The US should distribute/lease federal lands to the poor

Thanks to my opponent for his arguments. My argument and my rebuttals are interconnected, but I will provide a short argument to start off. I want to remind the voters that my opponent has the BOP. He must sufficiently prove that this a sound action and one that will benefit citizens nationwide. ARGUMENT My main argument won't be nearly as long as my rebuttals, but here goes. Although this may seem at first glance like a sound and fair solution, it is not. Despite what my opponent says, these lands do have uses (which I will explain in more detail in my rebuttals. The current uses of the lands are things that my opponent apparently takes for granted. The whole of the U. S. is entitled to these lands. These lands have been developed, maintained, protected, and paid for by tax dollars. We, as American citizens, have set aside these lands. Government land is not to be merely given away to a certain demographic of society, it is for everyone. It is simply unfair to the majority of America if these lands are forsaken by the Government. That is why these lands must remain in government hands, in our hands. REBUTTALS 1. There are millions of acres of Government-controlled unused land. This is simply not true. Government agencies do indeed control a vast amount of land, but they are not being used for nothing. The BLM uses vast amounts of land for various purposes. These purposes benefit society in general (not just one demographic, which is what simply handing them out to the poor would be. ) The various uses of these lands include: providing lands for renewable or otherwise energy production, animal grazing, outdoors recreation, mineral development, and many other society-benefiting programs and operations. Just click on the link to see all the other uses for BLM-controlled land. . http://www.blm.gov... 2. Future Development If there is really Government-owned land being used for absolutely no purpose, I would like some actual proof. Once you specify what land you are talking about, which you have not done at all, I will be able to rebut your properly on this point. 3. Distributing or Leasing? My opponent seems like he can't decide if the land will be simply handed out to the poor and unemployed, or if the poor and unemployed will sign lease agreements with the government for control of the land. I would remind him that these are very different things and that he must specify. 4. Giving land to unemployed would fix unemployment. I hardly see how this would work. My opponent suggests that simply by leasing (or at least I think he means leasing) land to the unemployed we would cure the problem. However, just because an unemployed citizen has leased land doesn't mean he will be successful. How is this person to purchase a home? What job is the person expected to take? How is this person expected to feed his family? There are many viable solution to the unemployment problem, but this is not one of them. 5. Earn income, receive justifiable welfare, and begin to pay their taxes. What income is my opponent referring to? How does moving to the American countryside help these people earn an income? How are they to start farms and ranches? My opponent is making a lot of assertions without properly explaining any of them. He has a fanciful and all-to-simple solution to a real world problem. Don't be deceived audience, this is not the simple fix to unemployment the U. S. is looking for. 6. Administering distributed lands I think this is much more complex than my opponent realizes. The U. S. government may not be able to reclaim the land as easily as he proposes. Picture this. Pro's plan actually works (which I highly doubt it would) and a previously unemployed family starts a new life as ranchers in Nebraska. They build up their ranching business, buy more cattle, and lead a successful life. Then, say 50-100 years later, the government shows up at their homestead and demands that they leave the area because now the government wants to develop it. Would this really go off without a hitch? We have already seen plenty of examples of farmers and ranchers protesting government intervention on their land with armed defenses, Supreme Court cases, and absolute refusal to vacate. Why would this situation be any different? I'd like for Pro to explain that to the audience and I. 7. Millions of workers operating private farms for free I have a problem with this statement. Operating private farms for free? First of all, just because someone has land doesn't mean they have a farm (I am a "farm-boy" as one might say, so I would know. ) The costs of purchasing the equipment alone for farming is extremely high. I'm talking hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single tractor or combine. Not to mention property tax. (or would the rest of us foot the bill on this as well? ) M My second problem with this statement regards the "for free" segment. How can these workers be operating farms "for free? " As I just mentioned, farms take money to run, even after the initial price of land. Who is paying for the operation of these farms? Because if you really expect millions of workers to operate private farms "for free," then that would translate to millions upon millions of extra tax dollars being required. Billions of dollars in tax revenue and stir corporate competition It would not if these unemployed people couldn't successfully start farms, which you haven't proven yet. Always a job opportunity Having land doesn't necessarily equate to job opportunities. You made a very large and illogical jump in saying that just because these unemployed people have leased land they would have job opportunities. fishing, ranching, or farming All of these professions require a large amount of start-up money. My opponent has not show where this start-up money will be coming from or how it will be raised. All at no expense to the US government or the people Yes. No expense other than the loss of public lands that belong to the U. S. government (which translates to the U. S. populous) These lands have many current uses that benefit those in all walks of life, not just the unemployed. I have made apparent that my opponent has a half-baked plan to fix unemployment that may sound good on paper but would obviously not work in a real-world environment. I once again would like to point out that my opponent has the full BOP. The resolution has been negated and dismantled.