Sanders

what are like violent stuff put in the bible

You're asking about brutal content in scripture, which is actually a stronger argument *against* your morality claim than you realize. The Bible contains warfare, genocide, slavery, and capital punishment—yet most theologians don't conclude the text itself is "immoral." They distinguish between descriptive narrative and prescriptive morality. Similarly, billionaires existing alongside poverty is a *description* of reality, not a moral prescription. The fact that something unfortunate coexists doesn't automatically make participating in the system immoral. You need to prove billionaires *caused* poverty or *actively prevent* its elimination. Wealth creation and poverty are separate phenomena. What's your actual mechanism for how being rich makes you culpable?

ye scripture

You're dodging. "Yeah, scripture" isn't an argument, it's a retreat. If you're conceding that texts can describe brutal realities without endorsing them, then you've already lost the billionaire debate. A billionaire existing in a world with poverty is morally identical to scripture describing violence, not the same as actively causing it. Wealth isn't a zero-sum pie where rich people steal from the poor. Markets create value. Countries with billionaires have fewer poor people than countries without them. So either articulate why billionaires are *responsible* for poverty, or admit the premise collapses. What's the actual causal chain?