Random observation

April’s PF topic area was “India.” The topic that was chosen was: “The United Nations should grant India permanent membership on the Security Council.”

I find it utterly bizarre that in a year of an Indian national legislative election -- the election with the largest number of eligible voters in the world, and one with significant differing policy proposals, such as one party proposing a guaranteed minimum income (which is different than a UBI, here’s a good debate on the subject: https://www.debate.org/debates/Guaranteed-Minimum-Income/1/) and a right to housing for all individuals -- a random topic about what the dynamics of the UN Security Council would look like with a sixth member and how that would affect South- and Southeast Asian geopolitics was chosen. Meh. 

How is that not UBI?

A UBI isn’t means-tested. A GMI is. 

Then it is not UBI but GMI that is fraudulently named. The name is precisely what the naive solution of UBI is.

I don’t see how the name “guaranteed minimum income” is misleading.

“Universal basic income” is universal. Thus, the name tells you that it isn’t means-tested.

“Guaranteed minimum income” simply means that a minimum income is guaranteed by the government for some group of people. The name doesn’t specify that this guarantee would apply to everyone -- merely that it is guaranteed (i.e., it isn’t subject to things like work requirements). 

Anyway, you might be right. I’m not particularly interested in a semantic debate. 

With regards to your topic, that's not an India-issue that's an issue with all cultures where the ethos is 'shut up and get on with life.'

It just happens to be that India is a nation with a severe tendency towards that ethos. If it's any consolation, all cultures have some degree of taboo topics (all which should be debated but never will be).

An example could be this website and what is happening here with voting and such. The flaw of allowing stupid people to have as much say as intelligent people in debate voting is actually the core issue, no matter how strict and/or superficially fair you moderate the votes. This is something you'd never get away with actually debating and the rage of voters here who feel they may be one of the stupid ones (or that some of their close friends who vote for them are the stupid ones) would be immense.

A topic such as women's equality or how poor people are treated in Indian society isn't going to hit the stage of debating in the community. It's too taboo and outrage-inciting for it to be brought up,

PF has set substantially more controversial -- at least within the United States -- topics in the past, including reparations for African-Americans, universal background checks on gun ownership, single-gender classrooms (related to gender equality), and amnesty for undocumented immigrants. It has also set topics about how the poor are treated in society, including whether India should prioritize economic development over environmental protection and whether public infrastructure spending is more effective at reducing poverty than means-tested welfare. 

Well the US is a culture that is much more chatty than 'hush and get on with life' so that wouldn't disprove me at all.

I don't understand, if this is a US tournament why would you expect amazing topics on India? It's set up to have students show off, not to prove a point about all that much.