Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI

As a roadmap, I will be first going over the flaws of my opponents Counterplan, as well as how my opponent has failed to see the fallacies in "his" framework, and how it does not work. I will then go over how my opponent's observation is contradictory to the resolved. Then, I shall go over his case and prove that it my opponent does not solve for the resolved, or to my case. Now, onto the debate My opponent's counterplan, once again, is to provide a basic income to all excluding felons, violent criminals, FBI watchlist members and legal immigrants who have lived in the US for less than 10 years. Going over felons and violent criminals first, my opponent has failed to recognize the number of wrongful convictions in our society. "I feel that if I die this afternoon, I"ll be able to go to my tomb and rest in peace because my name has finally been cleared," said William Vasquez, who was cleared in December of an arson that killed a mother and her five children in 1981. Vasquez already served 31 years in prison, where he went blind for untreated glaucoma, and was released in 2012. He even had an alibi witness at trial, who testified he was with her when the fire was set, but the building owner, Hannah Quick, accused him of the arson. Mr. Vasquez spent half of his life in prison because of a wrongful conviction. If UBI was implemented, does he not get any payment because he was an ex-felon? Although this is only one example, many other people in this world face similar conditions. They deserve to receive a basic income as much as any other people in this world, but under my opponent's counterplan, he would get nothing. Even if my opponent states "he is no longer a felon", just imagine those people who are still imprisoned because of wrongful convictions. With a basic income (that my opponent is stating that they should not get), they would not even be able to get out of jail by bail to secure their freedom. Now moving on to legal immigrants, who have lived here less than 10 years - firstly, how does my opponent expect to get a kickstart on their new life if they are unable to receive a substantial income for at least 10 years? A big number of all legal immigrants become homeless because they cannot sustain a substantial income for them and their families. What UBI is doing, as I have stated in my first case, is solving for poverty, INCLUDING those that are immigrants. All people in this world are originally immigrants. Poverty denotes serious lack of the means for proper existence: 100 million people are homeless in america. That is 30% of our population. When you take into account the amount of families that are homeless, and include the number of immigrants in this number, it is unnecessary and is harming our society. As I have stated in my case, poverty is a human-caused tragedy and can be ended with UBI. We are supposed to be helping all Americans, immigrants or not. Now, my opponent agreed to meet my standard of Kantian Social Contract, stating that his case would better solve for it, but has failed to make any arguments or examples or actual facts supporting this statement. Kantian Social Contract is saying that people have the right to do what they want in life to make them feel more human. Any law that denotes an absolute, and takes away these people's rights to be human are immoral. My opponent's counterplan is isolating society but taking away the needed income of so many innocent people, as well as thousands of immigrants each year. My opponent is valuing poverty by taking away the basic income of a grand amount of our society. This is not maximizing the individuality of our individuals. My opponent's grounds/observations states that I "must prove how UBI would better support the average american compared to a merely a basic income". Well, I counter this by saying what is an average american? Going by logic, my case thoroughly supports the average american. 33% of all workers say that they are doing the job that they love, while 67% say that they dislike it dramatically. With UBI, people would have that financial freedom to get the job that they want, without being held back and in a job that they dislike because they must be because of the lack of financial security. The 33% can still stay in their job, while the 67% can finally quit, or try to change jobs without fear. This is argument goes along with my first contention, giving the economic freedom to ALL AMERICANS, and, by correlation, the "average american". Now, onto my opponent's arguments - firstly, in his first contention, my opponent talks about how in his counterplan, basic income isn't supplied towards violent criminals and felons. Going back to my previous argument, as well as the example of William Vasquez, my opponent does not take into account the number of innocent convictions there are in this world, and is validating taking money away from these innocent people who deserve a basic income. I would also like to take into account that my opponent made the outrageous statement of every single person receiving $10,000 annually (monthly) which is completely absurd. In UBI, what would happen is that individual adults above the age of legality (in most states in America, that would be 18) would get $1,000 a month, and $12,000 a year (to stay above the poverty line) and those under the age of legality (depending on age) would get about $4,000 a year (and that number would gradually increase with age, so it would go to $6,000, $8,000, $10,000 etc.) Moving on from the economic fallacy that my opponent made, he also told us to imagine a world where criminals would get paid $1,000 each year (once again, stating $10,000 annually which is a grand misconception, it would better to be $1,000 annually). Going along with my opponent's math, the criminal group of Tango Blast would receive $190,000,000 in a year based on its members (which would be incorrect math) but overall in a month the group would make a total of $1,900,000. But logically - it wouldn't. Going along with my definition of basic income (see above case), basic income is paid on an individual basis, meaning that Tango Blast would NOT get paid $1,900,000 a month, but rather each member of Tango Blast would receive $1,000 a month. Subtract the cost of housing, any taxes, food, clothes, and healthcare issues that could affect each individual (which cannot be totaled because every human's health and needs are different), then this criminal group makes nowhere near $1,900,000 a month. And this is just by basic logic. And we are missing the big picture here, anyways, and that is the way that these "crime lords" actually receive payments. How are they supposed to receive these payments without getting caught or arrested for their crimes? My opponent's case shows no empirical backing, as well as no evidence showing that A) these "crime lords" can get their payments without being arrested for their crimes and B) that these groups will get hundreds of thousands of dollars because of Basic Income. My opponent's first contention should fall. Moving on to my opponent's second contention, he states that UBI will become a beacon for more immigrants to come to America to get money. My opponent has three flaws with his logic and one flaw with his counterplan. Firstly, he shows no evidence showing that this would actually take place if UBI was implemented. Secondly, there is already "mass immigration" in America. We are literally known as "The Promised Land". There have been no negative effects, and my opponent fails to prove how it will be worse. Thirdly, giving these immigrants a basic income would not have a negative effect on our economy (which I'm guessing is my opponent's main concern, because by definition of basic income, it is a cash payment, and not, therefore, in use of food stamp) because these immigrants will still have to pay taxes that will inevitably go back to the actual amount of money used in UBI. (CP Flaw in Comments)