How, exactly, do you gather that a rebuke has been effective over the internet?
When it has the intended effect, which in this case is to either silence the person or make them go and research things more before speaking again; more research was in evidence later.
Another assumption you appear to make is that UBI would reduce crime. How do you come to this conclusion?
Not a UBI specifically, but a good welfare net. This is something which is widely-accepted, and is a major part of the justifications for any welfare spending at all. People have to have shelter and eat one way or another. The basic three options are working, charity, and crime.
Working is preferred by most unemployed people, but we have structured our society such that working is not always available; we have free trade destroying manufacturing jobs, but we have reams of regulations and permits and fees so that self-employment is not always possible.
Charity can take many forms, such as parents looking after their children (even as adults), church groups and so on. Government social welfare is simply formalised charity.
Crime is a general term, and includes ordinary old theft, but also self-employment which the government considers illegitimate, such as narcotics dealing.
If you restrict them from working and don't offer welfare, then you get crime instead. It's either that or people just die, but they tend not to be keen on doing that quietly, so there's crime. This is common sense and well-established.
Here I am assuming that a UBI would give similar results to welfare. This may or may not be a good assumption. There tends to be strong classism in the West, and it is assumed that the poor are too stupid to know what to do with their money, so you have to restrict it by giving them subsidised social housing rather than extra money which they could pay a private landlord with, or a grocery card or food stamps rather than just money to buy food with, and so on.
My experience being and knowing poor people is that they are not stupid, but that they are actually fairly skilled at getting by in difficult circumstances. I realise that the salaried middle class are uncomfortable with the idea that the poor are not stupid, because it undermines their self-esteem: "How can you say the poor are not stupid? If the poor are not stupid, then how did I get my wealth? It was my brains and hard work only! Pulled myself up by my own bootstraps!" etc.
I believe a UBI would give better results than does welfare. In my experience, many poor people are unable to improve their lives because they have to focus on the short-term, you can't worry about tomorrow if you may not even make it through today. And today you don't have much time because you have to apply for six jobs this fortnight even though you know they'll knock you back and you have to go to that Centrelink appointment and then later that seminar they want you to go to and then you have to argue with the guy at the post office when you're trying to get the concession on your gas bill and... by the way, this must all be done with travel on public transport, because you can't afford a car.
Whereas if we just gave them the cash without question (again, we already give cash to the middle class without question) they could focus better on tomorrow and do things to improve their lot. And maybe officials and store clerks and potential employers would, if we took the moral judgement out of payments by turning a pension into a UBI, treat the poor with more respect, making it easier for the poor to improve their lot, for example by getting a job or starting a (very) small business.
And hence we come back to moral judgments; and for me, despite zero evidence pointing in either direction, I sure as hell don't give my kids any allowance unless they get shit done around the house.
As others have pointed out, you're comparing different things. An "allowance" is for fun things. A pension or UBI is for basic subsistence. You feed and clothe your children regardless of whether they do chores, they just do chores for fun stuff like going to the movies and eating lollies. Your children will not be tossed out onto the streets to sleep under a bridge and hunt through a rubbish bin for something to eat if they fail to clean their room.
But a second point is that you give them jobs to do, and if they come up with their own jobs to do, you will praise and encourage and reward them. Whereas our Western society has destroyed many jobs by means of free trade and deregulation of large businesses, while at the same time hindering self-employment by endless regulations and permits. It would be like your paying a housekeeper to tidy their room and then wondering why your children do not tidy their rooms, or insisting they fill out several forms and pay you money (from where?) before allowing them to do any chores.
We had our honeymoon in Peru, and I saw there that there were no pensions, of course, since the country isn't wealthy like ours. But anyone could get a little burner, a pot and some corn and cook it up and sell it to passers-by. In most of the West you can't do that, you need Safe Food Handling Certificates and what about an open flame on a street corner and all those nice people in suits don't want to see a poor person squatting down next to a burner on the street so the police will move you along.
You would not outsource all your children's chores to someone else, harass them when they came up with their own new chores, and then rebuke them for their idleness, would you? And yet that is precisely what we do in the West with adult workers.
A government can either help, or get out of the way. Either works. Since we in the West insist on getting in people's way, we have to help. A UBI would, I believe, be more effective at getting out of people's way than the current welfare system.