Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI

Framework, case, offcase, topicallity, votersFrameworkEven if I misdefined the Kantian Social Contract, I still fufill it as the negation is still supporting the human rights of immigrants and discouraging crime groups and terrorists from taking away rights we all hold dear.Though my opponent assserts that I have dropped his value criterion, he never explicitly mentioned that upholding the Kantian Social Contract was in fact his value criterion. Even so, these may as well be lumped in together. It's the equivilant of having a value of morals, and having a value criterion of upholding morals. They're more or less the same thing. If you value the social contract, its logically sound to say that you should uphold it. I did in fact say that I better upheld the social contract. Due to the value criterion of upholding the social contract not being extended, this can't be brought up now, since it was dropped.Because of this, the negation still clearly wins on framework. Nontheless, my opponent has failed to counter my value criterion of consquentialism, which has been extended in every round. Overall, neg wins on framework, and voters should judge any impacts in a consquentialist framework. CaseThe negation still solves all aff impacts, and by extension, making the entireity of the aff case non unique. I bid myself to the good will of the spectators again, did I or did I not cover wrongful convictions. Most of these are caused through plea bargains who almost exclusivelly result in misdenemors. Severe criminals end up at trial, getting felony convictions. It could very well be said that the potential of losing one's basic income could act as detterence against felony acts, lowering overall crime. Even if the CP doesn't fall under the social contract, it still falls under the consquentialist framework, meaning it still stands.OffcaseThese criminal organizations are incredibly affluent, and it is incredibly likely that they would use these funds for criminal purposes. Where did I ever even imply that these funds would go directly towards the organization? I said that through the individuals, the organizations would be funded.Mass shootings and terror have been extended through every speech and was conceded by my opponent. Even if you believe crime and immigration could go either way, this is a clear cut issue. Mass shootings and terror would increase in both practice in severity. On September 11, 2001, we all learned what planes could do the skyscrapers, when jihadists flew planes full of living people, into buildings full of living people and shouted that god was great. Overall, as we all saw in the skies of the Big Apple that fateful day, terror is one of the largest impacts imaginable. Neg defintely wins on this point. On immigration, the impacts are first, mass immigration, and second mass deportation. Even if America is the so called "Promise Land," my opponent compleyly ignores my link and impact on Trump's base and mass deportation. This means that even if aff gives funds to the cherished immigrants, they'll face mass deportation. The UN's OHCHR declares mass deportation against international law, and for good reason too. Mass deportations by their very nature result in human rights abuses that outweigh any advantage the affirmative could even fathom. Not only do they Maintaining our current immTopicallityAs the two of us discussed in the comments section, aff provides $12,000 annually, which is below the continental US poverty guidelines by a few hundred. Even if we ignore this small diference, in the case of Alaska and Hawaii, those poverty striken would still be several thousand dollars short of having a basic income. My opponent responds to this by saying that UBI at least covers the 48 states. However, the resolution calls for a universal basic income, not just a basic income. It isn't like aff can say, "Screw Alaska, they have Sarah Palin," and not provide them a basic income, On this, even if you believe everything the affirmative says is true to a tee, he isn't advocating for an UBI and isn't supporting the resolution. This is damning for the affirmative since nothing he says is truly related to the topic. VotersI ask you to consider this while voting. Is is good for the world to support mass shootings and terror, crimes that many don't even wish to fathom. To give billions upon billions of dollars year after year to organzied crime, is that good for the world? To cause mass deportations, ethnic raids, and for families to be seperated permanently is this good for the world. I say that it is not, and to anyone that would ever hope or dream of advocating for anything along these lines I feel sorry for. For these reasons I strongly urge a negative ballot.Since I conceded my first speech, for fairness, aff must concede his last. May I suggest using that space to copy and paste the Fan K.