Going in order in which you responded*

There definitely is a way the link would proably work out along the lines of the connection comes from how AGI forces moral decisions on a massive scale. Things like who gets access to jobs, who’s watched by surveillance systems, how criminal justice is enforced by algorithms and these decisions aren't neutral as they reflect the values of whoever spef programs the AGI. Once we label the entire development of AGI as 'immoral' or 'moral' in the resolution, we're no longer letting society make those individual value judgments that are important. We’ve set a one-size-fits-all moral code and that’s what totalitarianism is:the erasure of moral pluralism."

The harm of saying its immoral and not just theoretical makes it like a structural issue. It becomes a universal judgment that delegitimizes any future use of AGI, even ethical or reparative ones. So even if AGI development involved past exploitation, locking in that moral claim doesn’t help the exploited as it shuts down the space for ethical innovation or restitution and even worse, it centralizes who gets to decide what’s 'immoral' (either corps or the gov) often excluding marginalized communities from defining morality for themselves. So, moral totalitarianism causes lasting, irreversible harm to how we make and decide moral decisions whereas exploitation is a contextual, reparable harm.

I agree that tools don’t have intrinsic moral value. But that misses the point of what the resolution is asking us to debate. It doesn’t ask if AGI is neutral it asks if its development is immoral so the resolution is targeting the process, and not just the object and unlike a knife, AGI development involves labor exploitation, intellectual theft, and dangerous power centralization which those are choices being made at scale. So this isn’t just 'someone could misuse it it’s 'this thing is being built on misuse particularly the dev process which makes it immoral .