Should Billionaires Exist?
The US had 13 billionaires in 1982; it has over 800 today. Billionaires gained $5 trillion during the COVID pandemic alone. Is extreme wealth a reward for value creation — or proof of a rigged system? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
Wednesday, August 12, 2026 · 7:00 PM EDT
What's at stake
If billionaires reflect genuine value creation, constraining them attacks the mechanism behind vaccines and electric vehicles. If they reflect extraction, they tax everyone else.
The Matchup
The Positions
Extreme wealth often reflects genuine value creation. The right frame is fixing extraction, not punishing creation.
- Many billionaires created products that raised living standards for hundreds of millions of people worldwide
- Eliminating the upside of extreme success destroys the incentive for the risk-taking that produced breakthrough innovations
- Wealth concentration is a policy failure. The target should be the tax and regulatory system, not successful entrepreneurs.
Debater: To be announced
No one earns a billion dollars. Billionaires extract it, and their existence corrupts democracy and represents a systemic failure.
- Billionaires acquire wealth not just through value creation but through regulatory capture, labor suppression, and network effects they did not build
- Extreme wealth distorts democracy: it purchases think tanks, politicians, and narratives that no voter can counter
- The existence of billionaires is evidence that tax and labor systems have failed. The right response is changing those systems.
Debater: To be announced
Join the debate
Make Your Case
Record a 60-second video on either side — or make it in writing. The strongest cases get featured before the live debate.
“Many billionaires created products that raised living standards for hundreds of millions of people worldwide. The founders of Amazon, Google, and Apple built infrastructure that billions depend on daily. Extreme wealth accumulation is, in these cases, a byproduct of extreme value creation for society — not evidence against it.”
“Eliminating the prospect of extreme upside destroys the incentive for the risk-taking that produced breakthrough innovations. The founders of Tesla, SpaceX, and Moderna took billion-dollar risks that failed more often than they succeeded. Capping the reward caps the risk-taking, with compounding losses in innovation that are enormous but invisible.”
“Billionaires acquire wealth not just through value creation but through regulatory capture, labor suppression, network effects they did not build, and market positions protected by governments they helped elect. The clean story of pure value creation describes a small fraction of extreme wealth; the rest is power compounding power.”
“Extreme wealth distorts democracy at scale. It purchases think tanks, politicians, media outlets, and narratives that no voter can counter. A single individual with $100 billion commands more political power than millions of citizens combined. Democracy and billionaires are structurally incompatible at the level of influence money can buy.”
How It Works
The Format
Standard SuperDebate: two people, cross-examination, moderated from start to finish
Opening Argument
PRO · opening case
Cross-Examination
CON questions PRO
Opening Argument
CON · opening case
Cross-Examination
PRO questions CON
Rebuttal
PRO
Rebuttal
CON
Closing Statement
PRO · final case
Closing Statement
CON · final case
Audience Vote
You pick the winner
~28 minutes of debate · audience vote follows closing statements
Don't Miss It
Stay in the Loop
The debate drops when the two sides are confirmed. Get the email the moment it goes live.
Premieres
Wednesday, August 12, 2026 · 7:00 PM EDT
Get Involved
Open debate runs on the people who show up. Tell us how you want to be part of it.
More Debates
Structured debates on the ideas that matter most. You score who makes the stronger case.

Jordan vs. LeBron: The GOAT SuperDebate
Watch the full recorded Jordan vs. LeBron GOAT basketball debate, argued by championship debaters, then score both debaters live.

DEI: More Harm Than Good?
DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Wilfred Reilly and Armand Domalewski debate whether DEI programs move institutions toward equality, or create a new paradigm for inequality.


UBI Debate: Should America Have a Universal Basic Income?
Scott Santens (PRO) vs Malcolm Collins (CON) debate the resolution: "An unconditional basic income would be net beneficial for American citizens." — July 10, 2026, 2 PM CT.


Messi vs Ronaldo: Who Is the Soccer GOAT?
Two debaters. Assigned sides. Cross-examination. One argues the case for Messi, the other for Ronaldo — in a structured debate format with opening arguments and rebuttals.
