The policy PRO advocates is superior to the status quo.

I don't think any definitions are needed. My opponent is free to provide some if (s)he feels it necessary. === THE POLICY === Here is what the policy entails. I will not add more of these after this first round. P1. A new government organization is created, henceforth called "Org." P2. Welfare benefits for having children while poor are taken away. Other assistance specifically targeted at helping poor people be parents is also cut. P3. All parents are allowed to give custody of their children to Org. P4. Org approaches poor parents with the proposition of giving their children to Org, and tries to convince them that it is a good idea. P5. Org hires and trains a workforce to raise its children. P6. Org builds headquarters in areas that are ripe for development. P7. Org raises children in bulk with its professional workforce at HQ. P8. If/when the cost of living in the area gets relatively high due to development, Org begins building a new HQ in another area that's not yet as developed but could be in the future. P9. When the new HQ is ready, the operation moves to the new HQ and the old HQ is sold off at a profit. P10. Org raises its children in a way that maximizes their mean success in life in ways that are responsible on a societal level (based on expert opinions on raising children and socialization, but adapting techniques to work with the nonstandard family unit). === THE BENEFITS === These are the reasons the policy is better than the status quo. I reserve the right to add more of these in the second round as I see fit. I will defend or explain any of these my opponent takes issue with. B1. Poor people are no longer given a large incentive to have children. B2. Children of the poor are no longer so much less likely to become successful individuals due to bad parenting or parents who don't have the means to parent well. B3. People who don't want their children are given an easy out. These children will be more likely to become successful due to not having parents apathetic or resentful of them. B4. More success, in B2 and B3, equates to not only more prosperity for the economy as a whole, but also more tax dollars for the government. Considering how little it costs for the government to raise children in bulk, and how much money a successful individual ends up making, the increased tax revenue due to the program will more than pay for the program itself. B5. Less forms of aid for the poor means a leaner budget. B6. Less people who are poor, from P10, also leads to less people we have to aid with still-existing aid programs. B7. From P6, extra development occurs that brings with it even more economic growth to society. B8. From P9, the government gets even more profit. B9. The existing poor who give their children to Org will no longer be so burdened when it comes to their time and money, allowing them to do other things with those resources (pursue escaping poverty, even). B10. Extra incentive to escape poverty is created, due to the desire people have to raise children and the inability to do that without being at least somewhat successful. B11. New jobs as child-raisers are directly created. === THE DRAWBACKS? === I ask that if my opponent has drawbacks to list about my policy, (s)he label them as D#, in much the same way I have labeled benefits as B# and the aspects of the policy as P#. I thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate, and I thank all of you for reading and judging. Hopefully it is engaging.