Argument 1 looks at BI on a practical level and asks questions such as: Is BI feasible? Will it ever be feasible? Who should administer it? What would it mean for the economy?
Argument 2 deals with BI more on a social level and can even be modeled as a thought experiment: What would people do if they had basic income? Would it remove the incentive to work? Would it reduce inequality? Would it offer more freedom to recipients or less?
Many people (including the author of this article) make grand claims like "It's obvious that it'll fail"; "It's obvious that people will stop being productive members of society if they have BI"; "It's obvious that it's not feasible".
I think that the most persuasive argument, and one advocated by the YCombinator experiment, is "We need more data". This holds true especially for argument 2 (how will people react if they received BI). Argument 1 for me is less interesting, but my rudimentary understanding of economics and politics is enough for me to be sure that anyone who declares a black-and-white position on the idea probably needs to spend some more time thinking and reading about it.
No matter whether you are for or against BI, you should be happy that these experiments are being done. If you're against it, they will provide evidence that you are right and then people can "Just stop talking about it already". That's not going to happen because you wrote an overly long rant against it. If you are for BI, such experiments might confirm your hypotheses that BI will be beneficial to recipients and will allow us to move more towards argument 1 (is BI feasible? where will the money come from?).