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

Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,266 times Debate No: 108315
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)



You know the rules. Your aff, so skip your last speech so we have an equal number of speeches. I know LD doesn't work that way either, but this is and I do what I want.


Ok, I understand that I will not do my last speech then, for round 4, correct? Well, I will just assume so. Anyways, moving on...(and all sources will be in round 4 speech)

I stand in firm affirmation of the Resolved: The United States Ought to Provide a Universal Basic Income
Observation 1: Definition
Basic income has 5 characteristics...

A basic income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement.
That is, basic income has the following five characteristics:
Periodic: it is paid at regular intervals (for example every month), not as a one-off grant.
Cash payment: it is paid in an appropriate medium of exchange, allowing those who receive it to decide what they spend it on. It is not, therefore, paid either in kind (such as food or services) or in vouchers dedicated to a specific use, as well as any form of benefit (such as disability or food stamp).
Individual: it is paid on an individual basis"and not, for instance, to households.
Universal: it is paid to all, without means test.
Unconditional: it is paid without a requirement to work or to demonstrate willingness-to-work

Observation 2: Grounds
The negative must prove that Basic Income does NOT benefit the citizens of the US, as well as prove that the US ought not to provide a basic income, instead of the countries ability to do so, as the resolution states ought.

My Standard for evaluating morality for this round is upholding the Kantian Social Contract due to the principle of generic consistency.
We can"t know what others want [Kant, 1]
Since people differ in their thinking about happiness and how each would have it constituted, their wills with respect to it cannot be brought under any common principle and so under any external law harmonizing with everyone's freedom.
[Kant, 2]No one can coerce me to be happy in his way. Instead, each may seek his happiness in the way that seems good to him, provided he does not infringe upon this right of another.We, as humans, don"t know what other people want in their pursuit of life. Therefore, laws that promote a certain type of happiness violate the individual"s individuality. Since all people are inherently rational beings, this violates their rights as beings and is against a-priori reasoning.
Society in decisions [Kant, 3]
For what is under discussion here is not the happiness that a subject may expect from the institution or administration of a commonwealth but above all merely the right that is to be secured for each by means of it, which is the supreme principle for which all maxims having to do with a commonwealth must proceed and which is limited by no other principle. The "public well-being' that must be taken into account is lawful constitution which secures everyone his freedom by laws, whereby each remains at liberty to seek his happiness in whatever way seems best to him.
What Kant is saying is that societies govern to secure each person the right to achieve happiness and self-fulfillment. Therefore, to infringe upon someone"s rights is to deny that person their right to happiness. Since this is only violating the rights of one person, it is a violation of the goals of a state " and by extension of society.

Contention 1: UBI Promotes Freedom
1. UBI Means Freedom to Pursue What One Wants (1)
The objective of basic income is to transform the deprivations linked to non-employment and poorly remunerated employment into "real freedom" (1995). Real freedom requires not just the abstract right but financial resources to make freedom a lived reality. Furthermore, by securing individuals" "power to say no", basic income reduces the vulnerability of poor and working people to exploitative relations in labor markets.
And, According to Rutger Bregman, (2)
UBI would allow both our employment and leisure time to become more fulfilling. Currently, millions of people are employed in work that serves no real purpose, and is simply a way to fill time and provide salaries. Under UBI, Bregman believes we would have the financial freedom to pursue useful and worthwhile work.
2. UBI Creates Economic Freedom Among Citizens
Jason Murphy states that"
There has also been a growing focus on how basic income could be implemented to address gender inequality. He points to a rape shelter in Vancouver that has voiced support for UBI, in part because it would give women the economic freedom to escape abusive relationships.
Murphy also stated that"
A monthly stipend and reduced working hours would give both parents the freedom to commit to domestic chores, while still being able to invest in professional careers. Women carry the burden of emotional labor"the childcare, support, and household work, which largely goes uncompensated.
According to Bregman,
"This unpaid work is valuable and"UBI is recognition of that."

Contention 2: Poverty Internal Link
Basic Income Eliminates Poverty (3)
The human rights case for a basic income: Poverty is not a natural tragedy like cancer or earthquakes. Poverty is a human caused tragedy like slavery or government oppression. These types of tragedies can be ended by recognizing that humans have the right not to be subjected to tortuous conditions imposed by other. And humans have a right not to live in poverty. A basic income is not a strategy for dealing with poverty; it it the elimination of poverty. The campaign for a basic income is a campaign for the abolition of poverty.
1. Drug Abuse (4)
It seems sort of obvious that bad times might result in more drug abuse, as people suffering from economic despair self-medicate. Researchers from Vanderbilt University and the University of Colorado Denver published a paper showing an undeniable inverse relationship between drug abuse and the economy overall. According the data, when one sinks, the other rises. "There is strong evidence that economic downturns lead to increases in substance use disorders involving hallucinogens and prescription pain relievers"" Drug treatment policies get significantly cut during economic downturns, which seems like precisely the wrong move at the wrong time.
In short, increased rates of income leads to a decrease in drug use, and moreover abuse. More deaths, illnesses and disabilities stem from substance abuse than from any other preventable health condition. Any chance to decrease drug abuse should be taken to value the lives and welfare of humanity.
2. Healthcare (5)
For most people, a single doctor"s visit can be a financial obstacle course. Many patients throughout the year pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in premiums. Then, at the doctor"s office, they are faced with a deductible, and they may need to pay coinsurance or make a copayment. If they have prescriptions, they"ll likely fork over cash for those, too. And that"s just for basic primary care for one person. Repeat that process for an entire family; add in any labs, referrals, specialists, emergency-room visits, and surgeries; and the result for even healthy families is dozens and dozens of payments, and often thousands of dollars.
If the UBI were to be implemented in the U.S., people would have to worry less about the expensive payments that must be made because of illness or injury. If people"s income increased, they could purchase more healthcare. Less disease and injuries leads to less widespread death and harm.
3. Education (6)
UBI keeps kids enrolled in schools. By providing an income cushion, it would increase workers" bargaining power, potentially driving up wages. It would make it easier for people to take risks with their job choices, and to invest in education. In the U.S. in the seventies, there were small-scale experiments with basic-income guarantees, and they showed that young people with a basic income were more likely to stay in school; in New Jersey, kids" chances of graduating from high school increased by twenty-five per cent

I stand in firm affirmation.
Debate Round No. 1


I negate resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income.

Counterplan: The US will provide a basic income, excluding felons, violent criminals, FBI watchlist members and legal immigrants who have lived in the US for less than 10 years.

Through the CP, the neg solves for all the aff impacts of economic equality, gender equality, drug abuse, health care, and education. However the CP isn't advocating for universal basic income, as according to my opponent and common definitions of the term, UBI is both universal and unconditional. UBI shouldn't have any restrictions or bounds on who receives a basic income; otherwise it wouldn't be universal and cease to be a UBI.

I agree with my opponent's standard of the Kantian Social Contract, however, this is better upheld under the negation as I'm aren't supporting mass immigration nor crime. Instead of the principle of generic consistency, rather we should determine ethical actions through the basis of consequentialism. Overall, I solve all the aff impacts, and I better support his framework.

I fulfill my opponent's observations as he says I must prove a basic income wouldn't help the common american, while the resolution is based on universal basic income. Instead he must prove how UBI would better support the average american compared to merely a basic income.

Contention 1: Crime and Terror
Under the CP, basic income isn't supplied towards violent criminals and felons. Imagine a world where criminals such as those in the Crips, Bloods, MS-13, Latin Kings, Mexican Mafia, Sinaloa Drug Cartel, Barrio Azteca, or the Surenos, had, just for the sake of argument, $10,000 for every member annually. Just for a smaller group like Tango Blast, which boasts 19,000 members, the US money would indirectly give the organization through its members $190,000,000 dollars annually, for whatever means they so wish. The impact is an increase in overall crime, especially in the case of transnational organized crime groups.

What could occur if say a known terrorist organization It could very well be said that if criminals have funds given to them? In the case of domestic shootings, terrorists could buy larger and larger weaponry, with the potential of gaining military hardware through the black market. Imagine the outcome of say, the Orlando Massacre if Mateen had say an M-16, grenades, or such.

Contention 2: Welfare Magnets
As aforementioned, UBI has to provided towards everyone regardlessly. If such a welfare state was created, where just by existing people can get a basic income, it would decisively be regarded as utopian in nature. Anyone and everyone would wish to go there. Mass immigration would soon occur, as everyone attempts to join the welfare state. Much like how many immigrants in the status quo receive food stamps through their naturalized children, a similar phenomenon would occur with UBI.

I negate resolved.


As a roadmap, I will be first going over the flaws of my opponents Counterplan, as well as how my opponent has failed to see the fallacies in "his" framework, and how it does not work. I will then go over how my opponent's observation is contradictory to the resolved. Then, I shall go over his case and prove that it my opponent does not solve for the resolved, or to my case. Now, onto the debate

My opponent's counterplan, once again, is to provide a basic income to all excluding felons, violent criminals, FBI watchlist members and legal immigrants who have lived in the US for less than 10 years. Going over felons and violent criminals first, my opponent has failed to recognize the number of wrongful convictions in our society.
"I feel that if I die this afternoon, I"ll be able to go to my tomb and rest in peace because my name has finally been cleared," said William Vasquez, who was cleared in December of an arson that killed a mother and her five children in 1981.
Vasquez already served 31 years in prison, where he went blind for untreated glaucoma, and was released in 2012. He even had an alibi witness at trial, who testified he was with her when the fire was set, but the building owner, Hannah Quick, accused him of the arson. Mr. Vasquez spent half of his life in prison because of a wrongful conviction. If UBI was implemented, does he not get any payment because he was an ex-felon? Although this is only one example, many other people in this world face similar conditions. They deserve to receive a basic income as much as any other people in this world, but under my opponent's counterplan, he would get nothing. Even if my opponent states "he is no longer a felon", just imagine those people who are still imprisoned because of wrongful convictions. With a basic income (that my opponent is stating that they should not get), they would not even be able to get out of jail by bail to secure their freedom.
Now moving on to legal immigrants, who have lived here less than 10 years - firstly, how does my opponent expect to get a kickstart on their new life if they are unable to receive a substantial income for at least 10 years? A big number of all legal immigrants become homeless because they cannot sustain a substantial income for them and their families. What UBI is doing, as I have stated in my first case, is solving for poverty, INCLUDING those that are immigrants. All people in this world are originally immigrants. Poverty denotes serious lack of the means for proper existence: 100 million people are homeless in america. That is 30% of our population. When you take into account the amount of families that are homeless, and include the number of immigrants in this number, it is unnecessary and is harming our society. As I have stated in my case, poverty is a human-caused tragedy and can be ended with UBI. We are supposed to be helping all Americans, immigrants or not.

Now, my opponent agreed to meet my standard of Kantian Social Contract, stating that his case would better solve for it, but has failed to make any arguments or examples or actual facts supporting this statement. Kantian Social Contract is saying that people have the right to do what they want in life to make them feel more human. Any law that denotes an absolute, and takes away these people's rights to be human are immoral. My opponent's counterplan is isolating society but taking away the needed income of so many innocent people, as well as thousands of immigrants each year. My opponent is valuing poverty by taking away the basic income of a grand amount of our society. This is not maximizing the individuality of our individuals.

My opponent's grounds/observations states that I "must prove how UBI would better support the average american compared to a merely a basic income". Well, I counter this by saying what is an average american? Going by logic, my case thoroughly supports the average american. 33% of all workers say that they are doing the job that they love, while 67% say that they dislike it dramatically. With UBI, people would have that financial freedom to get the job that they want, without being held back and in a job that they dislike because they must be because of the lack of financial security. The 33% can still stay in their job, while the 67% can finally quit, or try to change jobs without fear. This is argument goes along with my first contention, giving the economic freedom to ALL AMERICANS, and, by correlation, the "average american".

Now, onto my opponent's arguments - firstly, in his first contention, my opponent talks about how in his counterplan, basic income isn't supplied towards violent criminals and felons. Going back to my previous argument, as well as the example of William Vasquez, my opponent does not take into account the number of innocent convictions there are in this world, and is validating taking money away from these innocent people who deserve a basic income. I would also like to take into account that my opponent made the outrageous statement of every single person receiving $10,000 annually (monthly) which is completely absurd. In UBI, what would happen is that individual adults above the age of legality (in most states in America, that would be 18) would get $1,000 a month, and $12,000 a year (to stay above the poverty line) and those under the age of legality (depending on age) would get about $4,000 a year (and that number would gradually increase with age, so it would go to $6,000, $8,000, $10,000 etc.) Moving on from the economic fallacy that my opponent made, he also told us to imagine a world where criminals would get paid $1,000 each year (once again, stating $10,000 annually which is a grand misconception, it would better to be $1,000 annually). Going along with my opponent's math, the criminal group of Tango Blast would receive $190,000,000 in a year based on its members (which would be incorrect math) but overall in a month the group would make a total of $1,900,000. But logically - it wouldn't. Going along with my definition of basic income (see above case), basic income is paid on an individual basis, meaning that Tango Blast would NOT get paid $1,900,000 a month, but rather each member of Tango Blast would receive $1,000 a month. Subtract the cost of housing, any taxes, food, clothes, and healthcare issues that could affect each individual (which cannot be totaled because every human's health and needs are different), then this criminal group makes nowhere near $1,900,000 a month. And this is just by basic logic.
And we are missing the big picture here, anyways, and that is the way that these "crime lords" actually receive payments. How are they supposed to receive these payments without getting caught or arrested for their crimes? My opponent's case shows no empirical backing, as well as no evidence showing that A) these "crime lords" can get their payments without being arrested for their crimes and B) that these groups will get hundreds of thousands of dollars because of Basic Income. My opponent's first contention should fall.

Moving on to my opponent's second contention, he states that UBI will become a beacon for more immigrants to come to America to get money. My opponent has three flaws with his logic and one flaw with his counterplan. Firstly, he shows no evidence showing that this would actually take place if UBI was implemented. Secondly, there is already "mass immigration" in America. We are literally known as "The Promised Land". There have been no negative effects, and my opponent fails to prove how it will be worse. Thirdly, giving these immigrants a basic income would not have a negative effect on our economy (which I'm guessing is my opponent's main concern, because by definition of basic income, it is a cash payment, and not, therefore, in use of food stamp) because these immigrants will still have to pay taxes that will inevitably go back to the actual amount of money used in UBI. (CP Flaw in Comments)
Debate Round No. 2


I'll cover framework, case, and off case respectively.

Going over framework.

It's fair to say that my opponent dropped his value criterion of generic consistiency and my value criterion of consquentialism. Therefore all impacts should be decided through a consquentialist framework. The value of Kantian Social Contract is better supported on the negation, as we avoid the disadvantages of the aff plan. The social contract as explained by Kant is the agreement between individuals and the goverment for the individual to give up some rights to ensure the goverment protects the remaining. However, criminals violate others rights through murder, plunder, theft or such. Therefore, they don't have the same rights as the average citizen as they have broken the social contract. For example, a criminal may suffer from disenfranchisment, incarceration, capital punishment or such as punishment.

Going over case.

Overall, my opponent fails to realize that via establishing a partial basic income brings all the same benefits as UBI, and avoids the disadvantages of crime and terror and welfare magnets. The partial basic income is still supplied to the common American, solving everything that my opponent says is unique to UBI. We both solve for poverty, economic equality, gender equality, drug abuse, health care, and education. Overall, all the affirmative advantages are nonunique, since neg also solves.

Going over my opponent's attack on my C1 on crime and terror.

First, I'll appeal myself to the good will of the spectators and my opponent. Where did I ever breathe a word, or even the edge of a word that UBI would be a $10,000 monthly payment. I'm sorry to say, but my opponent fails to realize the proper definitions of words. According to Merriam-Webster, annually is defined as occurring or happening every year or once a year. Cambridge Dictionary agrees: once per year. Holidays are celebrated ANNUALLY, birthdays are occur ANNUALLY, and anniversaries happen ANNUALLY. Completely ignore everything my opponent says on this faulty basis.

What must be said, however, is that UBI proponents disagree what quantitatively is a basic income. Some say $10,000, others say $12,000, while others advocate for higher. I'll take the $12,000 number, however it can very well be said that my opponent is making a rod for his own back. If we pick the higher of the two, Tango Blast would receive $228,000,000 annually, only worsening the problem. I'll further elaborate the impacts. According the FBI's report on the National Gang Threat Assessment, there are approximately 1.4 million active gang members. Given that, this would give organized crime groups $16,800,000,000 annually. This would only further expand their massive criminal enterprises and such, exacerbating their power in the global sphere.

Now my opponent asks how are criminals going to receive these funds? Very important question indeed? Nonetheless, they would receive it the same way everyone else would, whatever that may be. Many criminals have bank accounts, and pay their taxes and such, and under UBI, the government would treat them like any other citizen.

My opponent drops my point on domestic terror and FBI watch lists, and by extension admitting that under the affirmative domestic terrorism would by increased in both number and severity. Imagine the pointless, violent bloodshed in say Orlando, or Las Vegas, or Parkland or such, only exacerbated with military grade weaponry. Under the affirmative, the school walkouts would need a great deal more than just 17 minutes for the lives lost.

On the point of wrongful convictions, most of these are done through plea bargains. Misdemeanor convictions are almost always the standard with them, meaning that the

Now lets go over my C2 on immigration.

First, this is merely basic logic. Currently in the status quo, many immigrants illegally come to our country to bear children, ensuring they are US citizens. Then as their children are US citizens, they too want citizenship status. UBI grants additional incentives, since they don't even need to work to survive. Setting a 10 year limit ensures that immigrants are able to become productive members of society, and don't come here just for welfare.

Second, immigration does in fact have consquences. Mass illegal immigration would encourage Trump to engage in mass deportations to maintain his Republican base, and to be hard on immigration. Mass deportations of that sort haven't exactly the best history in this country. For example, during the mass deportation during the Great Depression, Hispanic homes were raided, regardless of who they were, and were forced onto south bound trains to Central America and Mexico. This permantly seperated families, and sent multitudes into a country that many never knew.

Third, I made no economic concerns about UBI in regard to immigration. This point is mute. I expect immigrants to kickstart their lives by getting a job. It isn't the goverment' job to support someone just because they moved here, they need to prove their worth.

The CP solves this disadvantage by preventing legal immigrants from getting a UBI till they have been here 10 years.

For these reasons I strongly urge a negative ballot.

Since I have characters remaining, here's a word of warning. Never ask for a doggie bag in Pyeonchang.


Framework, neg case, aff case

My opponent has failed to realize that my value criterion was not generic consistency, but was, in fact, upholding Kantian Social Contract. Let that flow through and be seen in judging, since my opponent has failed to argue my value criterion. Meaning that judging my arguments should solely be based upon upholding Kantian Social Contract, since my opponent dropped my criterion. My opponent has mis-defined Kantian Social Contract, as well, because the definition of Kantian Social Contract is saying that the purpose of government is to ensure that people are valued as ends in themselves and to promote their liberties in life so they can pursue happiness as they see fit. My opponent has failed to value the intrinsic lives of society as a whole, and has failed to meet the grounds of proving that basic income does not benefit the citizens of the US, which will be explained when evaluating their first and second contention. My opponent has failed to prove how Kantian Social Contract proves the neg case, since my opponent has used the wrong social contract. My argument holds more value and evidence than my opponent on a framework standpoint, and the affirmation should hold strong in voting so far. Vote aff on Framework.

My opponent's counterplan, which is relied so heavily on, has no foundation to stand on, and has completely fallen. Firstly, my opponent has chosen to drop my argument about those of innocent convictions, meaning that my opponent's counterplan falls, since it does not uphold his value of Kantian Social Contract, since his counterplan is not valuing the intrinsic lives of those felony convictions that are innocent and wrongfully convicted. This cannot be morally acceptable, to punish those who have been wrongfully convicted so they receive no part of the UBI process, when they need the money to secure their freedom and receive bail.

My opponent's first contention on crime and terror has completely fallen without the framework to support it. He has failed to prove his case against the DEFINITION of basic income, which states that UBI will be paid to an INDIVIDUAL BASIS, NOT A HOUSEHOLD, NOT A GROUP. This is a giant factor in this debate BECAUSE those thousands of dollars that my opponent is arguing for is non-existent! These so called "terror-groups" are NOT getting the money that my opponent is stating they are. My opponent's first contention holds very little to no argumentative value, and should not hold any factor in evaluating a winner for this debate.

My opponent's second contention goes against my opponent's framework of Kantian Social Contract, as it does NOT value the lives of all of these immigrants and these children and families that my opponent has talked about. My opponent is advocating for poverty, homelessness, mass inequality and racism by stating that these LEGAL immigrants (illegal is irrelevant, since my opponent originally focused on legal immigrants, meaning he is changing facts if he continues talking about illegal immigrants), who may be hard workers, who may be trying to support their children and family, who may be trying to fulfill their personal needs, deserve less than Americans who may not have worked a day in their lives. Just imagine if you were an immigrant, you've worked hard to make sure your kids get food everyday, putting in hard labor, and now Basic Income is being implemented to give your family more of a chance in society, get a well education, you don't need to worry about them starving, but now you can't continue to help them, because according to my opponent, if you aren't a legal immigrant for 10 years, you cannot support your family. My opponent's argument has been eliminated based on the bias that my opponent is choosing to advocate for.
My opponent has still failed to prove that immigration will indeed have a negative effect on society and economics if we were to give them a basic income. As human beings, we are held accountable for helping others that are just like us. My opponent thinks otherwise, and chooses to make our world into a hierarchy, with all immigrants on the bottom. This is not what the United States is about. We are a Promise Land, a land of opportunity for all people. We should not give immigrants a disadvantage in life because they haven't been in the US as long as us.

The affirmative has proven all of the negations arguments as FALSE! The negation has not disproved any of the affirmative arguments, meaning that all affirmative arguments and cases have completely stood. My opponent has no evidence to support any of his arguments, so the affirmation should obviously win this debate. I thank my opponent for instigating this debate, as well as thank all of the voters.

I stand in firm affirmation, with the evidence I have provided and the evidence that the negation has not. Vote Aff to value the entire society as a hole, and to solve poverty for ALL people in the United States, and not just the ones born here.
Debate Round No. 3


Framework, case, offcase, topicallity, voters

Even if I misdefined the Kantian Social Contract, I still fufill it as the negation is still supporting the human rights of immigrants and discouraging crime groups and terrorists from taking away rights we all hold dear.

Though my opponent assserts that I have dropped his value criterion, he never explicitly mentioned that upholding the Kantian Social Contract was in fact his value criterion. Even so, these may as well be lumped in together. It's the equivilant of having a value of morals, and having a value criterion of upholding morals. They're more or less the same thing. If you value the social contract, its logically sound to say that you should uphold it. I did in fact say that I better upheld the social contract. Due to the value criterion of upholding the social contract not being extended, this can't be brought up now, since it was dropped.Because of this, the negation still clearly wins on framework. Nontheless, my opponent has failed to counter my value criterion of consquentialism, which has been extended in every round. Overall, neg wins on framework, and voters should judge any impacts in a consquentialist framework.

The negation still solves all aff impacts, and by extension, making the entireity of the aff case non unique. I bid myself to the good will of the spectators again, did I or did I not cover wrongful convictions. Most of these are caused through plea bargains who almost exclusivelly result in misdenemors. Severe criminals end up at trial, getting felony convictions. It could very well be said that the potential of losing one's basic income could act as detterence against felony acts, lowering overall crime. Even if the CP doesn't fall under the social contract, it still falls under the consquentialist framework, meaning it still stands.


These criminal organizations are incredibly affluent, and it is incredibly likely that they would use these funds for criminal purposes. Where did I ever even imply that these funds would go directly towards the organization? I said that through the individuals, the organizations would be funded.

Mass shootings and terror have been extended through every speech and was conceded by my opponent. Even if you believe crime and immigration could go either way, this is a clear cut issue. Mass shootings and terror would increase in both practice in severity. On September 11, 2001, we all learned what planes could do the skyscrapers, when jihadists flew planes full of living people, into buildings full of living people and shouted that god was great. Overall, as we all saw in the skies of the Big Apple that fateful day, terror is one of the largest impacts imaginable. Neg defintely wins on this point.

On immigration, the impacts are first, mass immigration, and second mass deportation. Even if America is the so called "Promise Land," my opponent compleyly ignores my link and impact on Trump's base and mass deportation. This means that even if aff gives funds to the cherished immigrants, they'll face mass deportation. The UN's OHCHR declares mass deportation against international law, and for good reason too. Mass deportations by their very nature result in human rights abuses that outweigh any advantage the affirmative could even fathom. Not only do they Maintaining our current imm

As the two of us discussed in the comments section, aff provides $12,000 annually, which is below the continental US poverty guidelines by a few hundred. Even if we ignore this small diference, in the case of Alaska and Hawaii, those poverty striken would still be several thousand dollars short of having a basic income. My opponent responds to this by saying that UBI at least covers the 48 states. However, the resolution calls for a universal basic income, not just a basic income. It isn't like aff can say, "Screw Alaska, they have Sarah Palin," and not provide them a basic income, On this, even if you believe everything the affirmative says is true to a tee, he isn't advocating for an UBI and isn't supporting the resolution. This is damning for the affirmative since nothing he says is truly related to the topic.

I ask you to consider this while voting. Is is good for the world to support mass shootings and terror, crimes that many don't even wish to fathom. To give billions upon billions of dollars year after year to organzied crime, is that good for the world? To cause mass deportations, ethnic raids, and for families to be seperated permanently is this good for the world. I say that it is not, and to anyone that would ever hope or dream of advocating for anything along these lines I feel sorry for.

For these reasons I strongly urge a negative ballot.

Since I conceded my first speech, for fairness, aff must concede his last. May I suggest using that space to copy and paste the Fan K.



Just a short comment speech, as well as my sources. I'm not really making new arguments or extending my case, so this still goes by my opponent's wish of me discarding my last speech.

My opponent brought up new examples in his final speech, including those of the 9/11 example, as well as the deterrence argument. Both of these, and other information that was added to the last speech should not be taken into view or account. Secondly, especially about the 9/11 example, this is an example of emotional appeal. While yes, it was a very traumatizing event, it has nothing to do with the resolution at hand, meaning that it should immediately be seen as a red herring. My opponent fails to show correlation in his last speech+final evidence showing how UBI ought not be implemented, so his entire speech should have no backing or influence in the voting of this debate.
(I now realize that this was kinda an argument, whoops, sorry, I just had to say stuff that should be seen).

And finally, I present a counter-resolution: Resolved: Individuals ought to subvert the power of the man by having
all kinds of freaky sex.
C1 Society is built on repression:
The tendency on the part of civilization to restrict sexual life is clear. It's first phase brings the prohibition against an incestuous choice of object, this is the most drastic mutilation which man"s erotic life has experienced. Laws and customs
impose restrictions, which affect both men and women. As we know, civilization is obeying the laws of economic necessity, since a large amount of the psychical energy which it uses for its own purposes has to be withdrawn from sexuality. Civilization behaves towards sexuality as a people does which has subjected another one to its exploitation. Fear of a revolt by the suppressed elements drives it to stricter precautionary measures. As regards the sexually mature individual, the choice of an object is restricted to the opposite sex, and most extra-genital satisfactions are forbidden as perversions. The requirement, that there shall be a single kind of sexual life for everyone, disregards the dissimilarities, in the sexual constitution of human beings; it cuts off a number of them from sexual enjoyment, and becomes the source of serious injustice. Heterosexual genital love is itself restricted in the shape of insistence upon legitimacy and monogamy. civilization makes it plain that it will only permit sexual relationships on the basis of a bond between one man and one woman, and that it does not like sexuality as a source of pleasure and only tolerate[s] it because there is so far no substitute for it as a means of propagating the human race.C2 How repression works:
To get to the heart of sexual repression, we have to get to the heart of sexual desire, how fantasy works,
and how civilization works within this.
First of all, sexual desire is based on the Lack of the object of desire, known as l'objet (petit) a. Sexual
desire is first frustrated by l'objet A (also known as the big Other) when the father-figure represents
competition for the attention of the mother. The taboo against this incestuous object of desire is the first
form of repression. The subject develops a castration anxiety (that is, the fear of emasculation, both the
literal sense of having your balls cut off, or the metaphorical sense of demeaning your sense of manhood,
by the hands of the father-figure) and comes to resent the father-figure. This earliest form of repression
carries with the subject for his entire life and causes the foundation for love and sex throughout the
subject's life. It's through emasculation that societal repression takes its form. A gay guy is denounced as
not being a real man and is forced to repress his sexual desires to survive in the economic relationship
which constitutes civilization. Similarly, those with unconventional sexual desires must hide them out of
fear of ridicule or persecution. By labeling someone a deviant, they're emasculated from their status as a
"normal man" and they have to repress their tentacle rape fantasy into secrecy unless they want
everybody to think they're a freak.
This brings me to the subject of porn. Porn is the perfect expression of taboo; it provides the outlet by
which a gay person or sexual deviant, for example, can indulge in his fetishes. Porn allows the subject to
engage in his fetishes without actually engaging in them, which only furthers his repression. It satisfies
his unconscious desires, but because he hasn't actually had the sex he fantasizes about, he's able to go
about life satisfied in his own repression, actively acknowledging that he's not gay or some other
discriminated against sexual minority. Take the case of Japanese Porn: the vast majority of Japanese
pornography is done from the point of view of the guy on top of the girl, to give the viewer the illusion
that he's actually the one on top of the girl. This works because the same faculties by which we create and
perceive fiction are the same faculties by which we create and perceive reality.
Civilization then takes these fetishes and plays on them. In the same vein of Japanese pornography, the
lack of total taboo of the subject of sex is made up for with superficial repression: Japanese porn censors
the vagina with a small blurred bar. Hentai, the Manga form of japanese porn will use millimeter thick
bars to cover vaginas in ways that would confuse the uninformed subject, who didn't know about
Japanese censorship laws, as to why there were random bars in random places in their porn. This
censorship is to the point where it's laughable how trivial it is, but its triviality is the entire point; how
could the Japanese government, with their country's liberal attitude towards sex, moralistically allow such
fantasies to go unrepressed? Japanese porn wouldn't be what it is without the superficial censorship laws
to remind the subject that what they're doing is still taboo. It does nothing to actually censor porn. This
unconscious reminder of the taboo of sexual fetishism and appetite only helps to further the emasculation
involved. What we find from this are the specific components by which society represses sex, and the means by
which subjects are kept from committing sexual crimes to relieve sexual tension. Fetishism is often used
to quell repressed sexual appetite.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by MiGatto 2 years ago
I just realized - the God K, or Jesus K, or Christian K counters the Freaky Sex K...
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
Apparently we're still debating after everything was supposed to be over, so here we go. 9/11 is not only an emotional appeal, but also a logistical one. Imagine if we had another attack of this scope and scale. I had terror as part of my case, so yes, it is relevant. You read no T arguments against it, so it should most definitely be brought to voting. Second, my opponent says that deterrence was a new argument, however, this was only elaborating on the point of felony convictions.

I propose a resolution included counter resolution.

Resolved: Individuals ought to train to become Pok"mon masters, while having all sorts of freaky sex.

In the Pok"mon universe, individuals are encouraged to find their calling in life. A common motif in existentialist literature is the young artist whose controlling father-figure forbids him from pursuing his dream. Take the case of the 2008 Japanese film Tokyo Sonata. A young boy named Kenji Sasaki wishes to pursue playing the piano, but his white-collar father does not allow him to do so. After much drama happens in the family, the boy and his father come into a confrontation, and the father throws his son down the stairs, resulting in a concussion. What we have to take away from this is not the character of the boy, but that of the father; the father is laid off from his job, but having been conditioned by the conservative Japanese culture, is too ashamed to admit it to his family, so he goes to work as a janitor at a mall every day in a business suit so his family does not become suspicious. My claim is that this is an indictment of the conformism we see not just in Japan, but in all capitalist hierarchical society. The father-figure, having bought into the ideology of society, enforces this ideology on his son, and the story reciprocates.
Posted by MiGatto 2 years ago
And instead of the Fan K, i did the Freaky Sex K
Posted by MiGatto 2 years ago
Obviously, don't grade me by my last speech. and sources are :
David Calnitsky and Jonathan P. Latner 2017 (University of Manitoba and Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences, "Basic Income in a Small Town: Understanding the Elusive Effects on Work", Dutch reporter Rutger Bregman, Jason Murphy, assistant professor of philosophy at Elms College in Massachusetts
Timothy Roscoe Carter 2014 (Basic Income Earth Network, "The One Minute Case for a Basic Income", "How the State of the Economy Can Cause Drug Abuse to Soar" ETHAN WOLFF-MANN March 2, 2016 "The American Health-Care System Increases Income Inequality" VANN R. NEWKIRK II JAN 19, 2018
James Surowiecki is the author of "The Wisdom of Crowds" and writes about economics, business, and finance for the magazine, June 20, 2016, The Case for Free Money,
Posted by MiGatto 2 years ago
you say Alaska and Hawaii. The US has 48 other states, and in those 48 states, to stay above the poverty line a person would need approximately 12,000 a year. (and i define annually as monthly, so any confusion is based off definition, not on our knowledge
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
Forgot to add this, so consider this a continuation. The affirmative advocates a $12,000 annual income for citizens of the US. However, the poverty line, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services ASPE, for Alaska and Hawaii respectively are $15,180 and $13,960, meaning that the aff plan is non topical as it doesn't provide a properly basic income to those citizens. This is vital, as this means that the affirmative is debating something else entirelly. He isn't advocating for UBI as this it isn't a basic income.
Posted by MiGatto 2 years ago
(Continuing from debate round 2 - )
According to my opponent's Counter Plan, we don't even have to worry about these immigrants coming to America because they will not get a basic income unless they are legal immigrants for 10 years. My opponent's argument was contradictory to his case.

I affirm the resolution
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.