Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI

Framework, neg case, aff case My opponent has failed to realize that my value criterion was not generic consistency, but was, in fact, upholding Kantian Social Contract. Let that flow through and be seen in judging, since my opponent has failed to argue my value criterion. Meaning that judging my arguments should solely be based upon upholding Kantian Social Contract, since my opponent dropped my criterion. My opponent has mis-defined Kantian Social Contract, as well, because the definition of Kantian Social Contract is saying that the purpose of government is to ensure that people are valued as ends in themselves and to promote their liberties in life so they can pursue happiness as they see fit. My opponent has failed to value the intrinsic lives of society as a whole, and has failed to meet the grounds of proving that basic income does not benefit the citizens of the US, which will be explained when evaluating their first and second contention. My opponent has failed to prove how Kantian Social Contract proves the neg case, since my opponent has used the wrong social contract. My argument holds more value and evidence than my opponent on a framework standpoint, and the affirmation should hold strong in voting so far. Vote aff on Framework. My opponent's counterplan, which is relied so heavily on, has no foundation to stand on, and has completely fallen. Firstly, my opponent has chosen to drop my argument about those of innocent convictions, meaning that my opponent's counterplan falls, since it does not uphold his value of Kantian Social Contract, since his counterplan is not valuing the intrinsic lives of those felony convictions that are innocent and wrongfully convicted. This cannot be morally acceptable, to punish those who have been wrongfully convicted so they receive no part of the UBI process, when they need the money to secure their freedom and receive bail. My opponent's first contention on crime and terror has completely fallen without the framework to support it. He has failed to prove his case against the DEFINITION of basic income, which states that UBI will be paid to an INDIVIDUAL BASIS, NOT A HOUSEHOLD, NOT A GROUP. This is a giant factor in this debate BECAUSE those thousands of dollars that my opponent is arguing for is non-existent! These so called "terror-groups" are NOT getting the money that my opponent is stating they are. My opponent's first contention holds very little to no argumentative value, and should not hold any factor in evaluating a winner for this debate. My opponent's second contention goes against my opponent's framework of Kantian Social Contract, as it does NOT value the lives of all of these immigrants and these children and families that my opponent has talked about. My opponent is advocating for poverty, homelessness, mass inequality and racism by stating that these LEGAL immigrants (illegal is irrelevant, since my opponent originally focused on legal immigrants, meaning he is changing facts if he continues talking about illegal immigrants), who may be hard workers, who may be trying to support their children and family, who may be trying to fulfill their personal needs, deserve less than Americans who may not have worked a day in their lives. Just imagine if you were an immigrant, you've worked hard to make sure your kids get food everyday, putting in hard labor, and now Basic Income is being implemented to give your family more of a chance in society, get a well education, you don't need to worry about them starving, but now you can't continue to help them, because according to my opponent, if you aren't a legal immigrant for 10 years, you cannot support your family. My opponent's argument has been eliminated based on the bias that my opponent is choosing to advocate for. My opponent has still failed to prove that immigration will indeed have a negative effect on society and economics if we were to give them a basic income. As human beings, we are held accountable for helping others that are just like us. My opponent thinks otherwise, and chooses to make our world into a hierarchy, with all immigrants on the bottom. This is not what the United States is about. We are a Promise Land, a land of opportunity for all people. We should not give immigrants a disadvantage in life because they haven't been in the US as long as us. The affirmative has proven all of the negations arguments as FALSE! The negation has not disproved any of the affirmative arguments, meaning that all affirmative arguments and cases have completely stood. My opponent has no evidence to support any of his arguments, so the affirmation should obviously win this debate. I thank my opponent for instigating this debate, as well as thank all of the voters. I stand in firm affirmation, with the evidence I have provided and the evidence that the negation has not. Vote Aff to value the entire society as a hole, and to solve poverty for ALL people in the United States, and not just the ones born here.