I've unfortunately been put in favor of the motion, which I don't agree with, which means I don't have strong and realistic arguments unless I presuppose 2 things first. First, assuming that "universal basic income" means the capability of providing a reasonably healthy diet, very basic health care, and a basic, reasonable home for every human alive and yet to be born in perpetuity for free. Second, assuming humanity has reached a point of advanced technological development and maturity or established a few key immutable moral foundations that allow for the first premise. Basic human needs are reasonably and sustainably covered in every way for free forever. Not even greed and corruption could erode or destroy this " universal basic income" I'm hypothesizing. Given these 2 premises are true, then "universal basic income" would undoubtedly be a good policy, and I believe it's inevitable. If we don't kill ourselves and no natural extinction event happens, it's just a matter of time.  I believe it's already technologically possible. However, we're missing a sufficient worldwide moral consensus, and most importantly, a market and industry that provide the necessary abundance and sufficient profitable ways for the ambitious and greedy to thrive without affecting this "universal basic income". When most of the planet agrees with a few key values and abundance is such that those 3 basic human needs are no longer profitable, then this vision of the world will become reality.

I agree with some of your arguments. There are many ways to prove that simply giving people money not only doesn't make them happy or fulfill them but often makes them worse off. I'm not going to argue against this because I agree. The only way that I see this prompt being true is in the future. In fact, assuming we'll keep progressing regardless of how slowly, I'd say it's just a matter of time. Inevitably, there will be such abundance, sufficient worldwide moral consensus, and a diverse and strong enough economy that these basic needs will be created as a byproduct, as an excess. Given we keep progressing, growing, inventing, being ever more efficient, etc., then the only outcome is reaching this point where, I believe, it would actually cost more to throw away or destroy the excess production. Which means basic food and shelter for everyone become free. Regarding the many problems that arise from people not having to work, I believe they'll be addressed effectively or solved. Because it will take many decades or centuries to reach this point. This will happen gradually, which gives humans time to adapt and work on something else. The vast majority of humans had to mostly hunt and farm for hundreds of thousands of years, and we've adapted to the opposite in less than 2 centuries. It seems to me quite logical and true that we'll also succeed at gradually adapting to this UBI without having to work. We've done it before; we're still doing it, and it seems to me the adaptation from gatherers & hunters to farmers was more severe and harder than adapting from where we are now to the UBI future I'm envisioning.

I agree with everything you said except the first argument. It's completely illogical, immoral, and obviously inevitably catastrophic to try to implement UBI in this century. UBI is a type of communist idea, which they have been very thoroughly proven wrong, refuted, and without a doubt immoral, to say the least, with overwhelming evidence. UBI will not only never work anytime soon, not even solve the problems it's intended to solve, but it will also cause many severe problems. We're in complete agreement about this.  However, the first argument in your last reply, I believe, is unfounded. The prompt is "Is universal basic income good policy?" It's clearly questioning and referring to the idea of UBI to argue its principles and also requesting moral arguments. There's nothing that suggests or implies a specific interpretation of UBI or a specific application of it or even that the hypothetical UBI needed to be implemented immediatly. Me arguing that the idea is a good policy for the future but not for the present is perfectly legitimate since I'm directly addressing what the motion asked for. Making a case for its validity with reason, logic, and moral arguments. The prompt does not ask to critique a specific UBI that's implemented a specific way. You can't assume that. You're answering the question incorrectly by presuming a context that wasn't given or even required to answer. The prompt is "Is X idea good". It's asking for moral arguments on the principles of the idea. You can't change the question to "Is my specific interpretation of X idea good if implemented immediately today?"