The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Is stealing from the rich and giving to the poor morally justifiable?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 443 times Debate No: 88426
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Absolutely, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is morally justifiable for the money is being spent in a far better place. In comparison if a millionaire spent $3.4 million on a Lykan Hypersport, millions of lives could have potentially been saved should the money have been spent different. Through the 'redistribution of wealth', children in drought affected areas could be gained access to water, natural disaster victims to shelter, orphans to orphanages, et cetera.


I accept.


Pro claims that stealing from rich and giving to the poor is morally justifiable. BOP is fully on Pro to prove their claim. I will only show that their arguments don’t support their claim.


An action can be either moral, morally neutral, or immoral. For instance, if a robber comes to your house and tries to rob you and kill you, then to save yourself you may not have any other choice but killing the robber. In this exceptional circumstance, killing is not immoral or wrong. But it is not also moral. Furthermore, it is not immoral only if there exist no other options than killing.

Similarly, Pro has, at least, to show that stealing from rich is the only choice to help the poor in order to show that stealing is, at least, not immoral.

I may later show that there are better ways than stealing to overcome the problems of the poor, to show that stealing is not the only choice, hence it is not morally justifiable.

I look forward to Pro's arguments and wish them best of luck!

Debate Round No. 1


To counter,

The moral choice may not always be the best choice. Examples of where both moral and immoral choices were given and the immoral choice were taken, purely because it was a better choice (whether it be economically, socially or environmentally), are littered through history. For example logging viz., where trees are cleared for development, housing etc. but the environment is harmed at the expense of our needs.

As stated by the opponent it is "immoral only if there exist no other options than killing." However, with 21,000 people dying every day due to hunger or hunger related causes (, 2016) is this argument really valid?

Should all of the rich wealth be depleted then perhaps the stance would lean towards the immoral side however, that isn"t happening. The rich will still be rich but the poor will just be less poor. How many superyachts could one person possibly need and how many people could be fed with that money?

Looking forward to you counter argument.


Moral choices are at least good ones, if not better ones.

Trees are requirements for humanity, e.g., for warming their houses. Otherwise some could die of cold. Therefore, cutting trees is not bad if not overused. But after cutting, we have 2 other options; planting and not planting new trees. Planting new ones adequately compensates cutting trees.

Not stealing is not doing nothing. The states can be forced to increase taxes for rich to be delivered to poor. Or the rich can be convinced to willingly help the poor. One has first to try all of such moral ways. There are such rich people that one of them can solve almost all the problems of those who are dying of hunger. If one could convince only some of such people, then the problems could be solved.

So, before all of such choices are tried & didn’t work, stealing is completely immoral.

Even if one had no other choice but steal, it would still not be morally justifiable, but that person exceptionally may not be wrong.

Good luck!

Debate Round No. 2


As it is the redistribution of wealth is far too great as it is with "62 people having as much wealth as world's 3.6B poorest" (CNBC, 2016). This evidence can be linked to the common belief of that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

The rich would argue that by the forcefully increasing taxes they are robbed of their fortune, so in a way, it is still stealing. As it is the super-rich avoid tax by their means.

In this case, the ends do justify the means for poverty would be solved at the little expense of the rich.

Would it be considered moral for someone that has the ability to save 21,000 people's lives and not do anything? No... So if someone stole the money from someone that doesn't need it and effectively solved the issue would it be justified?

How can money be worth more than life?

I suppose the real message in this debate is that more should be done to protect and preserve life, not only of those we can see but those we cannot see as well.


My opponent fails to show that a-there is no any good/neutral way for helping poor or b-stealing is the least bad among bad ways.

Pro objected that 1-rich people would argue that high taxes are robbery & 2-poor people are much more in number than rich ones.

1. Robbery is worse than high taxes.

2. Not all of 3.6B are dying of hunger, as Pro first asserted to prove their claim.

Not saving people from dying when one can is obviously not moral. But it doesn’t follow that stealing is moral. I suggested that one other way could be convincing the rich to help the poor, which was not challenged by Pro.


The fact that huge amounts of money CAN BE collected without stealing for search for life on Mars etc, while people (=LIVING BEINGS) are dying of hunger here, which has less importance than human life, FACTUALLY, EXPERIMENTALLY & OBVIOUSLY PROVES that there are good ways of solving all the problems of the poor without stealing.

Therefore, stealing is immoral!

Vote Con!

Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by ssadi 7 months ago
No problem at all, I understand.

If that was something unacceptable, I wouldn't accept the debate. I saw the character limit before accepting, but didn't want to inform you and suggest a change. That way I could miss it, someone esle could accept the challenge before you responded.

Anyways, consider that as a kind advice for your succeeding debates. :)

I must confess that you too are a good debater.

I wish you best of luck in whole of your life. :)
Posted by LachlanSmithson 7 months ago
Nice debate! You are clearly very experienced in what you do!

Sorry about the character limit, as you may have noticed I only joined the site a couple days ago and rushed into my first debate in spite of myself.

I wish ssadi good luck in the proceeding votes.

I too would like to thank voters in advance!
Posted by ssadi 7 months ago
It could be a better debate if the character limit more than 1000, but anyways.. I wish Pro best of luck in voting period and would like to thank the voters in advance.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarium 7 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: As this was primarily a debate using logic and deduction, the point raised by con, that the terms of their poverty cannot be fully based on lack of food, shows that stealing from the rich does not mean it is moral to steal for the sake of food. I understand Pro's message and agree, but con won the debate using his logic and succeeded in my opinion.