The policy PRO advocates is superior to the status quo.

With that, I will begin by addressing the drawbacks he presents in round 1. === REBUTTAL: The Drawbacks === Re: D1 - My opponent brings up that the process for creating Org is unclear. This is quite true. However, this topic is about whether the policy itself is superior to the status quo - not whether the policy is likely to replace the status quo or whether there exists a suitable method for changing the status quo to enact this policy. Simply put, the resolution means that, if enacted, the policy I am advocating creates a better outcome for society than the status quo does - not that enacting it is easy or likely. If my opponent finds it fit to disagree further on this point, I will attempt to address his worries sufficiently in my final round without bringing in new arguments. Re: D2-4 - My opponent takes issue here with provisions P2-4 of my policy, where I take away government-given benefits that help poor people raise children, and allow and coerces poor parents to give their children to Org. These provisions are very important, and it is not begrudgingly that I defend them. Consider a free market. Some people are wealthy enough to raise a child without too much struggle, others are not. However, one of the problems with a free market is that it allows people to fall into such deep suffering that they cannot escape and even often die without some sort of charity. The form of charity we happen to provide them with in this case is taxpayer dollars. A necessary cost, perhaps, but why spend more than we have to, and why allow the sad cycle of poor people creating more poor people to continue. As it is, we're subsidizing poverty, allowing it to beget more and more of itself and become a bigger and bigger burden on productive society. That's not wise behavior. My opponent claims that I'm taking away some fundamental right that everyone has to raise children without financial worry, but the truth is that that's a privilege that these same people don't get in a free market, and it's a privilege that's harmful to society to give people. It's harmful to society economically, it's harmful to the human race genetically, and it's harmful to these same poor people because it's nigh impossible to escape poverty when you're spending your time and money raising children. Re: D5 - My opponent suggests that there need be some source of funding for the caretakers, and I assume also for the initial investment needed to pay for building HQ. One source would be the money we save by not helping poor people raise their own children. This money is already assumed to be enough to raise the children. My opponent also takes issue with raising children "in bulk," claiming that it would not provide the children with enough personal time with caretakers. One of the good things about raising children in bulk is that other children can act as supplements for caretaker time. However, it's true that there would have to be enough caretakers per child to adequately raise them. One caretaker per 10-15 children would likely be enough for effective raising of children. The role of caretaker would pay a low amount. However, it would also require no prior experience, and training would be given. Perhaps, you think, there would be not enough demand in the job market for such a position that's low-paying. However, by taking away from the poor the luxury of automatically getting paid to raise their own children, a poor group of people would all of a sudden be quite interested in the prospect of getting paid to be "parents. " Re: D6,8,9 - My opponent takes issue with moving the Org to poorer areas one current areas get rich enough because poorer areas are more dangerous. However, if we recall that Org is primarily taking kids out of poor areas, it seems obvious that my opponent just gave me a new benefit that fully counteracts this point. Combined with the profit gained from this exercise, moving HQ is overall beneficial. Re: D7 - Raising children in bulk in an institution does not leave them without a sense of belonging, or an ungrounded sense of home, as my opponent suggests. Unlike apathetic parents or an orphanage, Org would be quite involved in the children's lives. Org would be quite interested in molding the children into something useful, with pushing children to follow their passions. And like I point out in P10, good socialization techniques would be used in raising the children, most likely meaning they would feel like Org was where they belonged. Re: D10 - My opponent rightly points out that I have failed to define "success. " I largely refer to economic success here, specifically economic success that helps society rather than leeches off of it (think providing a useful service as opposed to ripping someone off - both are economically successful, but only one is responsible "on a societal level" as I qualified in P10). Economic success for children who were largely otherwise doomed to be poor means they will also likely end up happier than they would have been. My opponent claims that children have to be treated as individuals. I can't say if he's right, but if experts on child development and socialization agree with him, then they would do just that per my qualifications in P10 ("based on expert opinions on raising children and socialization, but adapting techniques to work with the nonstandard family unit"). If the experts disagree, and think that children can effectively be raised without being treated as individuals, then they would perhaps go against my opponent's advice, though I think we can trust experts in the fields more than we can trust my opponent's assertion about what's necessary for raising children effectively. == My opponent says parents' love can't be replaced by bureaucracy, but both are part of raising children in either case. Making raising children on low income is bad for society - it should not be the goal.