Need an extra hand to argue this case with me for school. It's beyond my classmates' comprehension and nobody wants to take me on.

Question

TlTAN · Answer

@dolphan wrote:

😭😭 What's this supposed to mean. I'll help you for real. I don't know how much help I'd be but you know.

I'm typing it up, but I don't even know if you got into this being 16 tbh

5StarFab · Answer

@dolphan wrote:

@tltan wrote:

@dolphan wrote:

😭😭 What's this supposed to mean. I'll help you for real. I don't know how much help I'd be but you know.

I'm typing it up, but I don't even know if you got into this being 16 tbh

What do you mean?

he means the argument is involved with a 16 year old

Dolphan · Answer

Yeah, I'm dumb like that.

TlTAN · Answer

@dolphan wrote:

Yeah, I'm dumb like that.

Nononono it's not that you're dumb it's that you may not have gotten into this yet.

5StarFab · Answer

@tltan wrote:

@dolphan wrote:

Yeah, I'm dumb like that.

Nononono it's not that you're dumb it's that you may not have gotten into this yet.

wait heath class? puberty

TlTAN · Answer

@5starfab wrote:

@tltan wrote:

@dolphan wrote:

Yeah, I'm dumb like that.

Nononono it's not that you're dumb it's that you may not have gotten into this yet.

wait heath class? puberty

Economics

5StarFab · Answer

Ah,well have fun with that i got to get back to finishing my story.

TlTAN · Answer

Topic: Ecumenical Fundamental Income (UBI) as a Solution to Economic Inequality **Argument 1 (Me): Advantages of Implementing Universal Fundamental Income** Universal Fundamental Income (UBI) is a potential solution to address economic inequality and provide a safety net for all citizens. Proponents argue that UBI can efficaciously truncate indigence, as it ascertains a minimum level of income for everyone, regardless of their employment status. This could alleviate financial stress and enable individuals to pursue inculcation, training, or entrepreneurial ventures without the trepidation of financial ruin. Moreover, UBI can simplify the welfare system, truncating administrative costs and bureaucracy. By providing a consistent monthly payment to every denizen, the desideratum for involute eligibility criteria and betokens-testing can be eliminated. This streamlined approach ascertains that those in need receive support promptly and without stigma. UBI can withal prepare societies for the challenges posed by automation and technological advancements, which could lead to job displacement. By providing a rudimental income, individuals would have the financial security to acclimate to transmuting job markets and explore incipient opportunities without immediate financial pressures.

TlTAN · Answer

Make sure to use the bb code BOLD FONT

TlTAN · Answer

If you know any friends who can hop on QC real quick and beat me, feel free to grab them.

Echofire · Answer

With a UBI, there is no real incentive to do quality work to run society. It also unfairly redistributes wealth to people who have not earned it or are not earning enough. This is what lead to collapses and disasters like Chernobyl, the USSR, and others. Economics is about trade-offs and a UBI system would not be a good one. Another example, in America, the welfare state is failing the people and such a UBI system can barely run at the local level.

TlTAN · Answer

@echofire wrote:

With a UBI, there is no real incentive to do quality work to run society. It also unfairly redistributes wealth to people who have not earned it or are not earning enough. This is what lead to collapses and disasters like Chernobyl, the USSR, and others. Economics is about trade-offs and a UBI system would not be a good one. Another example, in America, the welfare state is failing the people and such a UBI system can barely run at the local level.

Is this your argument?

Echofire · Answer

It is a simplified argument. You can look up on why is failed in certain places. Finland is a good example.

TlTAN · Answer

@echofire wrote:

It is a simplified argument. You can look up on why is failed in certain places. Finland is a good example.

If this is your argument rewrite it using the Bold Font bb code.

Shadow · Answer

Hello Titan. Interesting post...

First off, when doing a debate, one of the most important things to accomplish is conveying your actual position. Reading through this, half the words seem pulled from a thesaurus and have no need being there. Use of these 'flowery' words are only necessary when their additional connotation or implications are what you want, but based on how common and flippantly you used these words, it looks unnecessarily flagrant. You want your arguments to be most easily presentable and understood or how can people interact with them at all?

Secondly, the concept you're referring to is most commonly understood as "Universal Basic Income" or UBI. Using "Ecumenical Fundamental Income" or "Universal Fundamental Income" while referring to UBI is incorrect. For the sake of introducing your argument, you should use the most well known terms, though I haven't seen UBI referred to in these ways..."ecumenical" seems to be a byproduct of what I previously mentioned...'flowery language.'

Thirdly, I'm not sure why you want people posting in bold but I don't think that's necessary for people to interact with this post.

As for your argument itself. I agree for the most part with @echofire and parts of your third paragraph. The issue with redistributing everybody's taxes and shelling out a monthly check to all adults is an imprecise, blanket solution. I would be more interested in something targeted.

For example, at some point trucking jobs will disappear once Elon Musk enables self driving trucks. That's at least 3.5 million truck drivers who no longer have a job. And at least 10 million Americans who will be impacted in the industry. That's something where UBI might be appropriate.

My concern is that UBI is redistributing wealth in a way that encourages (as Echo said) complacency and may not solve what it intends to do. For example, if everybody is getting UBI every month, do you think grocery prices will remain the same? Or will they rise to meet the surplus of cash that will flow into the economy and hands of hundreds of millions of Americans.

You'll just be changing where the poverty line is, not whether if it exists.

THUND3R · Answer

@shadow wrote:

Hello Titan. Interesting post... First off, when doing a debate, one of the most important things to accomplish is conveying your actual position. Reading through this, half the words seem pulled from a thesaurus and have no need being there. Use of these 'flowery' words are only necessary when their additional connotation or implications are what you want, but based on how common and flippantly you used these words, it looks unnecessarily flagrant. You want your arguments to be most easily presentable and understood or how can people interact with them at all? Secondly, the concept you're referring to is most commonly understood as "Universal Basic Income" or UBI. Using "Ecumenical Fundamental Income" or "Universal Fundamental Income" while referring to UBI is incorrect. For the sake of introducing your argument, you should use the most well known terms, though I haven't seen UBI referred to in these ways..."ecumenical" seems to be a byproduct of what I previously mentioned...'flowery language.' Thirdly, I'm not sure why you want people posting in bold but I don't think that's necessary for people to interact with this post. As for your argument itself. I agree for the most part with @echofire and parts of your third paragraph. The issue with redistributing everybody's taxes and shelling out a monthly check to all adults is an imprecise, blanket solution. I would be more interested in something targeted. For example, at some point trucking jobs will disappear once Elon Musk enables self driving trucks. That's at least 3.5 million truck drivers who no longer have a job. And at least 10 million Americans who will be impacted in the industry. That's something where UBI might be appropriate. My concern is that UBI is redistributing wealth in a way that encourages (as Echo said) complacency and may not solve what it intends to do. For example, if everybody is getting UBI every month, do you think grocery prices will remain the same? Or will they rise to meet the surplus of cash that will flow into the economy and hands of hundreds of millions of Americans. You'll just be changing where the poverty line is, not whether if it exists.

He's been banned @Shadow

Shadow · Answer

@thund3r wrote:

@shadow wrote:

Hello Titan. Interesting post... First off, when doing a debate, one of the most important things to accomplish is conveying your actual position. Reading through this, half the words seem pulled from a thesaurus and have no need being there. Use of these 'flowery' words are only necessary when their additional connotation or implications are what you want, but based on how common and flippantly you used these words, it looks unnecessarily flagrant. You want your arguments to be most easily presentable and understood or how can people interact with them at all? Secondly, the concept you're referring to is most commonly understood as "Universal Basic Income" or UBI. Using "Ecumenical Fundamental Income" or "Universal Fundamental Income" while referring to UBI is incorrect. For the sake of introducing your argument, you should use the most well known terms, though I haven't seen UBI referred to in these ways..."ecumenical" seems to be a byproduct of what I previously mentioned...'flowery language.' Thirdly, I'm not sure why you want people posting in bold but I don't think that's necessary for people to interact with this post. As for your argument itself. I agree for the most part with @echofire and parts of your third paragraph. The issue with redistributing everybody's taxes and shelling out a monthly check to all adults is an imprecise, blanket solution. I would be more interested in something targeted. For example, at some point trucking jobs will disappear once Elon Musk enables self driving trucks. That's at least 3.5 million truck drivers who no longer have a job. And at least 10 million Americans who will be impacted in the industry. That's something where UBI might be appropriate. My concern is that UBI is redistributing wealth in a way that encourages (as Echo said) complacency and may not solve what it intends to do. For example, if everybody is getting UBI every month, do you think grocery prices will remain the same? Or will they rise to meet the surplus of cash that will flow into the economy and hands of hundreds of millions of Americans. You'll just be changing where the poverty line is, not whether if it exists.

He's been banned @Shadow

So he is. Considering he keeps evading, he'll probably see this one way or another. Most of the reason I responded is his attitude towards debate. It reeks of ego.

THUND3R · Answer

@shadow wrote:

@thund3r wrote:

@shadow wrote:

Hello Titan. Interesting post... First off, when doing a debate, one of the most important things to accomplish is conveying your actual position. Reading through this, half the words seem pulled from a thesaurus and have no need being there. Use of these 'flowery' words are only necessary when their additional connotation or implications are what you want, but based on how common and flippantly you used these words, it looks unnecessarily flagrant. You want your arguments to be most easily presentable and understood or how can people interact with them at all? Secondly, the concept you're referring to is most commonly understood as "Universal Basic Income" or UBI. Using "Ecumenical Fundamental Income" or "Universal Fundamental Income" while referring to UBI is incorrect. For the sake of introducing your argument, you should use the most well known terms, though I haven't seen UBI referred to in these ways..."ecumenical" seems to be a byproduct of what I previously mentioned...'flowery language.' Thirdly, I'm not sure why you want people posting in bold but I don't think that's necessary for people to interact with this post. As for your argument itself. I agree for the most part with @echofire and parts of your third paragraph. The issue with redistributing everybody's taxes and shelling out a monthly check to all adults is an imprecise, blanket solution. I would be more interested in something targeted. For example, at some point trucking jobs will disappear once Elon Musk enables self driving trucks. That's at least 3.5 million truck drivers who no longer have a job. And at least 10 million Americans who will be impacted in the industry. That's something where UBI might be appropriate. My concern is that UBI is redistributing wealth in a way that encourages (as Echo said) complacency and may not solve what it intends to do. For example, if everybody is getting UBI every month, do you think grocery prices will remain the same? Or will they rise to meet the surplus of cash that will flow into the economy and hands of hundreds of millions of Americans. You'll just be changing where the poverty line is, not whether if it exists.

He's been banned @Shadow

So he is. Considering he keeps evading, he'll probably see this one way or another. Most of the reason I responded is his attitude towards debate. It reeks of ego.

That's what I was thinking too omg

MotherfuckingStarboy · Answer

@shadow wrote:

@thund3r wrote:

@shadow wrote:

Hello Titan. Interesting post... First off, when doing a debate, one of the most important things to accomplish is conveying your actual position. Reading through this, half the words seem pulled from a thesaurus and have no need being there. Use of these 'flowery' words are only necessary when their additional connotation or implications are what you want, but based on how common and flippantly you used these words, it looks unnecessarily flagrant. You want your arguments to be most easily presentable and understood or how can people interact with them at all? Secondly, the concept you're referring to is most commonly understood as "Universal Basic Income" or UBI. Using "Ecumenical Fundamental Income" or "Universal Fundamental Income" while referring to UBI is incorrect. For the sake of introducing your argument, you should use the most well known terms, though I haven't seen UBI referred to in these ways..."ecumenical" seems to be a byproduct of what I previously mentioned...'flowery language.' Thirdly, I'm not sure why you want people posting in bold but I don't think that's necessary for people to interact with this post. As for your argument itself. I agree for the most part with @echofire and parts of your third paragraph. The issue with redistributing everybody's taxes and shelling out a monthly check to all adults is an imprecise, blanket solution. I would be more interested in something targeted. For example, at some point trucking jobs will disappear once Elon Musk enables self driving trucks. That's at least 3.5 million truck drivers who no longer have a job. And at least 10 million Americans who will be impacted in the industry. That's something where UBI might be appropriate. My concern is that UBI is redistributing wealth in a way that encourages (as Echo said) complacency and may not solve what it intends to do. For example, if everybody is getting UBI every month, do you think grocery prices will remain the same? Or will they rise to meet the surplus of cash that will flow into the economy and hands of hundreds of millions of Americans. You'll just be changing where the poverty line is, not whether if it exists.

He's been banned @Shadow

So he is. Considering he keeps evading, he'll probably see this one way or another. Most of the reason I responded is his attitude towards debate. It reeks of ego.

Maybe you should look into the "flowery" words yourself, turd cuz your vocabulary is as limited as your intellect, you pretentious twat. Come reaching for these big words, maybe one day they'll compensate for your lack of personality. Your opinion on my attitude is as relevant as a fart in a hurricane from Florida. Clearly, your FRAGILE ego can't handle a professional debate, which is why this site is hot garbage. You're just upset because your arguments and points crumble faster than your mom's homemade cookies. Keep trying, MIDerator. Maybe one day you'll come up with a valid point. Or maybe not. And on the subject of people interacting with my post, people can interact with my post by mustering up whatever intellect they have left (which might not be much in your case) and typing out their feeble attempts at answers. It's like watching a fat boy stay out of the refrigerator.

MotherfuckingStarboy · Answer

And while we're on the topic of what reeks. You reek like a pile of steaming hot shit.

Shadow · Answer

@motherSauceingstarboy wrote:

And while we're on the topic of what reeks. You reek like a pile of steaming hot shit.

Lol. So you decided to show yourself. You're either a troll seeking attention and these aren't points you really believe. Or you're young and ill-advised, and you actually believe these things. In either case, time hopefully will remedy either, or maybe a mixture of both. If you troll for attention, try to develop some healthy relationships so you don't unnecessarily seek it from others. Try your family or friends. If you actually believe these things you typed, you should do what Socrates did and keep asking yourself why you believe the things you do. If you are as smart as you think you are, you'll find out.

MotherfuckingStarboy · Answer

@shadow wrote:

@motherSauceingstarboy wrote:

And while we're on the topic of what reeks. You reek like a pile of steaming hot shit.

Lol. So you decided to show yourself. You're either a troll seeking attention and these aren't points you really believe. Or you're young and ill-advised, and you actually believe these things. In either case, time hopefully will remedy either, or maybe a mixture of both. If you troll for attention, try to develop some healthy relationships so you don't unnecessarily seek it from others. Try your family or friends. If you actually believe these things you typed, you should do what Socrates did and keep asking yourself why you believe the things you do. If you are as smart as you think you are, you'll find out.

Look who's trying to drop some "intellectual" knowledge with their Socrates reference. Well, let me enlighten you, "Shadow". Socrates was a philosopher, and you, well, you're just a pathetic internet Discord kitten - I mean QuestionCove MIDerator. Becoming a Miderator on this site was probably your biggest accomplishment in life. So why don't you take your pseudo-intellectual garbage and go play with your Plato action figures, bro.

MotherfuckingStarboy · Answer

Instead of trying to ban me, maybe you should pay attention to all the pedophiles crawling around here sitting mutated penis pics out to everybody who doesn't wanna see it. I'm not a troll, I'm verbally defending myself from everybody teaming up on me because they feel threatened by my very presence. Think of it this way, if you had done your damn job in the first place, none of this would have happened and it would have been the QuestionCove from back when I first joined. But no, we have Jay who just sits on his ass playing damn animals games and giving up on his site. If you guys can't handle the heat of what you created - then get out of the kitchen and create some new Moderators. Trust me when I say, nothing you could ever say is gonna make me break down and cry online. You haven't even showed your face and you sure as hell ain't intimidating. In fact, you can't even type a proper sentence structure in All Subjects. So do your job, get off my case, and go ban the pedophiles and gangster living in this petri dish. Hasta la Vista

Shadow · Answer

@motherCookieingstarboy wrote:

Instead of trying to ban me, maybe you should pay attention to all the pedophiles crawling around here sitting mutated penis pics out to everybody who doesn't wanna see it. I'm not a troll, I'm verbally defending myself from everybody teaming up on me because they feel threatened by my very presence. Think of it this way, if you had done your damn job in the first place, none of this would have happened and it would have been the QuestionCove from back when I first joined. But no, we have Jay who just sits on his ass playing damn animals games and giving up on his site. If you guys can't handle the heat of what you created - then get out of the kitchen and create some new Moderators. Trust me when I say, nothing you could ever say is gonna make me break down and cry online. You haven't even showed your face and you sure as hell ain't intimidating. In fact, you can't even type a proper sentence structure in All Subjects. So do your job, get off my case, and go ban the pedophiles and gangster living in this petri dish. Hasta la Vista

Did I ban you? Or does it appear that I am hearing you out?

MotherfuckingStarboy · Answer

@shadow wrote:

@motherCookieingstarboy wrote:

Instead of trying to ban me, maybe you should pay attention to all the pedophiles crawling around here sitting mutated penis pics out to everybody who doesn't wanna see it. I'm not a troll, I'm verbally defending myself from everybody teaming up on me because they feel threatened by my very presence. Think of it this way, if you had done your damn job in the first place, none of this would have happened and it would have been the QuestionCove from back when I first joined. But no, we have Jay who just sits on his ass playing damn animals games and giving up on his site. If you guys can't handle the heat of what you created - then get out of the kitchen and create some new Moderators. Trust me when I say, nothing you could ever say is gonna make me break down and cry online. You haven't even showed your face and you sure as hell ain't intimidating. In fact, you can't even type a proper sentence structure in All Subjects. So do your job, get off my case, and go ban the pedophiles and gangster living in this petri dish. Hasta la Vista

Did I ban you? Or does it appear that I am hearing you out?

Is that why I'm on 400th account? Because I'm being heard out? 🤔

Shadow · Answer

What's happening right now

MotherfuckingStarboy · Answer

Good question. Maybe you have an answer for it.

Shadow · Answer

Okay, I'm going to dm you so we stop spamming this post.

MotherfuckingStarboy · Answer

@shadow wrote:

Okay, I'm going to dm you so we stop spamming this post.

Okay.

1 attachment