The SuperDebate · Now streaming
AI is eliminating jobs faster than any safety net was built to handle. Universal basic income is the most serious policy response to that shift. This debate asks whether UBI is the safety net the future demands, or the worst idea in modern economics.
Watch and score now · Friday, July 10, 2026 · 2:00 PM CT
The full recorded SuperDebate. Watch it, then score both debaters below.
Score each debater 1 (weak) to 5 (strong) on the four criteria our judges use. One ballot per person, and you can change it anytime.
Scott Santens
For UBI
3.0
your avg
Argument · logic & reasoning
Evidence · facts & examples
Clarity · structure & flow
Persuasion · did it convince you
Malcolm Collins
Against UBI
3.0
your avg
Argument · logic & reasoning
Evidence · facts & examples
Clarity · structure & flow
Persuasion · did it convince you
One resolution. Two sides. Cross-examination.
The Resolution
Scott Santens argues the affirmative. Malcolm Collins argues the negative. Both are assigned their sides and argue them as well as they can. The audience decides who made the stronger case.
The Case for UBI
Scott Santens · Affirmative
AI and robotics negatively impact workers and increase inequality
AI and robotics are negatively impacting workers and increasing inequality in a way that is not offset by new or better jobs. A universal floor ensures everyone shares in the upsides and is protected from the downsides of the automation of work.
Direct cash transfers work
Randomized control trials — Stockton's SEED program, GiveDirectly, Finland's pilot, and many more — show unconditional cash improves health, wellbeing, and many other important outcomes without significantly reducing work.
Simplifies a broken welfare system
The current patchwork of 80+ federal programs traps recipients where earning more can mean losing benefits to the point of becoming worse off. A single universal payment eliminates poverty traps and bureaucracy.
Enables entrepreneurship and care work
A basic security floor enables and empowers people to take risks, start businesses, pursue education, or care for children and aging parents — contributions the current system fails to reward.
The Case Against UBI
Malcolm Collins · Negative
Fiscally unsustainable
A universal $1,000/month to 260 million American adults costs over $3 trillion annually — more than total current federal discretionary spending. No credible funding mechanism exists at that scale.
Reduces labor participation
The 1970s U.S. negative income tax experiments, Manitoba Mincome, and the 2019 Finland pilot all showed reductions in labor supply. Less work shrinks the tax base that would fund the program.
Drives inflation
Injecting trillions of dollars into an economy without a corresponding increase in productivity drives prices up. The people with the least buying power — those UBI is meant to help — are hurt most by inflation.
Targeted programs work better
The Earned Income Tax Credit, SNAP, and childcare subsidies reach those who need help and are empirically proven to reduce poverty. Sending checks to millionaires is inefficient by design.
Two credentialed voices. Assigned sides. Argued on merit.
Scott Santens
UBI Researcher & Author
America's most prominent UBI advocate, making the case for a monthly check for every adult
Scott Santens has researched and championed universal basic income since 2013. He is the CEO of the ITSA Foundation and author of "Let There Be Money." Author Rutger Bregman called him "the most effective basic income activist," and he has written for major outlets and testified before government bodies on UBI policy.
Malcolm Collins
Entrepreneur & Policy Critic
The policy skeptic making the case that UBI's promises don't survive contact with the numbers
Malcolm Collins is a neuroscientist-turned-entrepreneur, five-time bestselling author, and co-founder of the Pragmatist Foundation. He has conducted research at the Smithsonian Institution and built a public platform around data-driven analysis of economics, policy, and technology, applying rigorous skepticism to proposals like UBI.
The Format
Standard SuperDebate: opening statements, live cross-examination, rebuttals, closings, audience vote
4 min · Scott Santens (PRO)
4 min · Malcolm Collins questions Scott
4 min · Malcolm Collins (CON)
4 min · Scott Santens questions Malcolm
3 min · Scott Santens (PRO)
3 min · Malcolm Collins (CON)
3 min · Scott Santens (PRO)
3 min · Malcolm Collins (CON) — then the audience decides
About 28 minutes of debate total, plus moderation.
The debate format this topic has always needed
The UBI debate has been running for decades in op-eds and comment sections. It has generated thousands of takes and zero resolution — because it has never had a real format. A SuperDebate changes that: assigned sides, cross-examination, and a winner the audience picks on merit. Debate is a sport. We treat it like one.
Open debate runs on the people who show up. Tell us how you want to be part of it.
Structured debates on the ideas that matter most. You score who makes the stronger case.
Humanity uses 1.7 Earths yearly. Degrowth economists say rich nations must shrink; others say technology can decouple growth from harm. Can the planet survive endless growth — or is degrowth a recipe for poverty? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
Aging kills 100,000 people every day — more than cancer and war combined. Google's Calico has invested billions in life-extension research. Should we treat aging as a disease — or accept it as part of a meaningful life? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
The US has spent over $1 trillion on the drug war since 1971 — overdoses still hit 107,000 in 2023. Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001 and saw deaths plummet. Does legalization fix it — or abandon the most vulnerable? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
South Korea's birth rate hit 0.72 in 2023 — a record low. Japan and Hungary pay tens of thousands per child; birthrates keep falling. Is population collapse a civilizational crisis — or a feature of modernity and freedom? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
