American Cannot Be Made Great Again Unless We Nationalize Housing

Whoa, whoa, whoa, let's back up a second.Breaking the character limit on the debate by using an outside source is extremely abusive and unfair.First, character limits exist in the debates for a reason, so that we can keep voters from reading novels for every round. Arbitrarily going over character limits would kill voting incentive on the site more than it's already dead, meaning that virtually no debate would ever receive a vote. This would kill the debating aspect of this site, which is a pretty bad thing to happen for people who are wanting to debate (like us right now).Second, he has zero excuse to want to go over the character limit because **HE'S THE ONE WHO MADE THE LIMIT IN THE FIRST PLACE**. When creating the debate you have the option to set what the character limit is. He set it to 8000 characters rather than 9000 or 10000. Of course none of those are anywhere close to the over 17k+ characters he wants to use in his last round, which makes it incredibly unfair to me. I have half the amount of characters he used to respond to all of the characters he used, which is really unfair. So it's pretty simple. I agreed to a debate with an 8k character limit, not a limitless debate. He's blatantly going over it. Hold him to the character limit. He reached the 8k mark in his last round at this point:"BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE! GOING TO THE 3D PRINTE"Anything after that should not be evaluated, unless he wants to bring these new arguments up in the final round (which will also be unfair because I can't make new arguments or offensive rebuttals in the final round because he can't respond to them. If I can't make new arguments or rebuttals, he shouldn't be able to either for fairness). BACK ONTO THE ACTUAL DEBATE. LETS START FROM THE TOP.Extend my first response to the nationalization plan that the entire idea he's presenting is the definition of utopian. All he does is list out a bunch of things that will happen and will work and will solve all the issues he's presenting to us to be solved without actually explaining how it actually does what he says it will do or if it's even possible in the first place. His response is that it isn't utopian, but "practical". That's not responsive to the argument I'm making because that still doesn't provide any of the warrants that he needs to actually provide the solvency behind his plan. Without it, we have no reason to want to buy into the plan.Extend my second response that says that there's zero way for the gov't to constitutionally nationalize the entire housing market. His response is to do it via making a national union to lobby and strike against the gov't to do things. That's not nationalization. Nationalization is literally defined as moving from private to government controlled[5]. Unions aren't government controlled, especially unions for private sector companies (like housing companies). If that's his plan, then he's not actually nationalizing anything, therefore isn't actually defending his original advocacy. Don't let him be a moving target because that's extremely unfair for me to have to constantly deal with him shifting his advocacy.But even if this would be considered nationalization, his plan falls apart on mutliple levels. A) He provides no actual warrant to show that a majority of renters would want to join this union, so we have no reason to believe that this portion of his plan will ever happen, B) There's no warrant provided to prove that this union would strike against the government in the first place, and C) Even if it did, the only change it would result in is they all lose their homes because they didn't pay rent on where they live. Extend my third response saying that we have no idea where any of this "credit" he says is being given out is coming from, which makes the plan super vague. He's says that the credit is equity, which is "just a piece of paper". This puts him in a double bind, either a) it is just a piece of paper and thus valueless and it wouldn't actually be able to change anything, or b) it does have value to it, thus we need to figure out who is financing that value we're giving to people. He doesn't provide any source, don't buy into the plan until he provides you with actual solvency.Extend my fourth response saying that this would tank the economy and hurt the taxpayers and point to the example of how we natinoalized Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. He says that this is a strawman because that's not what his plan is talking about. This puts him in an even worse double bind, either a) it's what he's talking about and he provides no responses to the economic harms to the government and taxpayers, or b) it isn't what he's talking about, which means he's not actually nationalizing anything because **THAT WAS THE RESULT OF NATIONALIZING HOUSING COMPANIES**. There's zero reason to ever think the plan could work. Also, even though none of his house build math actually applies to anything because it's a) still not nationalizing, and b) not his 3d printing plan (which he even admits), let's look at some of the abusrdities that he makes. "Want electricity, run an electrical cord." then promptly be arrested for stealing power from elecrtical companies without paying for it. "Want water, run a hose" then promptly be arrested for stealing water from water companies without paying your utility bill. 5/7 planning. Perfect. Much efficiency. So his plan has collapsed on five levels just from this point alone without looking to 3d printing. That's five reasons to negate. And, he never responds to any of the arguments I make against 3d printing within his character limit. Extend those all as dropped. But even if you ignore him going over the character limit, let's look at some of the responses.Extend my first response that we literally don't have the tech to do what he's suggesting, and won't for another century. His response is we can and sites his Home Depot example. A) This literally doesn't respond to the experts on 3D printing of homes who are saying to actually mass-produce cities we need another century to have the right tech to do it, meaning we can't do his plan, and B) even if his Home Depot example is relevant to this (it isn't at all), let's look at the math for it. That math solves for 1 house. Cool. 100 houses?Maybe. 1000 houses? Ehhh... 10000 houses? Little ridiculous...564k+ houses[6] to provide homes for all of the homeless people in America? Literal definition of absurdity.Extend my second response that the whole reason they're cheaper and more efficient is because they kill the amount of jobs in making houses from 26-32 on average[7] to **1** person. If he's wanting to make more jobs, he's literally doing the opposite of it. His response is that I suggest we should do a rain dance and push brooms? U wut m8? Talk about a strawman...control+f my last round and you won't find those words anywhere.So not only do we not have the tech to do what he wants to do, but doing so would kill the housing market and lay off virtually everyone working in it.CONCLUDING:Debate is pretty simple. Hold him to the 8k character limit. His plan is entirely unrealistic and, even if it were possible, would hurt us more than help us. No reason to want to do the plan, so you negate.[5] - https://www.google.com...[6] - http://www.socialsolutions.com...[7] - http://www.plummersdisposal.com...