1. Hey I need some much needed help! I’m a debater from Wyoming and my partner and I came across a team that went Pro. They argued we are able to pay for a UBI do to the net cost and brought up a Washington post article stating that a UBI after taxes would net out to be 539billion making a UBI easily affordable. My question, is the gross/ upfront cost of UBI the only resolutional way to run the case for the Aff?

  2. We're getting some comments from folks (apparently) outside the competitive debate community, expressing strong opinions on UBI as a real-world proposal. Before you post, please read this:

    This is a channel devoted to preparing high school students for debate competition. The opinions expressed are not necessarily what we sincerely believe. Our job is to lay out strategies for debating a very specific resolution, under very specific competitive rules. If we seem to be dismissive of your favorite argument, it's not necessarily because we think it's a bad idea in the real world. It may be because it doesn't fit well with the specific resolution or event rules.

    In other words, we are here to teach students tactics to succeed in an extracurricular activity. We very rarely "promote" or "attack" any idea as unworthy of discussion in the real world. We have no desire to tell debaters what they should actually believe about policy or politics. Even if we did, these students are extremely smart and unlikely to be influenced by us.

    TLDR: If you're not inclined to learn at least a little about the parameters of competitive debate, your comments are better directed to other media that don't operate in this specialized world. That said, we do appreciate sincere, respectful, good faith comments from those with real-world information. Bad faith or disruptive comments will be deleted and their authors blocked without hesitation.

  3. Yangs version of UBI IS NOT a replacement for ALL welfare systems. If you are going to attack Yang's proposals, you ought to ensure that you understand them first. But I guess that's not the point of this pseudo talk.

  4. When you look at Andrew Yang’s case for UBI which is to negate the effects of automation replacing workers, do you think that is a good enough clause or is it too weak to support?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.