American Cannot Be Made Great Again Unless We Nationalize Housing

So this debate breaks down really simply. In order for a policy action to actually be something that's can be implimented, there has to be some sort of reason to believe that the plan is going to work as it's intended. Otherwise, why would we want to impliment it in the first place? This means it's on the Aff to provide the solvency that shows that the plan he's proposing is going to actually work. Otherwise, we have no reason to want to do the aff's plan and, thus, no reason to affirm.I'm providing empirical evidence as well as analytic refutation that shows that, at best, you should be super skeptical as to the feasibility of this plan. His response to my calls for evidence is "It's conceptual. If my opponent wants all the minutiae he'll have to quit complaining about word count, because it will take volumes to provide those proofs."Reject this idea entirely. You should prefer empirical evidence over analytics for a lot of reasons:First, Logic allows us to theoretically justify any action that we want to say is okay to do if we spend long enough thinking about it. This can lead to the justification of a lot of absurd conclusions under the basis of "it's just conceptual". Just look at all the times I've argued that suffering is a good thing[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15], or that morality is a bad thing[16]. Empirics don't let us come to absurd conclusions - 20% of something is 20% of something, regardless of how much theorizing I want to do to say that it's 50%. Second, don't let him say that size restraints means that we can't use sources so theorizing is better. I've been using sources in literally every round of this debate and I'm still ahead in the debate. It's definitely not a size thing, because a) he's already broken the size rule once, and b) he even admitted he had characters left at the end of his last round, meaning that easily could've been used for citations. There's no reason to not provide the solvency for the plan.Third, even if size was a restraint, this doesn't lead to the conclusion that just theorizing potential things is better than providing warranted arguments. That's a massive gap in logic that (surprise surprise) doesn't have any kind of warrant as to why that's actually a true statement. And analytical arguments don't even need sources - just an explanation as to why something you said is true or how something you said is going to happen. That's what I've been doing for the majority of this debate. Not making an argument that doesn't rely on empirics doesn't mean that you don't need evidence or warrants as to why what you're saying is true.Fourth, it doesn't matter how many ways you want to try and theorize that 1 + 2 = 5 because factually the statement is false. Theorization naturally falls short when there's empirical evidence provided that contradicts the theory. That's what I've done.This has a lot of really troubling implications for the aff's plan given that he's never provided a single piece of evidence or a single warrant for anything he's said in this entire debate. This means that the plan fails and the debate is a really easy negative vote.That's really all that needs to be said, but I want to go out and point out some key parts of his last round that makes his plan go from shambles to literal rubble.He says "My opponent says my idea is utopian. Utopian is defined: ... idealistic"Idealism is literally defined as pursuing ideals especially unrealistically[17]. My arguments are showing that the plan in numerous places is the definition of unrealistic and he has provided no warrants to show that the plan is realistic. If anything his arguments are that his plan doesn't have to be realistic. Literal definition of utopian.Moreover, I can ditch the term and the argument doesn't change - he says a lot of really cool ideas but never provides any kind of reasoning as to how they'll actually happen or why they'll actually work. His only response to this throughout the entire debate is that he doesn't like the word utopian. This just further discredits the plan.He says in a long paragraph "My opponents said all I did was list a bunch of things and say they will work. Not true. ... The pro"s take it from there."I know it's really long-winded and not very well broken up and a grind to actually read through, but actually take a moment to read through it. NOWHERE IN THERE IS THERE A WARRANT AS TO WHY THESE THINGS THAT HE IS SAYING SHOULD AND WILL HAPPEN WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN. That's literally the indict I've been making this entire time, and the very argument he'strying to say isn't true. The paragraph confirms my argument rather than rejects it.He says "My opponents says unions are not nationalism. He is right." This is a de facto concession. If you wanna take a look back at his plan from the first round is where he literally says that the first step of his plan is "1. All residential rentals become nationalized." If his plan isn't nationalization, he's not following his original advocacy statement, which means he's being a moving target, which is super unfair for me to have to deal with. Force him to stick to his original advocacy statement - that's what I came into the debate expecting to discuss and it's what I've been discussing this entire debate. To allow him to change it throughout makes it impossible for me to make arguments against him that he can't just shift out of (you can even see this by his attempts to get out of the example I provide for why nationalizing housing is a terrible idea via Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - that's literal government nationalization and he's saying it's not applicable to his plan. If it's not applicable, he's not nationalizing. If it is applicable, it's showing that his plan makes things worse rather than better, which turns his case and he provides no refutation to it.) A stepping stone isn't enough - if I say that in five minutes I will eat frozen yogurt, saying that in five minutes I'll start driving to go get frozen yogurt is the same thing is entirely false since they are two entirely different statements. Me driving my car is not me eating frozen yogurt, even if I'm driving to go get some. Pretty terrible implications to the debate. He's literally conceding that he's not actually doing what he said he would do, which means he has no offense in this round. Easy negative vote.CONCLUSION:Debate is super simple. He hasn't provided you with a single reason to believe his plan is a good idea or that it will work. I'm providing you with a litany of reasons as for why it won't work and what it'll make things worse rather than better. You vote negative.SOURCES:[8] - http://www.debate.org...[9] - http://www.debate.org...[10] - http://www.debate.org...[11] - http://www.debate.org...[12] - http://www.debate.org...[13] - http://www.debate.org...[14] - http://www.debate.org...[15] - http://www.debate.org...[16] - http://www.debate.org...[17] - https://www.google.com...