LD Mar/Apr 2018 - Universal Basic Income - Introduction

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

Introduction

This resolution consists of ten, relatively easy to understand, words and yet I fear definition will be critical. I mean, we can assume immediately and based upon the tiny amount of context given, the United States is the United States federal government, although it may be the totality of the fifty states and legal territories. We understand from repeated exposures, the word ought to suggest duty or obligation as opposed to a mere suggestion. We understand, to provide, means to make available. We understand universal to mean all encompassing or in exclusion of no one or nothing. We know that basic suggests to a minimal degree or fundamental and finally we interpret income as monetary compensation, usually in exchange for work.

So perhaps, acknowledging the lack of context, we can surmise we will be affirming the idea the U.S. has an obligation to make a certain sum of money available to everyone. So now we can start to ask some questions. Does this mean the federal government or the states or does it matter? What is a basic level of income? Does universal mean everyone? Children? Non-citizens? Prisoners? Immigrants? People in other countries? And probably the most important question of all, why is there a duty or obligation? Definition is critical.

The general concept of "universal basic income" is not new. It is not an arbitrary combination of words thrown together by the resolution framers. But it is a combination of words that can be summed up in a single word: welfare. And in the U.S. welfare is a word which has plenty of negative connotations. Words are very powerful devices and through the clever use of words one can introduce bias into the discussion very quickly. Consider: "gun control" is "taking away the 2nd amendment"; "a pathway to citizenship" is "amnesty"; a "universal basic income" is "welfare" or a "government hand-out". This is what is known as "semantics"; the understanding attributed to language and it very much at play in public debate in order to sway the opinions of listeners by using language which is similar on face but which invokes an alternate understanding. Every month I breakdown a resolution, word-by-word and offer definitions which allows one to narrow their understanding of the language of the resolution but you must be aware the opponent can say different words with the same basic meaning but which convey a contrary understanding.

I would advise one of the best ways to minimize the impact of such word substitution by an opponent is be preemptive in the Affirmative Constructive (or Neg Constructive). In this case, it must be clear that universal basic income (UBI) is not welfare, and welfare is not UBI.

Definitions

The United States

As I have consistently claimed, debaters all around the world know the United States means that nation between Canada and Mexico, which is comprised of fifty states and several territories. We know from the specifics of this terminology we will be discussing a topic which is particular to the U.S. but it is appropriate to cite examples outside of the United States as models to emulate or not. But, who exactly is the actor? The United States is comprised of the United State Federal Government (USFG) and it is comprised of many state and local governments which play a role in societal well-being pertinent to this topic. We cannot be sure at this point if the distinction will play a role in this debate.

ought

This word commonly appears in Lincoln Douglas debate topics. While on one level we can interpret ought to mean should, but in philosophy, ought is often seen as a "normative" term. Other normative terms include obligation or duty so under such an interpretation it carries more weight than a mere suggestion.  Some would say ought imposes a "moral" duty but it really depends on context and what is being evaluated.

to provide

Merriam-Webster offers several interesting definitions, "to take precautionary measures", "to make a proviso or stipulation", "to make preparation to meet a need". I can foresee uses for each of these in some contexts but looking to the Oxford English Dictionary I find "make available for use; supply" and this, on face, seems to be a more suitable definition for most cases.

universal basic income

It is best to take these words in their totality rather than individually. One of the most concise definitions I saw was provided by The Economist in 2016 as "an unconditional cash payment given to all citizens". A more comprehensive definition is provided by Basic Income Earth Network :

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.
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.

Analysis

The basic understanding of what this resolution is about should be clear based upon the previous discussion and definitions given. However we do need to focus more fully on "universal basic income". While it is necessary, I believe, to convey a meaning which makes it distinct from welfare there is danger in being too precise. First, an overly precise definition may be over-limiting to your own case, forcing you to constrain your evidence and discussion to meet the precision you established. Second, some definitions may sound like a "plan" with specific implementation criteria or provisions and while a plan may be acceptable in some debate circuits, in many it is not. But, at this point in the debate season you should be well aware of what your circuit accepts. Try to tailor the precision of your definitions to meet the needs of your framework and supporting warrants.

There will be two general approaches to this topic that I can foresee. One of the most obvious is the cost-benefit approach in which each side offers up advantages and disadvantages weighed in real-world dollars and cents or lives affected. The second will be the philosophic approach which argues the conceptual need for UBI based upon more esoteric discussion of "right actions", human nature, justification through reasoning, or a framework which focuses intently upon the protection of individual values more than collective or societal values. The first approach is generally more straightforward and well understood by lay-judges. The second, I would consider to be more "pure" to the what Lincoln Douglas is meant to be, but runs the risk of alienating some less experienced judges. In a typical tournament, I would be prepared for both approaches.

One of the key phrases used in the definition of UBI is "means-testing". This is the key to possibly avoid the "welfare" semantics trap. Generally, means-testing is a test (a check) to determine if someone is eligible for a government benefit. UBI does not test for eligibility and in most definitions, does not require one to work or even seek work. Nevertheless, you must realize the lack of eligibility requirements will invoke the usual plethora of criticisms levied against the distribution of welfare; it will disincentivise people to work, it will make people lazy and the money will be used for things like cigarettes, alcohol and drugs. You will need to answer these firmly and immediately.

For more on this topic or other LD topics, click the Lincoln Douglas page tab above.