National Join Capitalism Fund

I'm going to be honest: this hasn't been my favorite debate. For one, my opponent didn't even address half of it until my final round. For two, every argument in rounds two and three are me repeating myself and my opponent just saying that I haven't made any actual argument or that it's only my opinion.That said, I still do appreciate that my opponent has accepted this debate. I will be making another one hoping that my next opponent follows the rules.I have put my tally at the end of this argument, but obviously it's up to you, the voter, who wins. "The Pro side is whining about the fact that I have chosen to debate the morality or lack thereof morality."I'm not "whining", I'm pointing out that Con has refused to follow the rules which he explicitly accepted when he began this debate. Also, referring to your opponent's counterpoints as "whining" is not really good form, so I ask that voters would remember that ad hominem." Let it be known here and now the Con side has refuted all of the points the Pro side has provided so far about the morality of the National Join Capitalist Fund"I disagree. Con has not made any argument against the counterpoints of Pro's side. Con has only insisted that Pro has no basis or that all of Pro's arguments are opinion."Again, he has not defined where his basis for this equality is from other than his own opinion."Actually, I have said repeatedly and without opinion: BEFORE the introduction of landed property, any land would obviously be open to use by any individual. AFTER the introduction of landed property, the use of that land began to require permission. That's a loss of opportunity. That's not opinion, that's observable fact. Repeating that something is only opinion doesn't make it so. "The concept of rights are relative whether the Pro side likes it or not."And a second ago my opponent was insisting that, since my side was opinion (it's not), it was invalid. "Therefore no one has an obligation to even acknowledge such a concept exists because it was created by another human being."... this isn't a relevant argument, but I'll respond to it anyway. We have no obligation to acknowledge concepts that were created by other human beings? ... like every concept ever?Voter, can you name a concept that wasn't created? The very word "concept" implies that it had a conception and was conceived by another human being. A concept, by definition, is human-created. "If the fund payed [sic] student debt, it wouldn't be fair to those who didn't go to college"If my opponent had bothered to make an argument like this before my final round, I could have explained this to him. Instead, he waited to point out this "problem" based on misunderstanding what I mean.I will only know how many other misunderstandings there are after Con has posted his final argument, because I have no way of addressing them now. I have been robbed of a good final round by Con.The fund doesn't pay student debts. The fund pays money. The student may choose to use it to pay student debts if he/she so wishes. " they are not receiving this benefit of having their mistake being paid for."They're receiving the same benefit. They can use the fund to start a business or something, if they like. They don't AVE to go to college to get the money. I never said that. That's not unfair. The entire argument that my opponent has made against the fairness of the Fund based on student loans is based on Con not understanding what I was saying. That would be fine for Round 2, but I don't think it's acceptable for the second argument in Round 3 in a 4-round debate. I feel obliged to point out that, again, we could have actually discussed this if my opponent hadn't waited until my Round 4 to bring it up. "Poverty can't be eliminated because it is relative."1. Relative things can certainly be eliminated. Why not? If we say that one below $10,000/year is impoverished and say that everyone gets $10,000/year, we will have eliminated relative poverty by our relative definition. It is relative. And it is based on what standard of living people are able to afford. It is subjective. But there's a pretty consistent definition of poverty. Especially since the federal government sets a poverty line. If you are at the point where you find it difficult to feed your kids every day, I would say you are impoverished. This fund would destroy that. That brings me to:2. Abject poverty is not relative. If you are homeless with no money, you're poor. There's no "oh, but he has a TV". He doesn't have a TV, he doesn't have money, he doesn't have many clothes, he doesn't have a place to sleep and stay warm, he doesn't bathe often, and he doesn't eat regularly. This fund would also have a positive effect on that. " Demand is increasing so price would increase significantly as well. There is a limited supply in housing, so prices must rise."This issue is small and can easily be solved with things outside the fund or with the fund's financing.Please note that this is not an argument about the financing, but a proposed solution to Con's objection.If the fund were financed by a land value collection, housing prices would go down.A land value tax encourages using as little land as possible to as high an economic benefit as possible. That means lots of multi-unit construction and an influx of rentable properties to the market. That would make housing demand fall sharply."Most small businesses fail. It would be more beneficial to burn the money then waste a large sum of money. A minority of small businesses are successful."Most small businesses fail, so it would be more beneficial to burn the money?That doesn't even begin to follow. Even if it did, shouldn't burning the money be their choice? When the person spends that money to build his/her business, they are bolstering other businesses. Burning the money would objectively be worse."Employers will not compete for inexperienced 18 year old employees."... they will if that's what they're looking for.McDonald's doesn't hire PhDs and Foremen to man the grill.Also, the effects of the fund are more far-reaching than just 18-year olds. It, like every major economic change, would affect everyone.If a 28-year old still had his old payout, he, too would benefit from the competition by employers."How could these 18 year olds be successful and manage their finances without experience?"By experiencing? The same way everyone learns. Why would I care if they decide to blow it all? It's their decision. It's their money. It's their fault.I wouldn't have wasted it if it were given to me. The way I would vote: 1. Spelling and grammar: definitely should go to Pro because of Con's numerous spelling mistakes. At one point he put "of" instead of "have". At another he spelled "paid" with a 'y' (i.e. "payed").2. Conduct: I'll just say that Con didn't actually provide an argument against the second half of the debate he accepted until I couldn't respond more than once. Con also referred to my requests that he argue the other half of the debate as "whining". Not exactly good form. 3. Better arguments: Since Con didn't make an argument against literally half of the Pro side until Pro's final round, I think Pro should get that point from the get go. However, there is a question I'd like to ask the voter: Does this sound like opinion to you? : " before the introduction of private property in the form of land, any individual could go to any piece of land and labor upon it, after land became private property, that individual would need to ask the landowner's permission first"--Because Con insists repeatedly throughout this debate that that's just an opinion. 4. Sources: I think sources could go either way.