Man1: Basic income.

First, we are for innovation the modern economy is going beyond media production and focusing on
new ideas, being having to do with creativity the information each or improvements to current
technology.

This move towards to what a creative economy is that by risk takers who are willing to give up current
opportunities in hopes of creating an entirely new sectors of revolutionary products.

However, innovation and creativity are risky ventures something which [?] it was already admitted and
often require huge commitment sometimes even for growing a job. That is why many of these risk
takers tend to be for more well-off families because this will provide them with a safety net if the
innovation were to fail.

We seek to move to a modern economy, we must give everyone the space to innovate and be creative.
This space is created when we guarantee a universal basic income because this means that anyone who
wants to innovate can do it anytime because fear does not mean you fall into dire circumstances or
become seen as a leach of the state.

In fact, the most prominent lobby group for universal basic income in Bulgaria is the artist union of
Bulgaria who argue that the national creative scene is being stifled by state dictator welfare schemes.

Sure, there are risk takers from various backgrounds but the economic environment is one that
disincentivizes, which we changed this. A universal basic income provides insurance plan of sorts if
innovations were to fail it emboldens entrepreneurial courage and brits existing barriers to innovation,
thereby creating a sustainable more than economy.

The second way does this, it also because it allows what automation our society is gradually moving
towards automation to create products that often outweigh the cost of these technologies to begin
with. This is a sustainable form of economic growth and in many cases, automation may be more cost
efficient as it reduces bureaucracy and administrative costs.

However, the greatest impediment covered is the issue of unemployment created that with automation
with every technology put in place, many more workers are laid off.

Unemployment is seen as terrible as individuals lose all semblance of agency and must live off the state
welfare that is located on their behalf. This make work as highly unwilling to accept automation and
that's why this huge lobbying actions against this pipe providing a universal basic income, we guarantee
to allows space for automation. For all these reasons, we stand firmly on team proposition.

Man2: Madam Speaker, this debate is not about the poor. It's about how best to help we told you from
the offset that this is a debate about balance between giving money directly to individuals and plugging
that money into services. We think proposition shifts that balanced radically towards giving money
directly to individuals and in doing they harm the poor and society as a whole.
Three things I want to do. Firstly, deconstruct their side, then do some reconstruction finally go into our
last point on how you actually harm marginalized groups the most? But first, let's take a look at their
side and a couple of points of rebuttal.

The first, we take exception to once again is there a more, because in many cases I think Jason's PY still
stands, but even if you don't buy the answer that you get there, we think in many cases, proposition
never tells you how much money they're actually going to give these particular individuals? Are probably
going to be able to change their life.

That's the problem because a lot of benefits that they talk about are contingent on giving these
individuals a lot of money. How are you going to get the funds to do that? No, thanks.

Well, let's take a look at choice they told you that you deserve the right to choose what to do with your
own money. Three responses. Firstly, let's remember that many of these individuals still have a job and
still will have money that they can choose to allocate.

The problem is on their side, their choices limited when they actually can make the trade-off between
reducing services and putting all of that money and directly giving it to people.

That's a harm, but secondly this is the state's money. Why should a government prioritize individual toys
over getting a broader social good by putting money into education, by putting it into healthcare, you
need a response from proposition if they want to win this point.

Thirdly, no, they can't actually we think many individuals like myself are horrible at foreseeing costs as
they don't save money we think in many cases, services can act as a safety net. These services can
actually help these individuals for seat costs in the future. No things.

All of the examples they bring to you, Namibia, India, let's make it very clear. No country in the world
has universal basic income. They wanted to talk about India. India only use 6,000 people and gave each
person $24. That's a great policy if they want to defend it, no thanks.

Second point of our bottle, how it's better for individuals, they tell you, you increase their income for
points against this? Firstly, the rich are going to be losing money on their side through their model of
progressive taxation, let’s take the rich.

Secondly, the middle class, we think the middleclass are probably only going to get a marginal benefit at
best because they still have to go through progressive taxation and they're probably not going to be able
to get much of that money back through universal basic income, thirdly the poor.