Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI

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.