debate:universal basic income - chunhualiao/public-docs GitHub Wiki

debate>

Example Public Forum Debate Transcript: "Should Universal Basic Income Be Implemented?"

Resolution: "Resolved: The United States should implement a universal basic income (UBI)."

Speakers Overview

  • Pro Team: Alex (Speaker 1), Jamie (Speaker 3)
  • Con Team: Taylor (Speaker 2), Jordan (Speaker 4)
  • Judge: Judge Smith

Constructive Speeches

Speaker 1 (Pro) – Opening Speech (4 Minutes): "Good evening, judge and opponents. Today, we affirm the resolution that the United States should implement a universal basic income. A UBI provides every adult with a regular, unconditional payment to ensure a basic standard of living.

Contention 1: Poverty Reduction. According to a study by the Roosevelt Institute, a UBI of $1,000 per month could lift 40 million Americans out of poverty. This policy directly addresses systemic inequalities and provides immediate relief to marginalized communities.

Contention 2: Economic Growth. By giving people purchasing power, a UBI would boost consumer demand. A Harvard analysis estimates that a $1 trillion UBI could increase GDP by 12.6% in eight years.

Contention 3: Automation Mitigation. The rise of automation threatens to displace millions of workers. A UBI serves as a safety net, allowing individuals to transition to new careers or pursue education.

For these reasons, we strongly urge a vote in favor of the resolution."

Speaker 2 (Con) – Opening Speech (4 Minutes): "Thank you. We stand in strong negation of the resolution that the United States should implement a universal basic income. While a UBI seems appealing, it creates more problems than it solves.

Contention 1: Economic Unsustainability. Funding a $1,000 monthly UBI for all adults would cost over $3.8 trillion annually. According to the Brookings Institution, such spending would require massive tax hikes, harming businesses and individuals.

Contention 2: Inefficiency. A UBI distributes money indiscriminately, even to wealthy individuals who do not need it. Targeted programs like food stamps and unemployment benefits are far more effective in addressing poverty.

Contention 3: Work Disincentive. Evidence from Finland’s 2017 UBI trial indicates that unconditional payments reduce motivation to work, potentially exacerbating labor shortages in critical industries.

In conclusion, a UBI is financially irresponsible, inefficient, and counterproductive. We urge you to vote Con."

Rebuttals

Speaker 3 (Pro) – Rebuttal (4 Minutes): "Thank you, judge. First, let's address the Con team’s arguments.

Re: Economic Unsustainability. The Con team’s $3.8 trillion figure ignores the fact that UBI can be funded by reallocating existing welfare budgets and implementing progressive taxes on corporations and the ultra-wealthy. Research by the Economic Policy Institute shows this approach is feasible.

Re: Inefficiency. Targeted programs are bureaucratic and exclude many in need. A UBI eliminates the stigma and inefficiency associated with welfare, ensuring everyone has a financial floor.

Re: Work Disincentive. The Finland trial did not reduce employment levels significantly. Instead, it improved mental health and well-being, which enhances productivity over the long term.

We reaffirm that a UBI reduces poverty, stimulates growth, and addresses automation challenges."

Speaker 4 (Con) – Rebuttal (4 Minutes): "Thank you. I will refute the Pro team’s claims.

Re: Poverty Reduction. The Pro team overlooks the fact that inflation from increased consumer demand would erode the purchasing power of UBI payments, leaving recipients no better off.

Re: Economic Growth. While GDP might rise temporarily, higher taxes on businesses would stifle innovation and discourage investment, leading to job losses.

Re: Automation Mitigation. Reskilling programs are a better solution than a blanket UBI. They empower workers to adapt, rather than relying on a handout that discourages self-improvement.

Ultimately, the Pro team’s case relies on unrealistic funding mechanisms and overly optimistic assumptions."

Summary Speeches

Speaker 3 (Pro) – Summary Speech (2 Minutes): "The Con team has failed to provide viable alternatives to a UBI. Targeted welfare programs leave millions behind, while a UBI provides universal coverage. Regarding funding, reallocating existing budgets and taxing automation gains ensures sustainability. Finally, automation is a growing threat that requires bold action. A UBI empowers individuals to thrive in the face of economic disruption. We urge a Pro vote."

Speaker 4 (Con) – Summary Speech (2 Minutes): "The Pro team has not adequately addressed the flaws in their proposal. A UBI’s high cost, inefficiency, and negative work incentives outweigh its benefits. Inflation and tax burdens would harm the economy, leaving vulnerable populations worse off. Reskilling and targeted programs are more effective and sustainable. For these reasons, we urge a Con vote."

Judge’s Comments

Judge Smith: "Thank you to all debaters for an excellent round. Here’s my feedback:

  1. Pro Team: Your arguments on poverty reduction and automation mitigation were strong, but your funding plan lacked sufficient detail. In a real-world implementation, this would be critical.

  2. Con Team: Your economic unsustainability argument was compelling, but your claim that UBI discourages work could have used more specific examples or data.

Decision: While both teams presented strong cases, the Pro team ultimately won for offering a clear vision of UBI’s benefits and effectively countering most Con arguments, particularly on work disincentives.

Congratulations to all!"