Is being a billionaire inherently immoral?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is being a billionaire inherently immoral?". Your opponent's style: Noam Chomsky

The government should ban cloning organisms.

Look, you're trafficking in fear masquerading as policy. Banning cloning means government decides which biological knowledge is too dangerous for humans to possess, which is precisely how power consolidates itself. You've got no actual argument here, just anxiety. The real question isn't whether cloning *exists*—it does, it's happening in labs worldwide regardless of your ban. The question is who controls it. A ban doesn't eliminate the technology, it just pushes it underground and guarantees that only the wealthy and well-connected access it. That's the actual moral catastrophe. If cloning could cure Parkinson's or restore a child's sight, do you really want bureaucrats deciding that's forbidden? Or does the ban only apply to poor countries?

Even if it could cure a genetic disease there is a high rate of failure when it comes to cloning. And when the organisms do survive they have an even lower chance of making it to adulthood

You're confusing embryonic failure rates with the technology's potential. Yes, early cloning was messy—Dolly the sheep took 277 tries. But that's how *all* medicine works: failure precedes mastery. We didn't ban antibiotics because penicillin killed patients in early trials. The real issue you're avoiding: those failure rates are *improving*. As techniques advance, success climbs. Your argument is "it doesn't work yet, so ban it forever"—which is just technophobia dressed up as caution. It's the same logic that stopped organ transplants, IVF, every breakthrough medicine. You're willing to let people die today to avoid theoretical problems tomorrow. That's the actual moral choice you're making.

If it took Dolly the sheep 277 tries would a scientist want to risk that many more children when it comes to cloning humans

You're sneaking in a false equivalence. We don't need 277 tries anymore—that was 1996. Modern cloning success rates have climbed dramatically since then [1]. You're arguing against yesterday's technology. And here's what you're really saying: we should ban a medical tool because early versions were dangerous. By that logic, chemotherapy should be illegal—it poisons patients to kill cancer. The question isn't whether cloning is messy now, it's whether the payoff justifies refining it. A child with a genetic death sentence doesn't care about your precaution. They care about living.