Which side makes a better case?
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    @tompotter Howdy Tom, are you new to the site? Not sure I've seen you before now.

    Anyhow... scheduling wise...
    My best days are Sunday through Wednesday. I'm flexible with time so long as I know 24hours in advance. I'm pacific time. The timezone on the schedule is kind of broken at the moment.

    I'd pick Wednesday the 28th at 7pm Pacific as my initial suggestion.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried Howdy sigfried, i am indeed new (this will be my first qallout debate) the current best times for me (in pacific time) would be Monday at around 6:00 PM Tuesday at around 1:00-3:00 PM or Wednesday at around 5:30 i look forward to debating with you
      Best Regards: Tom

      PS: sorry for the hugely excessive response time on my part.

    • 2 years ago

      @tompotter No sweat my man. Monday at 6pm pacific sounds about perfect for me.

      Since its your first debate, I'll suggest we meet in the lounce for just a little before hand. It's a good way to test your connection, and I can explain the ins and outs of how the timer works in these tournament rounds. It often trips people up who are first timers.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried would you mind explaining how to do that? Im not entireley sure.

    • 2 years ago

      @tompotter Sure...

      If you go to the "Video Debates" page, near the top of the list of debates you will see "The Qallout Lounge" Click on that, then you can see the lounge, and there will be a button that says "Join the discussion" Click that and it will connect you to the lounge. It's basically a video chat room that is always on. It doesn't get recorded and posted like the normal debates do, but it otherwise uses the same tech, so it is good for testing your equipment.

    • 2 years ago

      @tompotter PS, I set the time on the debate, but its time conversion isn't working so you can probably just ignore it.

      I've got us on my calandar for 6pm pacific on the 26th

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried it let me know that you changed the time to 8:00 is that correct or is the time still for 6:00. 6:00 works for me but 8:00 does not. Btw thanks for the info on the lounge want to meet there around 5:45?

    • 2 years ago

      @tompotter Sure, 5:45 pacific sounds good to meet :) See you then. Just ignore the time on the debate proper, I think it's broken at the moment. :(

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried sounds good!

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried Hey, our database is on UTC timezone hence it uses European daylight savings which happened yesterday so it should be fine going forward!

    • 2 years ago

      @gigi Glad to hear it, It's super handy but it was definitely creating some confusion. Thanks so much for addressing that!

  • 2 years ago

    thanks man

    • 2 years ago

      @tompotter Great debate sir. Best of luck in the judging and in your other rounds in the POD. I wanted to challenge myself with some less than safe topics in this tournament and this was probably the most challenging. Nice work picking at some of the significant issues and giving some wide-ranging attacks. I like offering a critique from multiple perspectives on Con, so well done with that!

      I hope you stick around and do more debates outside the tournament. :) And if you have fun, consider supporting the site through Patreon.


      • 2 years ago

        Hey y'all sorry for the holdup. I have been super busy over the last few days. I'll get a judgment in for you guys tomorrow once I get off work.

      • 2 years ago
        • 2 years ago

          @sharkb8 The correct judgment I think. I knew the capital flight argument was trouble for me the moment he said it. My brain couldn't come up with a plausible answer and I spent most of my prep time just figuring out how to explain UBI and why it can make sense.

          You are wrong on that second point though :P That's on me for not managing to explain it, though I did try. I want to see if I can get it across. Imagine if you will...

          A group of three people
          -Richie Rich makes a cool 50k a month
          -Average Allan makes 6K a month
          -Broke Bob makes $500 a month

          Our UBI payment is 1K a month so we need 3K to pay all three.
          Their combined monthly income is
          56500 3K is 5.3% of that total so our tax rate is 5.3% (rounded up a bit)
          Rich pays 2655.50 in tax (I added the rounded up bit to his)
          Allan pays 318 in tax
          Bob pays 26.50 in tax

          Now, all three get paid their 1K
          Rich paid 2655.5 but gets back 1000 so his net cost is (1555.5) net income is 48444.5
          Allan paid 318 but gets back 1000 so his net benefit is 682 net income is 6682
          Bob pays 26.50 and gets 1000 so his net benefit is 973.5 net is 1473.5

          So, what if we just didn't pay rich any money and we skip taxing Bob?
          Our cost is 2K out of 56000 3.57%
          Rich pays 1785, gets nothing back, his net income is 48215
          Allan pays 214.2 gets 1000 so his net is 6785.8
          Bob pays 0 and gets 1000 so he is at 1500

          Rich is actually is slightly worse off when not paying for rich people to get dividends. Allan and Bob are better off, but only because they paid lower taxes while still getting the payout.

          The way it works out, if you have a higher tax liability than the UBI, you are just getting that portion of your taxes that covers your payment right back again. It's like going up to a mirror and handing yourself your UBI payment. It doesn't actually "cost" any more than if you didn't get the payment in the first place.

          So, why would we want to bother with that revolving money? The answer is that it drastically lowers the cost of giving the money to the poor. Why? Because there is no need to verify anyone's income for the payouts. No processes to go through, no drug tests, no means tests, no work requirements, no paperwork to fill out, no nothing. If you have an SS# you get your deposit and that's that. It saves the government the trouble of figuring out who's poor and who's not and all the little rules and wrinkles of the whole deal.

        • 2 years ago

          @sharkb8 PS, I do think the UBI scheme is a good one. But it is a very future tense kind of thing. You have to imagine a world where robots and AI can do pretty much 80% of the work anyone might want done.

          My opponent mentioned Singularity, something to read up on. Its when AIs reach the point where they can create ever more advanced AIs and their capabilities enter a kind of hyper spiral, dwarfing anything a human mind or society could ever hope to achieve. When... well, that's speculation, but I do think such a thing is entirely possible, and in fact, likely.

          Were I to baby step UBI, I would start with a program that sets up a savings fund for every newly born citizen that gets a small payment, is invested in stable things like bonds, and which becomes available when a child comes of age, paying out an income to them the first 10 or so years of their adult life.

        • 2 years ago

          @sigfried oh gotcha. So you’re still advocating a progressive tax bracket, but with a universal income stream, so whoever has paid a lot in taxes still deserves some refund, and you’re saying the refund is gained through UBI. I’m not a huge fan of using UBI as a tax refund, but I get why you’d say that means its not unfair :)

        • 2 years ago

          @sharkb8 Cool. Ya, it basically amounts to a sort of tax refund. And as I said, its easier that way because it is efficient, simple, thus saving overhead, and at least on the surface, treats everyone the same.

          BTW In my example there I actually had a flat tax, not a progressive tax. (Mind you the UBI itself is not taxed as income, but everything you make after UBI is.)

        • 2 years ago

          @sharkb8 Oh ya, and on the fairness thing. Here is something my cousin posted in response to the debate that I think highlights the psychology behind why it feels fairer for everyone to get the payment. (and may well be in principle)

          " I once heard a lady complain about kids that got free hot lunches, and while my kids were some of those kids, I could totally relate to her honest complaint, I remember feeling the same way. As middle class parents, my foster kids got free hot lunch but my bio kids didn’t. If was very weird and created a lot of tension. It ended up that we had to buy the bio kids hot lunch (even though it became expensive) just to avoid the tension. This was also a problem at Christmas. The foster kids got a boatload of presents from charitable organizations, while our bio kids had to make do with what we could afford. I know it sounds petty, but it was a real problem. So on a bigger scale, I totally get why middle and upper classes resent welfare, it’s a normal human reaction. What you propose is far more equitable, and efficient."

        • 2 years ago

          @sigfried true as that may be ubi is a massive economic drain if the sole reason for its implementing is to reduce socioeconomic tensions. With a increasingly automated future it makes some sense. if you can effectivley frame the debate as a future debate with it still making sense in terms of the motion that would have been ideal for side prop

        • 2 years ago

          @tompotter Yep. I almost led the debate with a statement that I expected to lose, and I did. It's a hard thing to explain (even though it is simple) and there are real practical challenges to it.

          I don't think it is technically impossible, but it is a really hard sell, especially in a world with disparate economies and a general tone of economic competition between nations.

          The debate and discussion have convinced me its a good topic for further thinking and analysis. It occupies that sweet spot for me between the efficiency and freedom of capitalism and the egalitarianism of socialist paradigms and aspirations.