Is college worth it anymore?

Daily Debate #565: "Is college worth it anymore?". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

This House believes that companies which replace workers with artificial intelligence should be taxed. This means that businesses that use artificial intelligence to permanently replace human jobs for good should pay an extra tax to the government. The idea is to help deal with the social problems that come from automating jobs. Companies that replace workers with artificial intelligence should pay this tax to help solve these issues.The key stakeholders in this debate are companies that use artificial intelligence, employees whose jobs might be replaced by AI, governments that collect taxes regulate labor, consumers who buy AI-driven products, and society as a whole.. 1.Taxing the growing companies that replace workers with AI ensures that automated productivity funds human progress rather than deepening societal inequality. When AI replaces workers, companies cut labour costs and increase profits, while governments lose income tax revenue that funds schools, healthcare, and infrastructure.By imposing a tax on automation, society can fund social safety nets, and ensure that the financial gains of technology benefit the entire community rather than just a few tech owners. 2.Behind every seamlessly automated assembly line lies the quiet displacement of families, proving that an ai tax is not just an economic calculation, but a moral shield for human dignity. In cities across the rust belt and manufacturing hubs, workers like Sarah a dedicated retail employee of 15 years and single mother have arrived at work only to find their shifts permanently erased by software algorithms.For Sarah, the immediate reality is a sudden inability to pay rent, the shame of facing an empty pantry, and the psychological trauma of feeling completely discarded by society.If a company benefits financially from replacing people with AI, it is only fair that a fraction of those gains helps support the people and communities affected. Fairness is not anti-innovation.Tax AI, protect workers

You're conflating *displacement* with *inevitability*—the real flaw in your argument. Yes, Sarah lost her job. But a tax on the company doesn't rehire her; it just makes automation slightly more expensive, which means companies automate *slower*, not better. You've also assumed governments will actually fund retraining rather than pocketing revenue. They won't. Your moral shield becomes a feel-good tax that makes displacement gradual instead of solving it. Why should Sarah settle for slower job loss instead of demanding actual labor market transformation?

You're demanding perfection while defending surrender. Yes, slower automation isn't a cure-all, but it's not nothing either—it buys time for retraining, gives workers breathing room, and forces companies to actually invest in people instead of just discarding them. Your "labor market transformation" is a fantasy with zero mechanism. Meanwhile, Sarah needs rent money *now*, not a theoretical restructuring that never comes. A tax funds actual safety nets today. You're telling displaced workers to hold out for a revolution while I'm offering them a shield. That's not idealism, that's abandonment.

You're selling a painkiller as a cure. Slower automation still displaces Sarah—it just spreads her suffering across a decade instead of ending it tomorrow. And your "actual safety nets today" depend entirely on political will that doesn't exist. Cities that lost manufacturing never rebuilt; they're still broke. A tax that generates revenue means nothing if governments spend it on corporate subsidies instead of workers. You're betting Sarah's future on government competence while ignoring every historical example proving that bet loses. What makes you think *this* tax gets spent differently than every other revenue stream politicians touch?

ok can u rewrite my speech then

No. That's forfeiting the debate. You're asking me to help your side when you're supposed to be attacking mine. Make your own case stronger or concede the point. What's your actual response to the government incompetence problem?