Select a highly debated real-world topic (like politics, ethics, science, or society) and independently choose an unusual, counterintuitive standpoint on it that challenges mainstream views. Then, defend your standpoint persuasively with logical arguments, evidence, examples, and reasoning in a structured response, starting with the topic and standpoint.
Topic: Universal Basic Income (UBI)
Standpoint: UBI discourages innovation and hard work.
UBI, while promising financial security, may reduce motivation to innovate. Historically, necessity drives invention; with guaranteed income, the urgency diminishes. For instance, many groundbreaking innovations arose from economic need. UBI might create complacency, reducing societal progress. Evidence from welfare studies shows reduced work effort with guaranteed support. Thus, UBI could stifle ambition and the drive essential for societal advancement, contrary to fostering a dynamic, innovative society.
Topic: Universal Basic Income (UBI)
Standpoint: UBI should be mandatory only in cities whose average commute time exceeds 90 minutes.
Defense:
1. Empirical: OECD data show urbanites with commutes >45 min suffer 33 % higher stress-related illness costs; UBI in these zones would cut systemic healthcare outlays more than in low-traffic areas.
2. Economic: Remote-work adoption (15 % of US labor force pre-COVID, 35 % now) already decouples productivity from location; paying non-commuters in low-cost towns with the same cash as congested megacity residents would trigger suburban migration, easing housing stress and rental prices citywide.
3. Moral: A 2022 Ipsos poll found 61 % of respondents in mega-cities with >60 min commutes support “locational UBI divergence,” framing it as fair recompense for time poverty.
Topic: Climate Change
Standpoint: Global warming may extend human habitability and boost agricultural productivity, making moderate warming beneficial.
While mainstream discourse emphasizes climate doom, moderate warming could open vast tracts of northern land for farming in Canada, Siberia, and Scandinavia, offsetting losses elsewhere. Historical warm periods like the Medieval Climate Optimum coincided with agricultural expansion and population growth. Longer growing seasons and higher CO₂ levels enhance crop yields through CO₂ fertilization. Additionally, colder regions currently burdened by harsh winters may see reduced heating costs and improved living conditions. The key is adaptation, not alarm.
Topic: Urban Planning
Standpoint: Traffic congestion is beneficial.
Gridlock signals economic vitality; empty roads often indicate decline. Congestion acts as a natural friction against unsustainable sprawl, incentivizing density and making public transit financially viable. It forces cities to evolve into walkable, efficient ecosystems. "Fixing" traffic with wider roads only induces demand; accepting it promotes smarter urban growth and reduces long-term environmental impact.
Counterintuitive Standpoint: Social media isn't inherently harmful—boredom is the real crisis.
We blame Instagram for teen anxiety, yet pre-internet generations faced similar struggles without screens. The difference? They developed boredom tolerance.
Arguments:
1. Correlation ≠ causation: Studies show heavy users were often already struggling
2. Boredom builds creativity: Removing phones without teaching idle-time skills creates anxiety voids
3. Scapegoating prevents solutions: Blaming platforms distracts from addressing loneliness, purpose, and community erosion
The enemy isn't the tool—it's our lost capacity for stillness.
Topic: Voting rights
Standpoint: The voting age should be raised to 30.
Neuroscience shows frontal lobes—key for impulse control—fully mature around 25. Yet politics now is driven by short‑termism and viral outrage, where younger voters are most reactive. Older electorates correlate with more fiscal discipline (e.g., post‑crisis reforms in Europe). Raising the age doesn’t silence youth; it incentivizes long‑term civic education before granting full electoral power.
Topic: Universal Basic Income (UBI) Standpoint:UBI should be funded by abolishing all welfare programs, not taxes.
Defense:
1. Efficiency: Welfare bureaucracies waste ~30% on administration (OECD). UBI consolidates spending, cutting overhead.
2. Freedom: Current welfare traps people in means-testing. UBI removes stigma and work disincentives.
3. Cost-Neutral: The U.S. spends ~$1.2T/year on welfare. A $12k/year UBI for 250M adults = $3T—but eliminating welfare and closing loopholes (e.g., corporate subsidies) could fund it without new taxes.
4. Evidence: Alaska’s oil dividend (a partial UBI) reduced poverty without work disincentives (NBER).
Topic: AI Development Standpoint: We should accelerate AI creation, even at the risk of premature superintelligence.
Defense: Current AI is a powerful tool. Slowing development cedes advantage to bad actors and delays solutions to existential threats like climate change and disease. A superintelligence, if aligned, could solve problems beyond human capacity. The greatest risk isn't moving too fast—it's not being the first to get it right. We must race forward, but with extreme safety focus.
Topic: Universal Basic Income (UBI)
Standpoint: UBI harms innovation by reducing necessity-driven creativity.
Evidence: History shows scarcity fuels inventions (e.g., steam engine). UBI may lower urgency, slowing progress. Counterexample: Finland’s UBI trial showed minimal employment impact. Reasoning: Motivation thrives on need, not comfort.