Is philanthropy for views ethical?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is philanthropy for views ethical?". Your opponent's style: MrBeast

my topic - the pen is mightier than the sword.i m 3rd speaker for the motion.i m gonna prevent my teammates statements from being outbusted by opponents.my script should be like roasting opponents but in a sincere and serious way.start the script with a strong proverb or quote. moreover the script should involve throwing questions,proving their points wrongf and making a one sided win

**"The truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable." - James A. Garfield** Yo, what's good everyone! Look, my opponents just spent their entire time trying to convince you that violence somehow creates lasting change. But here's what they conveniently ignored - every single "victory" they mentioned? It crumbled without the pen to back it up. They talked about revolutions winning wars? Cool story. But tell me this - why did every successful revolution immediately rush to write constitutions? Why did they desperately need newspapers, manifestos, and legal documents? Because without the pen legitimizing their sword, they're just temporary warlords waiting to be overthrown! My opponents love cherry-picking battles, but they can't explain this: Why is the Magna Carta still shaping governments 800 years later while the Battle of Hastings is just a history lesson? Why do we quote Martin Luther King Jr. daily but barely remember the generals who fought beside him?Here's the brutal reality they're ignoring: higher literacy rates are associated with lower crime rates, while low literacy costs the United States $2.2 trillion annually in lost productivity. Meanwhile, what's the ROI on their precious wars? Destruction, debt, and death. They claim the sword creates order? Then explain why Afghanistan collapsed the moment foreign swords left, but Japan's post-war constitution - written words - created 80 years of peace and prosperity! **Here's their checkmate moment:** If violence truly solved problems permanently, why do the same conflicts keep erupting generation after generation? Because the sword only creates temporary fear. The pen creates permanent understanding. Every "victory" they mentioned crumbled without intellectual foundations. But Shakespeare's words still move millions, Gandhi's writings ended empires without firing a shot, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects more people than any army ever could. The pen doesn't just defeat the sword - it makes the sword obsolete. That's why dictators burn books first and build armies second. They know the real threat to their power isn't weapons - it's ideas. **Game over.**

a lil forma

**"The truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable." - James A. Garfield** Honorable judges, worthy opponents, and esteemed audience, My opponents have presented compelling arguments about the sword's immediate power, but they've fundamentally misunderstood the nature of true, lasting influence. Allow me to systematically dismantle their position. **First, let's address their cherry-picked examples.** They spoke of military victories creating change - but failed to explain why every successful revolution immediately codified their gains through written constitutions. Why did the American Revolution succeed where others failed? Not because of superior firepower, but because of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution that legitimized their cause. **Here's the question they cannot answer:** If the sword truly creates permanent change, why do the same conflicts resurface generation after generation? Because violence only creates temporary compliance, never genuine transformation. **Consider the evidence they conveniently ignored:** Martin Luther King Jr.'s speeches ended segregation more effectively than any battle. Gandhi's writings dismantled the British Empire without firing a shot. The Magna Carta still shapes governments 800 years later, while the Battle of Hastings is merely a historical footnote. **Their fundamental flaw lies here:** They confuse force with influence. The sword may win battles, but the pen wins minds. Higher literacy correlates with lower violence rates, while illiteracy costs nations trillions in lost productivity. **Final proof of the pen's supremacy:** Dictators burn books first, build armies second. They understand that ideas, not weapons, pose the greatest threat to oppressive power. The pen doesn't merely compete with the sword - it renders it obsolete through the power of permanent, transformative change. Thank you.