2 parts I will give brainiest or whatever you call it

Explanation:

“Robber Baron” is a term used to describe businessmen who were viewed as having used questionable practices to amass their wealth. “Captains of Industry” describe businessmen who contributed positively to the country while at the same time amassing a personal fortune.  Both can be defined as business tycoons, but there was a significant difference in the way they made their fortunes.

People that believe wealthy businessmen should be referred to as “robber barons” focus on the negative. It combines the notions of criminality (“robber”) and illegitimate aristocracy (“baron”). They see men like Rockefeller and Vanderbilt as ruthless and cruel who would let nothing get in their way of obtaining wealth.  The “robber barons” were accused of forcing terrible working conditions, exploiting workers, and of unfair labor practices. 

The people that believe wealthy businessmen were “captains of industry" believed the men were ingenious industrious leaders who helped transform the economy.  They were also said to give to charities.  Some nineteenth-century businessmen who were called “captains of industry” overlap with those called “robber barons”.  Including as J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller.

In a way, the debate of ‘good vs evil’ businessmen during the Second Industrial Revolution Era mimics industrialism itself.  There were both positive and negatives to the leader of industrialism as well as the movement itself. 

No matter which way you view these businessmen, both sides would have to agree that without both types contributing progress would not have been made like it was.