Instigator / Con

Universal Basic Income


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 3 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Pro


The United States ought to provide a universal basic income


1. Universal Basic Income: an unconditional cash payment which the government pays monthly and universally to all adults throughout their lives. The monthly payments must be sufficient to meet the socio-cultural subsistence minimum of the community in which the recipient resides [source: adapted from a definition by Prof. Matt Zwolinski]
2. Ought: moral desirability


1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Con must waive in R1 and Pro must waive in R5
11. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss


R1. Con waives; Pro's Case
R2. Con's Case; Pro generic Rebuttal
R3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal
R4. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary
R5. Con generic Rebuttal and Summary; Pro waives

Round 1
Many thanks to Virtuoso for his acceptance of the debate. Per the rules, I waive this round. I look forward to an interesting contest!
Thank you for this debate. I know you will be a good opponent.

A Word About UBI

It needs to be said that not all UBI proposals and plans are created equals. Some proposals are good while others are clearly bad. That being said, I see this debate about the pros and the cons of a universal basic income program and not the nitty gritty policy detail (i.e. how much to give, how it would affect taxes, how it would affect other benefits, etc). That being said, let's dive into my opening statements.

Poverty in America: An Overview

Income inequality and poverty is a serious problem. The three wealthies people in America own more wealth than the bottom half of all Americans (1). The current minimum wage is $7.25. Nowhere in America can one afford a decent apartment on the current minimum wage (2). Although corporate profits and the stock market has never been higher, wages have fallen since the GOP passed their tax scam (3). A Universal Basic Income will significantly help with this. 

UBI Case Study: Alaska

Alaska today has the highest rate of income equality (4). In large this accomplishment was due to the Alaska Permanent Fund which gives out anaual dividins to Alaskan residents. Peter Gowen notes (5):

The...model has also been around in Alaska since 1976. Most recently, the Alaska Permanent Fund paid a dividend of $1,100 to every state resident, or $4,400 for every family of four. Lauded by some as the most popular program in the history of the US,” it is an important source of income for Alaskans, particularly for single and Native women. Bruenig argues we could do the same nationally.
In addition to reducing wealth inequality, the promise of social wealth funds is that a significant share of the economy could, from a technical standpoint, be brought under public ownership within a relatively short period of time. If successful, this would massively extend our capacity to exercise democratic control over US capital. The whip of “business confidence,” while still present, would become less of a threat.

Positive Effect on the Economy

One of the common arguments against UBI is that a UBI will reduce the incentive to work and have a negative effect on the economy. However, the Alaska Permanent Fund has not led to a loss of jobs or reduction of work (6) but in fact increased the amount of jobs by 10,000, and has reduced poverty among Native Americans (7). The Roosevelt Institute also found that there will not be any negative effect on the economy (8). 

Empowering Women

Women are more likely to be poor than men and as such will help those women lift themselves out of poverty. In addition, it will help new mothers by enabling them to work less (or not at all) to properly take care of their kids. Childcare has become prohibitively expensive for a lot of poorer women and single mothers and in some states cost as much or more than college tuition (9). Jessica Flanigan writes:

because a basic income would make the decision to work more voluntary, women would no longer choose to remain in toxic jobs solely because they can’t afford not to. In this way, a UBI could address gender-based mistreatment in workplaces. By freeing women of their economic dependence on employers, a UBI would also improve women’s bargaining positions, enabling them to negotiate for more flexible hours or better conditions.

A UBI will significantly reduce income inequality in the US, empower women and the lower class, help lift people out of poverty, and will have a positive effect on the economy and jobs. UBI will help to alleviate worrying about basic expenses that their ordinary paycheck may not meet. I believe that a UBI is just and the US has a moral obligation to impliment a decent UBI program.

The resolution is affirmed. I look forward to your opening statements. 

Round 2
Unfortunately, I am a bit pressed for time, so my argument stylistically is a bit rush, though the content is what I had hoped.

I. Overview

This debate must, to some extent, examine the nitty-gritty issues of policy because the question of whether or not the US ought to implement a universal basic income (UBI) is itself a question of policy. To contend, for instance, that we ought not consider how a UBI might affect taxes is like asking whether the US ought to go to war without considering whether lives might be lost. It is, on its face, a preposterous position for Pro to take. Policy must be measured by their consequences, which requires examination of those very topics that Pro is attempting to exclude. Indeed, Pro himself adopts a consequentialist position, which is a reasonable evaluative mechanism for the round.

There is also an issue of fairness, insofar as Pro's overview does not serve so much to illuminate the meaning of the resolution as it does to restrict the range of arguments left available to me. That does not serve the interests of fulsome and hearty discourse. Thus, there are at least two good reasons to reject Pro's framing of the debate.

II. UBI is Bad Policy

A. The Cost of UBI

Estimates suggest that UBI would cost $3 to 4 trillion per year, totaling $30 to 40 trillion over a decade. That sum "amounts to nearly all the tax revenue collected by the federal government." [1] Projections show that US federal tax revenue for 2019 is estimated to be $3.422 trillion, potentially less than UBI alone [2]. It is not plausible that the US could sustain a policy of UBI while also maintaining the various other services and projects it administers.

Even if UBI were to replace other welfare programs, the savings from eliminating these programs would not offset the costs of UBI. Currently, welfare not including Social Security and Medicare costs about $1 trillion; Social Security and Medicare similarly cost about $1 trillion [3, 4]. That makes $2 trillion in total current welfare spending. If all of these welfare programs were to be eliminated and replaced with UBI, UBI would still add $1 to 2 trillion dollars to the federal budget (increasing the budget by 67%).

However, it would be naive to think that UBI could replace all existing welfare programs--programs to help parents with childcare costs or to cover medical bills would need to be retained in some form in order to ensure the wellbeing of children and those without insurance, with poor insurance, or with sky-high medical bills. Thus, the actual amount that UBI adds to the budget is likely to be larger than the $1 to 2 trillion just calculated.

And not only does UBI balloon the budget, but UBI is ultimately self-defeating. To afford UBI, individuals would need to be taxed at rates of 35 to 40 percent. This means that UBI would cost a taxpayer more in taxes than that taxpayer would receive in benefits, rendering the policy net-harmful. [5]

B. UBI will Increase Poverty

"UBI will lead to higher inequality and poverty. It typically aims to replace existing unemployment and other benefits with a simple universal grant…[R]eallocating welfare payments from targeted transfers (such as unemployment, disability or housing benefits) to a generalized transfer to everyone, the amount that goes to the most deserving is lower." [6] In other words, suppose $100 were set aside for government aid in a country with $100 people, of whom, 10 were poor. A policy of UBI would give all 100 people $1 each, distributing evenly the benefits of the policy. The problem with an even distribution of this sort is that not everyone has equal need for the benefits of the policy. Instead, it would seem more effective to give the 10 people in poverty $10 each, as they are the most in-need. This logic is borne out empirically. A "detailed modelling exercise undertaken by the OECD...shows" that UBI is ineffective at targeting those in need. [7]

III. Counterplan

A. The Plan

Rather than implement a UBI, we ought to implement a Negative Income Tax (NIT). A negative income tax, as defined by Oxford Dictionary, is “money credited as allowances to a taxed income, and paid as benefit when it exceeds debited tax.” NIT effectively provides recipients with an additional salary, thereby achieving many of the same goals as UBI, but it is distributed as a tax rebate. Unlike UBI, NIT is not universal, and gradates benefits based on a recipient’s base income. 

B. The Benefits of NIT

"We have seen that a UBI and an NIT designed to achieve the same redistributive effect would impose the same marginal rates of taxation on other sources of income, but that the overall tax burden required to fund an NIT would be much smaller than for an equivalent UBI...[T]he NIT alternative plainly enjoys a substantial cost advantage over a UBI." [8] Some quick math demonstrates just how wide the gulf in costs might be. Recalling the earlier expense figure of UBI ($3-4 trillion), consider that after calculating "the transfer each quantile would receive based on a hypothetical NIT which starts at $5,000 for individuals with zero income and is phased out at a rate of 30% [and] [m]ultiplying the average transfer by the number of actual individuals in each grouping and summing" and NIT would cost roughly "$182 billion." [9]

"[A] negative income tax of $10,000 for adults and $5,000 for children, and a 50 percent phaseout rate, for example, would offer a family of four with $0 in earnings benefits worth $20,000; if they started earning $10,000 in wages, the benefits would fall to $15,000, for a total income of $25,000; by the time they earned $40,000 in wages, they’d be getting no basic income payment at all. A negative income tax is just a UBI financed in part by a somewhat regressive tax on the first chunk of earnings people make, and because of that tax, its net price tag is much lower." [10]

Two more reasons for this cost advantage are that (a) an NIT does not provide rebates or disbursements to the entire adult population and (b) an NIT dispenses based on need rather than by pre-determined amounts which may be in access of a recipient's need as UBI does. Therefore, NIT has two benefits over UBI: (1) it is substantially less expensive and (2) it is targeted towards less well-off families, and so it would not increase poverty.

IV. Sources

8 - Philip Harvey, 2006, “The Relative Cost of a Universal Basic Income and a Negative Income Tax,” Basic Income Studies.

Thus, I negate. Please Vote Con.
Thank you for your opening response.

Re: UBI is a Bad Policy

A. The Cost of UBI

Con's method of calculating the cost of a UBI is deeply flawed. Con's sources calculate this by multiplying 300 million (the population of the united states) by 1000 (the amount of money each individual gets) and the result is $3-4 trillion. If that was the correct way to calculate UBI, then con's point would be valid.

The real cost of a poverty-level UBI is only $539 billion per year, "if we lowered the marginal tax rate to 35% it would spread the benefits more to the middle class but increase the cost to $901 billion. Finally the cost of a UBI of 20,000 per adult and 10,000 per child would be 1.816 trillion per year, less than 85% of total entitlement spending and less than 10% of the GDP" (1).

How do we get these numbers? The real cost is the net transfer amount. Elizaveta Fouksman notes (2):

The key to understanding the real cost of UBI is understanding the difference between the gross (or upfront) and net (or real) cost. Here’s a simple example: imagine a room with 15 people who want to set up a UBI for the room of $2 per person. The upfront cost of the policy would be $30. The ten richest people in the room are asked to contribute $3 each towards funding it. After they each put in $3, raising the total $30 needed, every person in the room gets their $2 universal basic income. But because the ten richest people in the room contributed $3, and then got $2 back as the UBI, their real, net contribution is in fact $1 each. So the real cost of the UBI is $10.

So we see that con's method of calculating the cost is suspect. 

B. Increase in Poverty

As I showed in round 1 the Alaska Permanent Fund increased income equality and significantly reduced poverty - and that's with just a very basic UBI. The empirical evidence goes against con's argument.

Karl Widerquist of Georgetown University argues (3) :

The average net beneficiary of this UBI proposal is a household of an average household size of two people making about $27,000 per year, the professor adds.

The couple’s net benefit would be nearly $9,000, which raises their net income to almost $36,000. “

This UBI scheme is a net financial benefit to most households with incomes up to $55,000 annually,” he says. “This would be an effective wage subsidy (or tax cut) for tens of millions of working-class families.


Widerquist says the $539 billion per year that is 2.95 percent of America’s GDP is about one-sixth of the cost of commonly circulated estimates, and that this amount is less than 25 percent of current entitlement programs.

The study used U.S. Census Bureau data for 2015 to examine an estimated poverty-level UBI of $12,000 per adult and $6,000 per child.

Widerquist’s research also found that some 43.1 million people (including 14.5 million children) would benefit from this increased income, reducing the poverty rate from 13.5 percent of the population to zero.

Re: Negative Income Tax

I'm quite fascinated with the prospects of a Negative Income Tax and in real life would strongly support a proposal. A NIT does almost the exact same thing as a UBI, however there are important differences and important behavioural consequences of each proposal. While the results are almost exactly the same and their cost are pretty much the same, there are a few major differences (4):

“A NIT is like giving someone $50 and asking for nothing back, and a UBI is like giving someone $100 and asking for $50 from their next paycheck. Both result in the person getting an extra $50. The question of which is better depends on the details involved and how the person feels about them.”
Because of these differences there are a few major psychological and behavioural differences associated with each proposal. 

A. Reduce Workforce

The biggest problem with the NIT is that it is, like all means-tested benefits, a poverty trap. As one goes up the income bracket one is paying more in taxes. This encourages people to stay at or below the "break-even" level. Several cities experimented with a NIT system in the past. The empirical data from these experiments prove this point (5):

[D]espite the wide range of treatments and evaluation methodologies, the results are remarkably consistent. On average, husbands reduced labor supply by about the equivalent of two weeks of full-time employment. Wives and single female heads reduced labor supply by about the equivalent of three weeks of full-time employment. Youth reduced labor supply by about the equivalent of four weeks of full-time employment. Estimated income and substitution effects are quite similar to those obtained from nonexperimental studies.

In comparison the Alaska Permanent Fund did not have a noticable effect on the labor market, but in fact grew the economy by 10,000 jobs (6).

In reality, a UBI and NIT are pretty much the exact same thing. Scott Santens notes (7):

The main difference appears to be that with a UBI, due to its universality, the cost is shifted more, and this has the potential to affect behavior. But due to all the ways in which this cost can be shifted, it can be a more or less of a net good depending on taxation specifics and intended policy goals. A poorly designed UBI can result in worse outcomes than a NIT, but a well designed UBI can result in better outcomes.

A UBI can also potentially draw more support and maintain it in the long term, whereas a NIT might be actively fought against by those not receiving it, and could lose support over time.

A NIT can only be considered vastly superior if one subscribes to the idea that all taxation is evil, and therefore should always be minimized in all possible cases it can be minimized.

A UBI can only be considered vastly superior if one subscribes to the idea that equality of distribution is of utmost importance and that anything that does not give equally is inherently flawed and/or morally wrong.

I believe that a UBI is morally superior to an NIT. "in an NIT scheme a minority of poor individuals is financed by the middle and high income taxpayer. In UBI the most affluent individuals redistribute income to middle and low income individuals." (8) 


  • UBI won't cost anywhere near what con projects.
  • UBI would lift people out of poverty.
  • UBI is a far better policy than NIT.
  • UBI is ethically superior
The resolution is affirmed. Please vote pro!


5. Robins, Philip K. “A Comparison of the Labor Supply Findings from the Four Negative Income Tax Experiments.” The Journal of Human Resources, vol. 20, no. 4, 1985, pp. 567–582. JSTOR, JSTOR,
Round 3
I. Speech Organization

Since many of the issues being debated overlap and intersect, I have opted to combine my defense of my own case with my rebuttal to my opponent's case. The line-by-line order might, therefore, not match perfectly, but there should be plenty of sign-posting to help my opponent and voters navigate this speech.

II. UBI Examples/Studies

A. Alaska

Firstly, the Alaska Permanent Fund does not meet the definition of a UBI, insofar as disbursements between $1,100 and $4,400 do not constitute "payments...sufficient to meet the socio-cultural subsistence minimum of the community." That money would not even pay for an apartment, let alone cover all entire subsistence minimum. Assuming 1 working adult (renting), the average cost of living in Alaska is approximately $20,000. [1] The Fund's disbursements would need to be increased by 20x (also 20x the expense) in order to meet the most basic definition of a UBI. To get a rough idea of the gross cost of a true UBI in Alaska, multiply $20,000 x 740,000 (the population) and get $14,800,000,000.

Secondly, the Alaska Permanent Fund is not sustainable. Last year, the fund grew by about $5 billion. [2] Assuming that yearly earnings remain the same (which is unlikely, as earnings have typically been less than $5 billion) and that Alaska's population remains the same (also unlikely, as the population there is increasing), the fund, if it paid out a full UBI, would run out of money in five years. Since the fund is not supported by taxes, its gross cost and net cost are essentially identical.

Thirdly, Alaska is atypical. It has a large amount of oil revenue which it can tap into to support the UBI program. [3] This is not true of all states, and it is certainly not true of the debt-laden US government.

Fourthly, "proposals based on Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend,assume the continued exploitation of carbon resources. This is problematic for a couple of reasons. Either the environmentalists’ goals will be realized --and when we phase out our carbon dependence, our funding for basic income will dry up --or we will all burn." [4]

Fifthly, Alaska is a single, cherry-picked example which cannot possibly affirm UBI as a general principle. In fact, there is a wide dearth of high-quality (that is universal, randomized, long term and basic) examples of and experiments on UBI, meaning that defaulting to theoretical analyses is almost unavoidable [5].

B. Roosevelt Institute

Pro cites a study by the Roosevelt Institute to back up his assertions about the economic panacea that he would have us believe UBI to be. This study finds "that enacting any of these policies by growing the federal debt--that is, without raising taxes to pay for it--would substantially grow the economy. The effect fades away within eight years." [6] This has several important implications. Firstly, if taxes aren't being raised to pay for it, the gross and net costs are the same, mooting one of Pro's arguments against my math. Secondly, neither of Pro's pieces of evidence in favor of UBI (Alaska and this RI study) use tax money to fund UBI. That means that Pro has no evidence that shows that he can have good economic consequences from UBI while paying for UBI with taxes. So, either Pro admits he has no evidence that tax-supported UBI is good or he admits that he would balloon the national debt. This is a double-bind on Pro. Thirdly, the beneficial effects of UBI are merely temporary.

III. Workforce Participation

At the most basic level, Pro's position seems contradictory. On the one hand, he is saying that an NIT (which is highly similar to UBI) would reduce workforce participation while on the other he is saying that a UBI would not have that effect. Given that these policies are in the same family of welfare reform proposals, so to speak, it seems hard to fathom how they could result in such diametrically opposite outcomes. Pro even says, "a UBI and NIT are pretty much the exact same thing."

Pro's logic, it seems, is that because more work will not increase one's NIT benefit, people have an incentive not to work more. Okay, but that's not the same as saying they have an incentive to work less. An NIT which starts at $5,000 for someone with zero income [11] is still going to require you to work to make a subsistence-level income. UBI, on the other hand, does clearly incentivize people to work less, insofar as one can be unemployed while still drawing a subsistence-level salary. Why go to work when I can make just as much money watching Game of Thrones at home? Pro essentially admits that for some people, a UBI will disincentivize working; for example, Pro writes that a UBI will "help new mothers by enabling them to work less."

If anything, a UBI is likely to have a more dramatic effect on labor supply than an NIT insofar as its benefits extend to more recipients, thereby incentivizing more people to reduce the amount they work or to stop working altogether. 

Looking to empirics, we do see that UBI has a depressing effect on workforce participation. "Single parents in the UK offer a test case, as up to 2008 they were effectively in receipt of something very like an UBI, when not in employment. They had no obligation to actively seek work...By 2014 the employment rate outside London had risen from 57% to 61%. In London the increase was dramatic from a lower baseline: from 45% to 57%." [7]

An NIT, however, would not have this same negative effect. "[A]n economist at the University of Pennsylvania, recently reviewed evidence on the 1970s NIT experiments as part of a larger project on unconditional cash transfers. She found that 'the labor supply effects are uniformly small to nonexistent, depending on the study.'" [8]  An analysis considering three models of labor supply found that, "in all three, an NIT might raise a given family member's labor supply and might also raise total family labor supply. In one model, an NIT could even raise total family earnings. These models and recent empirical estimates...suggest that the work disincentive effects...of an NIT may be less than has previously been thought." [9] So, there is a real possibility that an NIT could boost workforce participation.

And for those who do reduce working hours under NIT, studies have found that those reductions were for productive ends, and not just to get more time to binge watch Jon Snow hacking wights to pieces. “In 1968, President Richard Nixon initiated a successful trial showing that the money had little impact on the recipients’ working hours. People who did reduce the time they worked engaged in other socially valuable pursuits, and young people who were not working spent more time getting an education.” [10]

IV. Economic Opportunity

A. Income Inequality

Because UBI benefits are distributed evenly among the classes, UBI will be less effective at reducing income inequality than the NIT. The NIT concentrates its benefits in the hands of the most in-need, and may be coupled with a progressive tax policy to further augment its ability to reduce income inequality. Even with progressive taxation, because UBI does not focus its payouts withing a specific income bracket, it cannot have the same income inequality-reducing outcomes as NIT. Note that Pro describes income inequality as "a serious problem."

B. Poverty

My evidence shows that UBI is less effective at reducing poverty than an NIT. I should not have said that a UBI increases poverty--that claim perhaps exceeded the breadth of its supporting evidence. The fact that UBI does not increase poverty notwithstanding, it is clear from my evidence that UBI is less effective at reducing poverty than NIT. This is because NIT, unlike UBI, concentrates its disbursements in the hands of those who need it most--the poor. UBI, however, disburses money to the Donald Trumps of the world as well as to the homeless men on the street. By failing to focus its resources at those most in need, UBI is less capable of addressing the crisis of poverty than NIT.

My evidence clearly does support this more tailored claim (that being that NIT is better than UBI at reducing poverty). As I wrote earlier, "suppose $100 were set aside for government aid in a country with $100 people, of whom, 10 were poor. A policy of UBI would give all 100 people $1 each, distributing evenly the benefits of the policy. The problem with an even distribution of this sort is that not everyone has equal need for the benefits of the policy. Instead, it would seem more effective to give the 10 people in poverty $10 each, as they are the most in-need." This logic is also backed up by a study from the OECD, so I also have empirics on my side. [12]

V. Cost of UBI

Pro's critique of my cost analysis only applies if he is using taxes to fund the program. But since none of his evidence shows that a tax-supported UBI would be beneficial, if Pro is advocating for a tax-supported UBI, his case doesn't support his advocacy. This is an issue I brought up earlier in this round.

Setting that issue aside for a moment, let's delve into the implications of Pro's taxation argument (or, the taking three dollars in return for two). Pro is, with this argument, basically saying that the wealthy should pay for a UBI for everyone.

Before tax support, UBI costs 3-4 trillion dollars (Pro's source says $4.15 trillion [13]), equivalent to or exceeding the federal government's entire annual tax revenue. To pay for UBI, the government would need to increase it's tax revenue substantially, perhaps, per my earlier analysis, by as much as half. To do this, as I said last round, the government would need to tax individuals at rates of 35 to 40 percent. Pro himself suggests using a marginal tax rate of 35%, and that was "lower" than the tax rate for the UBI that cost only $539 billion. This means that UBI would cost a taxpayer more in taxes than that taxpayer would receive in benefits, rendering the policy net-harmful to the taxpayers. Even if the brunt of that tax burden were concentrated in the upper economic tiers, it is not reasonable (from either an economic or realpolitik perspective) to believe that the lower tiers would not also incur some of the costs, mitigating whatever benefits they might've reaped from a UBI absent the increased taxes. This is also why UBI not supported by taxes is not comparable to UBI supported by taxes.

An NIT, because it costs so much less, would not require the same kinds of tax hikes that UBI would, and so the NIT is not only more affordable, but more beneficial to its recipients, who are the most needy among us. Notice that Pro never challenges my cost assessments for NIT; extend those cost assessments as unrebutted.

VI. Miscellaneous

Pro concludes last round by making a plea to moral sentiment, but a consequentialist evaluative mechanism has already been established for the round. The only arguments that can determine the moral rightness of either policy are those which can be weighed under such a framework.

NIT can also help struggling mothers, and I don't support getting rid of childcare programs which can offer additional financial support to parents.

Regarding Pro's sources, the Roosevelt Institute is a left-leaning think-tank [6] and Basic Income's whole agenda is promoting UBI. Of course these sources are going to paint UBI in a wonderful light. These sources should be regarded with some skepticism.

VII. Sources

11 - Con R2, Source 9
12 - Con R2, Source 7
13 - Pro R2, Source 1

Thank you! Please vote Con!
I concede this debate. Please vote con. 

Prior to this debate I have seen strong arguments both for and against UBI. I felt this debate would be a good opportunity to dive deeper into the arguments for and against in order for me to become a more informed voter and to become more informed on this particular topic. In short, con has successfully swayed my opinion to his side. 
Round 4
While I of course thank Virt for the debate, I confess to being somewhat disappointed. For me, debating is akin to an intellectual sport or a game, and so I've never really adopted the mindset of concessions being necessitated by one's own shifting opinion. That said, I am glad I was able to change someone's opinion on this important issue. 

Judges, if possible, could you please give feedback on those arguments which were presented? Thanks.
Vote con. And judges, I'd also appreciate feedback for arguments.
Round 5
Vote Con. Thanks.
As per the rules, I waive this round.