Motion prep
Parliamentary / APDA · econ · Medium

This house supports universal basic income.

The funding question decides this round. Teams that skip it lose to teams that do not.

Runs inAPDA / BP / PF / Policy adaptable
DifficultyMedium
SidesGovernment / Opposition
Reading the motion
What it asks

Whether an unconditional cash payment to every citizen should replace or supplement targeted welfare. Which of those two you pick changes the entire case.

Who proves what

Prop must fund it. A universal payment at a meaningful level is a multi-trillion-dollar line item, and Opp will spend their first speech there if you do not.

Ground worth taking

Prop should take UBI as a replacement for a defined set of means-tested programs plus a tax adjustment, which makes the net cost defensible. Taking UBI as pure addition is the harder side of the same motion.

Both cases
Government

Means-tested welfare fails on take-up, administration, and work incentives, and unconditionality fixes all three at once.

01 Conditionality is the failure
Claim
Targeted programs miss the people they are designed for.
Warrant
Take-up rates for means-tested benefits routinely sit far below eligibility because of paperwork, stigma, and reassessment. Unconditional payments have take-up near universal by construction.
Impact
You reach the poorest without a bureaucracy that costs money and fails exactly the people least able to navigate it.
02 It removes the welfare cliff
Claim
Withdrawal rates in targeted systems create effective marginal tax rates above 70% for low earners.
Warrant
Every extra pound earned withdraws benefit, so working more can leave a household worse off. A universal floor does not taper, so every additional hour pays.
Impact
The work-incentive argument runs the opposite direction from the intuitive one. This is a strong turn on Opp's central objection.
03 Bargaining power
Claim
A floor lets workers refuse the worst offers.
Warrant
Exit options set the reservation wage. Kenya's GiveDirectly trials and the Finnish pilot both show recipients becoming more selective rather than idle.
Impact
Wages and conditions rise at the bottom without a wage mandate, and the effect is durable because it changes the structure of the negotiation.
Opposition

A universal payment spends its largest share on people who do not need it, which is why it is either unaffordable or too small to matter.

01 The arithmetic does not close
Claim
Universality means most of the money goes to households above the poverty line.
Warrant
A payment large enough to live on, multiplied by an entire adult population, exceeds the total current welfare budget several times over in every developed economy that has costed it.
Impact
You either set it below subsistence, which fails the poverty claim, or you fund it with tax increases that hit the same working households you are paying.
02 It buys out targeted support
Claim
Flat payments cannot price different needs.
Warrant
A disabled claimant, a single parent in London, and a childless adult in a low-cost region have wildly different requirements. A single number serves none of them well, and Prop's funding model pays for the flat rate by scrapping the tailored ones.
Impact
The most vulnerable claimants lose the most. That is the opposite of Prop's stated goal and it is a direct consequence of their own funding mechanism.
03 The pilots do not test the policy
Claim
Every trial is small, temporary, and locally funded.
Warrant
Recipients in a two-year pilot know it ends, and nobody in the trial is paying the tax that would fund it at scale. That removes both the general-equilibrium price effects and the labor-supply response you actually care about.
Impact
Prop's strongest empirical evidence does not test the thing being proposed, so the case rests on projection where the projection is contested.
The clash that decides it

Does unconditionality buy enough in take-up and incentives to justify paying people who do not need the money?

How Government wins it
Prop wins by showing targeting costs more than it saves once you price administration, non-take-up, and the withdrawal cliff.
How Opposition wins it
Opp wins by holding Prop to a number and showing that at any affordable level the payment is too small to deliver the benefits claimed.
Where rounds go wrong
Government mistakes
  • Citing pilots as if they settle it. Opp has the general-equilibrium answer ready. Use pilots for the behavioral point only.
  • Leaving the payment level unnamed. Every strong Opp attack needs a number to bite on, so pick one and defend it.
Opposition mistakes
  • Leading with "people will stop working." The evidence is weak and Prop has the cliff-effect turn waiting.
  • Ignoring take-up failure. It is Prop's best empirical ground and it goes unanswered in most rounds.
Prep something next to it
This house would ban billionaires.
A wealth-cap motion that turns on whether extreme fortunes are a political problem or an economic signal.
Parliamentary / APDA · Medium
This house would abolish the electoral college.
A first-principles democracy motion where the real fight is over what a presidential election is supposed to represent.
Parliamentary / APDA · Intro
This house would make voting compulsory.
A classic liberty-versus-participation motion where the size of the fine decides how much of the case survives.
Parliamentary / APDA · Intro
This house believes the ends justify the means.
A pure ethics motion that is won on the framework, not on examples.
Parliamentary / APDA · Hard