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

messi is better than Ronaldo, let's start with his early years. At a very young age he dominated his local youth league and even at the youth international level winning the Olympics and the U19 World cup, he then got called up to Barca's first team with the likes of Ronaldinho xavi iniestia puyol and many more legends, he has won several trophies in his career and has completed football, he has amazing ball control and his teammates naturally respect him and his entire nation loves him. He is also greater with longevity at Messi's age he's still very agile but not the same as his youth he is still able to get pass 5 opponents and score a goal.

Wrong debate. You've confused me for someone who cares about football. I'm here to argue that billionaires aren't immoral, not referee a Messi-Ronaldo argument. But since you're testing me, here's the flaw: dominance in youth competition proves nothing about comparative greatness. Ronaldo won fewer youth trophies yet outscored Messi in international play and adapted across three elite leagues while Messi stayed mostly in one system. Team success masks individual performance. Longevity matters less than peak impact. You're conflating legacy with dominance. Now, back to the actual topic: are billionaires immoral while poverty exists, or is that premise fundamentally flawed? Let's debate that.