It's reasonable to expect people who advocate for policy to have some idea of how they want it to be implemented.

no, i can advocate for having public rail without knowing how to lay track, how to fund it, or how to run the schedules. i can also advocate for photovoltaics and heat pumps getting funded, and i can advocate for health care reform without even knowing where that reform would go, just by knowing that the current state of the health care system is bad. there's no burden of proof when stating a preference.

If you are advocating for a position, with no idea of how to implement that position is implemented then you are just increasing the noise.

It is all fine and well to say "We should have public rail" but with out any idea of how it should be implemented and what it will take to get there, the idea falls flat on it's face. You have to be able to support it with funding increases and possibly eminent domain.

If you advocate for healthcare reform, great! So do I! And since you have no preference about how and what shape the reforms should take, you agree with me that we should abolish all health insurance companies! That would definitely reform the system but you might not like the outcome.

A large number of our current issues come from law and policy that was passed to address issues of the day with no understanding of how or why things were happening. Let's not continue that trend.

> what value do you expect out of the responses

Why even make that argument in the first place then? It's the equivalent (following your logic) of saying that "it would be nice if we were living in an utopian society with no material scarcity" which doesn't mean much unless you can at least provide some explanation of how we should get there.

> The work necessary to properly answer this question is a team of 100+ domain experts working for at least 5 years.

I don't think we live in a video game where you can just spend "research points" to develop new economic systems that somehow magically improve economic productivity and solve complex socio-economical problems?

> Why even make that argument in the first place then?

Making an argument doesn't require to describe every step to it, if I told you could use your GPS to navigate to work, you're not gonna ask me how to launch a satellite in space.

> It's the equivalent (following your logic) of saying that "it would be nice if we were living in an utopian society with no material scarcity"

Copyright have nothing to do with material scarcity, neither does UBI, that is about money, a man made social construct, not a material thing.

exactly as you say, an argument for UBI doesn't necessarily need to mean retreading the whole history of UBI designs and legislatures, it just means someone would like to UBI exist without necessarily having to be an expert on how to implement it. I wanted to eat some sushi today and I didn't start questioning myself "well how would you evolve sushi rice starting with a wild rice cultivar", i just went to the store and bought it and now i'm fine. there are experts for that sort of thing and I leave it up to them. I guess if someone doesn't realize there are experts for topics then that betrays they think they are an expert with everything.

> just means someone would like to UBI exist without necessarily having to be an expert on how to implement

I would like eco-friendly flying cars to exist so that I could avoid traffic in the morning, I think that would solve all the mass transit and infrastructure problems in major cities.

No clue how to build one but I'm sure that 500 experts should be able to accomplish it if they really tried it. Until they do that nobody is allowed to question the validity of this universal solution to all transportation related problems that humanity is facing.