Or you could try actually assuming good faith, and assume that rather than being evil people who want people to die or simply "confused", most critics of UBI ta

Or you could try actually assuming good faith, and assume that rather than being evil people who want people to die or simply "confused", most critics of UBI take the view that people who need state support to have enough money to live should still be able to get it (conditional on signalling their willingness to work for it if able to, rather than citizenship) and people who do not need state support to have enough money to live on shouldn't automatically receive the same amount of money. The choice isn't between life and death, the choice is between some real or hypothetical welfare state system approximation of "to each according to his need" and "to each irrespective of his need" And it's absolutely not a straw man argument to say that a UBI is equivalent to a non-contributory pension for the much younger though (unless you believe that state pensions should be too little to survive on!) and well-evidenced that the average person retires earlier when offered state pensions earlier, especially if (unlike many of the workers funding pensions) they've already paid off mortgages.