The Instigator
belizeit123
Con (against)
The Contender
Smooosh
Pro (for)

Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Smooosh has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 944 times Debate No: 110815
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

belizeit123

Con

u know the rules. AC, NR, AR,2NR, 2Ar. no new args in 2ar
Smooosh

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for such an interesting topic. Good luck!!!

The basis of my opponents proposal stems from the idea that what makes him/her happy is what should make us all happy, as if to say happiness is a "one size fits all" kinda thing. An idea that mediocrity should be good enough for everyone. I challenge my opponent to explain why someone whose idea of happiness is financial success or even endless wealth, is somehow immoral. What pedestal does my opponent get to stand on to claim that wealth is not a valid form of happiness, or ones pursuit of wealth somehow adversely affects everyone else? As long as those endeavors are done by legal means, then those pursuits do not affect others!

It seems to me the United States has been trying to provide a universal basic income since the great depression, mostly by means of a minimum wage. Not to suggest that the minimum wage is the only factor that causes prices to rise, but it is the most effective factor to cause prices to rise. When the minimum wage goes up, then the cost of production goes up which then is past on to the consumer. I challenge my opponent to explain how causing prices to go up is an effective tool for helping those with lesser incomes. Furthermore, minimum wages can cause employers to have to forego hiring new employees. When the cost of production goes up, it causes business owners to go elsewhere for production. In the end, raising minimum wages only proves to make American workers less competitive on a global scale which causes jobs to disappear. I fail to see how stifling job growth is good for anybody.

Many point to the industrial revolution as if it was a sad period for the American worker and point out the disproportionate nature of wealth distribution, yet they conveniently forget that it was an unprecedented achievement that took place. At no other point in written history has so many people been brought out of poverty so quickly. There were no minimum wages, so prices were low and so was the cost of living. Right now, China is on an industrious endeavor that could prove to dwarf the achievements of the industrial revolution. When production is left alone, it can prove to be very effective in bringing wealth to the masses.

I noticed this is my opponents first debate on this site. I welcome you to the DDO community and good luck!!
Debate Round No. 1
belizeit123

Con

NC: https://docs.google.com...

Attack: looking over my opponent's case, all she talks about is minimum wage, this is non-topical because UBI has nothing to do with minimum wage. A topical aff would be plan providing aid.

Theory Shell on Topicality

A: MY opponent must be topical
B: Violation
C: Standards
1. Ground: In order for my to be able to argue the resolution, My opponent must be topical so that the debate is fair.
2: Predictability: I cannot run DAs or CPs if I do not know Aff's ground. This makes it unfair
D: voters
Vote off of fairness because Aff makes it impossible for me to win because I do not have any ground.

Thus, I negate
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Smooosh 3 years ago
Smooosh
OK, got it!!!
Posted by belizeit123 3 years ago
belizeit123
ld goes like this

ur 1st speech: ur case (why u should vote pro

my 1st speech: my case (why you should vote con) and attacking your case

ur second speech: attack my case

my 2nd speech: rebuttal to my case and voters

ur last and final speech: rebutall to ur case and voters
Posted by belizeit123 3 years ago
belizeit123
np, time is ticking though. Good luck, this will be in a ld format
Posted by Smooosh 3 years ago
Smooosh
Please forgive me, it may take me a day of prep.
Posted by belizeit123 3 years ago
belizeit123
begin with a opening argument, theres 5 speeches, u get 3 and i get 2. my speeches are longer though so yeah. lets start
Posted by Smooosh 3 years ago
Smooosh
Would you like me to just use the first round for acceptance, or should I just begin with an opening argument?
Posted by belizeit123 3 years ago
belizeit123
not much, I prefer a docs link for cases to take less space, otherwise lets start
Posted by Smooosh 3 years ago
Smooosh
Please clarify the rules for me so I can hand you a sound philosophical beating!
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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