Agricultural Subsidies are a waste

Thank you for starting this debate. "Agricultural subsidies in the context of my debate are shown to be taxpayer dollars given to farmers so that farmers will not produce crops in the current year. The point is to lessen the supply of crops and thus increase the price, thus making them more profitable for farmers who are producing crops." While this is true in certain contexts it is also true that subsidies are given to farmers as a cushion for when they had a bad year or when their are disasters like floods, hurricanes, or a freeze that kills the crops. The subsidies are used to control the market if their is a surplus then the farmers don't need to plant. When their are shortages then subsidies are still given to farmers so that they can plant even more. "Farming is a negative externality because it is responsible for producing about 15 to 20 percent of global methane emissions come from livestock. John Robbins, author of The Food Revolution and Diet for a New America, says that methane is 24 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, the culprit normally at the center of global warming discussions." I assume the word farming refers to crops my opponent equivocates crops to producing methane however as he pointed out that methane emission comes from livestock. If my opponent referred to farming as livestock then my apologies While I concede that cows are responsible for the most methane emissions that I believe is irrelevant to this debate whether agricultural subsidies are a waste. Agricultural subsidies refers to crops not livestock. "The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports that animals in the U.S. meat industry produce 61 million tons of waste each year, which is 130 times the volume of human waste produced, or five tons for every U.S. citizen. In addition to its impact on climate, hog, chicken and cow waste has polluted some 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17 states, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency." I concede to this but I must point out that you are talking about industry (corporation) an entity almost completely free from gov't interference. "If we were to stop subsidizing farming, it would become not as profitable as other industries, thus gradually those seeking to become farmers would choose different career paths and the overall number of farmers would decrease as farmers retire/die. Thus the amount of livestock and crops would lessen in number which would drive the prices of food back to an acceptable profit range that subsidization currently makes possible." My opponent has this view that livestock are kept in farms and by decreasing the number of farmers livestock should decrease as well however that is false the number of livestock is not dependent on the number of farmers. Livestock are usually kept nearby factories unless he is talking about dairy farms; however I have dismissed this because my opponent has used the term "livestock" referring to domesticated animals like cows,pigs,horses,chickens, etc. SUBSIDIZING FARMING IS NECESSARY I negate that agricultural subsidies are a waste of taxpayer dollars they are in fact necessary making them the opposite of a waste. While my opponent can argue that they are a negative externality he must also ague that agricultural subsidies are in fact a waste. C1 - Arable Land - The amount of arable land has decreased in major cities every new building that is made takes away from the amount of arable land for cities with vast expanse of arable land this is not a problem. If the use of land was left up to the "free market" there wouldn't be food or grain left to the community. Market prices for residential and commercial land is way higher than expected earn on farm land. Because of this the gov't must offer incentive in the form of subsidies to have farmers keep and farm the land instead of selling out to development companies. I would like to expound on this point more but time is of the essence. Thank you once again for starting this debate. cordially, HPG