Introduction Understanding an argument means being able to assess the argument, and evaluate the different positions of the argument effectively. In many cases, there are issues with merely accepting a proposition – it pays to critically evaluate the biases, fallacies and reasoning behind each argument you are presented with.

Pro Arguments

The pro argument that is the most convincing is the first one, Pro 1, that UBI reduces poverty and income inequality, and improves health. There are three different hypotheses here. The evidence presented appears to be reliable. The Alaska case supports the income inequality hypothesis. The Namibia case supports the poverty reduction hypothesis. The India and Manitoba examples specifically support the improvement of health argument. So this argument is the most convincing because it starts with a clear, logical hypothesis and empirical evidence is provided to support each of the three clauses in the original argument.

Con Arguments

The only con argument that is even remotely credible is Con 3, that UBI is too expensive. While the benefits of UBI have been demonstrated in various trials, rolling out such a program on a mass scale is an entirely different matter. In none of the trials was the issue of cost to government even taken into consideration, so this is a new element to the issue that is being introduced and addressed only on the con side. While it is not possible to provide actual evidence for this con, the math can be done, and the math certainly contains startling numbers. The numbers are presented in a superficial...

But at least there is a credible argument to be made and calculations are presented to support that argument.
Biases

Pro 3 holds a bias that renders that argument invalid. The bias arises from a value judgment that doing things equates to unpaid work (as if single people living alone don't have to do the exact same chores). The argument isn't completely absurd, it just places value on "unpaid work" as a thing that exists – it's not work if you're not hired to do it, by definition – and the clear gender component of the argument is also a bias that frames this Pro.

Con 1 and Con 2 are highly biased. The entire basis of Con 1 is the clause "UBI programs often use funds targeting the poor for distribution to everyone in society." Yet, this claim has to be proven, or else it is just a straw man. It is not proven. Con 2 suffers from extreme bias in that it rests on the old chestnut about UBI removing the incentive to work. It doesn't. The evidence shows that it doesn’t. But there's always a bias that says that people are lazy, especially poor people, and if you give them anything for free they'll just waste it and be unproductive. The Alaska Permanent Fund paid $1022 in 2016, not exactly an amount that's going to convince…