The US should distribute/lease federal lands to the poor

Thanks for the argument, Con. Well, it is quite apparent that my opponent has dropped a few of my points. I had more than 7 points while he had only 5 in rebuttals. First, allow me to rebut the one's he did actually refute, and then I will display the arguments he didn't even touch. 1. Lands can benefit the collectiveMy opponent concedes here that this is simply a matter of opinion. That's not a very good way to refute an argument, however, especially no in the last round. We have differing opinions and no one proved it either way. Luckily for me, my opponent has the BOP. It was his job to convince the audience that this would indeed benefit the collective, he did nothing of the sort. All that my opponent is saying on this matter is that "I honestly believe that having more people in the workforce, stimulating the economy and consumption, is more beneficial to the collective at this point in time. " Saying you think one way or another is not proving a point. This point is effectively shattered. (I'm lumping the second paragraph in my next rebuttal. )2. Land UseThis is a fine demonstration on how the land would be divided up, by isn't my opponent getting a little ahead of himself? This seems pretty far from anything I said in the debate, so it must not be a rebuttal. I'm not sure why at all this is necessary. I actually never questioned how the land would be cut up or challenged the idea that giving the same amount of land to all poor would be unfair. Again, it is a nice demonstration and equation, but has no bearing on the case at hand. My opponent claims that the average private (sort of) farm given to poor families would be 1000-3000 acres. Lets just make it 2000 for simplicity. I'm going to try my hand at some math here as well. Since m opponent did earlier say, "Millions of workers operating private farms for free. " earlier, I think I can expose a fallacy. I'm still not clear on my opponent's intentions. He claims that receiving land would now be based on your income. However, there is a problem with this. Not everyone with a low income can be given land. The U. S. government simply doesn't have enough to do this. Lets just take one million private farms (that is what my opponent proposed is it not? ) and times that by 2000 (2000 acre farms). The number you receive is 2 billion. Yes folks, that's 2 billion acres my opponent think the government has, ready for farm use. That is preposterous. We have millions of acres of government land, not billions. My opponent's idea is much smaller than he imagined. However, no matter the size, it wouldn't even work.3. Operating Costs Exceed DemandI find this point to be very, very weak. First off, my opponent claims that "operating a farm costs more than the average real estate bid. " I honestly do not see what you are getting at. What is the connection between the case at hand an average real estate bids? Audience, please ignore that point, it has no connection to the case. My opponent also brings up the USDA trying to push for an agricultural surplus. This may be true. However, the U. S. is not "sitting on all the land we need to do this. " My opponent completely ignored my point about the ways in which this land actually is being used. These uses included recreation, energy production, animal grazing, and many others. See my link in round 2 for more. "We are sitting on all the land we need to do this, and since people are spending no money, and the sharecropping institution is ran collectively, we can operate and run farms for nearly free. "Don't be misled by this nice plate of word salad. Since people are spending no money? Which people is this referring to? The U. S. citizens I know spend their fair share of money. My opponent claims that somehow this statement shows how farms can be run and operated for nearly free. However, this does not really make sense. No matter what, tractors must be purchased, diesel and gas must be supplied, seed must be bought, repairs must be paid for, and taxes must be fulfilled. That seems like a good number of expenses there. Farming is hardly free, even sharecropping.4. Success on the homesteadI'm certainly glad my opponent clarified himself. However, I have little to refute here because I have now been using the idea of sharecropper farms for all my rebuttals. I do want to highlight one thing though. "Under the supervision of the government. " This may not be a problem, but again it may. I'm not saying the government is corrupt or something, I'm simply saying that when things are fully in the hands of the people, they seem to be much more effective and productive. I want talk to much about this point, but I thought I should point it out. My opponent's explanation of the housing on these collective farms is fine, I suppose I have no real problem with that. However, it doesn't really correspond to any of my arguments. Again, I think my opponent is getting ahead of himself. He is trying to start the project before he has been granted approval (by the audience that is). I can see my opponent has put a lot of time into developing his idea, but I am sorry to say, it wouldn't work. 5. I will concede this actually. I thought that by "distribute" my opponent meant to just give the lands away. This makes more sense. I'm glad we are now on the same page. Don't think this has much bearing on the debate though, audience. This point is relatively meaningless. We have been debating over the leasing idea this whole time anyway. DROPPED POINTSMy opponent has completely dropped a few of my points. I won't restate them, but I will list them here. Point 6 regarding the rancher scenarioPoint 1 regarding land usagePoint 2 regarding future developmentPoint 7 regarding the purchasing of equipmentCONCLUSIONMy opponent strengthened his case perhaps, but not considerably. He still fails to show that his would benefit society as a whole, how operating expenses would be paid for, and what land the government actually holds that could accomplish this. Pro had the BOP on this one and he did not fulfill his burden. The resolution has not been proven and is therefore, null. Thanks for an awesome debate ChosenWolff. This really was a lot of fun.