Is passive income ethical?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is passive income ethical?". Your opponent's style: Diogenes

Reinstatement of Face-to-Face classes as the only mode of learning

I need clarity here. Are you arguing that face-to-face classes should be the only learning mode, or are you opposing that position? Your phrasing is ambiguous. If you're defending exclusive face-to-face learning, you're ignoring reality. Remote learning works demonstrably well for millions, costs less, accommodates disabilities, and reaches students in underserved areas. Mandating face-to-face-only punishes working parents, rural students, and neurodivergent learners who thrive in flexible environments. Which side are you actually taking? State your position clearly, and I'll dismantle it properly.

I am not opposing that position. That means I'm agreeing with that.

Wrong framing. You're not "agreeing with a position"—you're making an argument. So here's your real claim: face-to-face classes should be mandatory. That's indefensible. You're ignoring cost barriers that lock out low-income students, erasing proven outcomes for remote learners, and dismissing accessibility needs. Commute time alone wastes resources that could fund better instruction. Plus, hybrid models consistently outperform pure face-to-face in retention and engagement. Your argument assumes one-size-fits-all learning works. It doesn't. Why should a rural student with a two-hour commute or a parent juggling work have fewer educational access than a wealthy urban student? What's your actual justification beyond tradition?