OK. For this debate, dear professor and distinguished members from the opposing team, and good afternoon to everyone. Our side believes that the private ownership of land is better than the collective ownership. From the perspective of environmental protection, the private ownership will help the development of urban areas, bringing a structure with greater climate resilience. According to the German constitution, for example, land ownership is protected by law, but it is prohibited to use it for any illegal purpose or environmental destruction. Germany has formulated a series of policies for urban planning and environmental protection to ensure the rational use and sustainable environmental development. According to statistical data, private ownership provides about forty percent of the urban vegetation cover. This comes from sources such as other public entities and institutions with shared responsibilities. Additionally, private ownership can enhance the landowners' care for land resources, facilitating proper cultivation and rotation, and improving the economic and environmental conditions, reducing environmental problems such as soil erosion and infertility.

　　Secondly, from the perspective of social development. For instance, in rural areas, the private ownership of land protects the interests of farmers and promotes social stability. Private ownership helps to clarify property rights, allowing farmers to have full land rights. It prevents the depression of farmers' production prices due to false land expropriation, reduces land disputes, and maintains social stability.

　　From the perspective of economic development, private ownership is the most effective way of improving productivity and optimizing production. It avoids free riding and encourages landowners to flexibly use land, allowing the privatization and circulation of land and planning land use according to the market demand. This improves the effective allocation and utilization efficiency of resources. Although the private ownership seems to block land resources, it is actually easier to achieve land transactions, leading to centralized and intensive use of land, achieving agricultural scale operation, promoting agricultural modernization, and increasing farmers' income. Meanwhile, the private ownership will encourage landowners to invest in and improve the land as they can directly benefit from this investment. In the USA, many landowners are willing to try new agricultural technology and management methods, increasing agricultural input.

　　From the perspective of industrialization, the private ownership of land is conducive to capital accumulation. One of the factors that constrain the economic development of developing countries is the scarcity of capital and insufficient financial capabilities, especially in rural areas. With private ownership, the value of land can be increased, the availability of mortgage loans can be improved, and investment capital can be increased. At the same time, the private ownership can reduce the constraints of farmers, allowing them to freely sell or lease land and use the proceeds as capital for their own development. It also removes the barriers to industrialization and meets the land demand in this process.

　　So, these are our views that the private ownership of land is much better than the collective one. Thank you.

　　Now let's move. Our position is in favor of collective ownership of land. Firstly, public services are provided for the common good, and we also emphasize that it is crucial to reach positions that benefit the public. As you know, there is one of our enlos (This part seems unclear and may contain an error). And it is also important in environmental sustainability and the economy. It also offers ecosystems and fundamental preservation of biodiversity, maintaining environmental health and mineral resources. For instance, habitat creation and making them sustainable. Public plans also serve functions that cannot be effectively fulfilled through privatization, including facilitating resource planning for sustainable development. They also authorize prior conservation and ecological management. The government can respond effectively to cultural and social needs through the management of public plans. It can implement policies to ensure equitable access and opportunities, allowing all citizens to benefit from social resources. Addressing market privatization and advocating for collective ownership, as our research and literature suggest, is more beneficial. Public ownership ensures the proper allocation of resources and avoids certain issues associated with private ownership.

　　New perspective on qualitative law ownership with discussion and it is ignored with the surrounding economic growth challenges of moving the economies in areas with slow operation and high environment risk and areas with limited market and price services. O collective land ownership pride might be practiced. But and we think it is not you you are ive by neglecting private ownership. Let me list some drawbacks of quality land ownership policy. Ecological but is source of r. In collective land right, individual contribution and benefits my and to free the society. Can be for example because. Under was led to and the. We can see example in system because of this less management is being removed and est is increasing all over the world especially in developing countries. You mentioned increase efficiency and social efficiency and social benefit but it might be source of dispute permit the right to consider outsiders grow more exency or internal institution are no longer cap of moneying disputes. It might be dist some families to gain better products than others who or the community for over frequently affect. Additional she takes long time to get an agreement in electric group because group decision making can be slow and. Improve might be affected. There are a lot of and or supporting our argument we invite to very and as experience have have.

　　Ownership of land also has its advantages. I'll discuss it one by one. First, protection of land use and environment. I think if the language is not clear, it will damage the environment and the public good. It depends on the design of the land protection system and use system. As you mentioned, to ensure that the environment and the value of use are in accordance with the law. So, if there is no strict enforcement, the owner's rights can also be damaged. A reasonable system design is needed to protect the right to use collectively. Just like in China, with a control plan, everyone uses their part of the land, and it doesn't cause any problems. And I think the ownership of collective land is not because the China government guarantees the rights. It is for commercial purposes and lasts for fifty years, and for other purposes. And I think they can all be treated in this way. So, I think seventy years is as long as a lifetime. So, if we look into the nature and causes, there is no difference between the two ownerships. The next point is efficiency. We have learned a lot from the British case in the class. We know that in 1978, before and after, it is still about ownership. But you know, to contract the right to contract system despite the right to use the land. So, I don't think it is an advantage. It is a financial issue. I think we can also have financial benefits on the right to use. If the best turn of a whole is more than. Provide use can also.

　　Thank you. Now let's move to the cross-examination section. And let's start with the debater three. You have one point five minutes to ask questions. OK, thank you. Balance. Um, so the opening. Your, I think I would like to question your point regarding this matter. Here is the first one: How can the formula, you know, the I believe it product? The second one: How can the ownership and share the efficiency of the dic again is the long-term of planning which you mentioned about a good management public which I haven't heard any, um, any really from? And the last one: ffic to. （注：这段文本中存在一些不太明确的表述，可能存在转写错误，导致部分内容难以准确理解和修正。）

　　You have to answer. The public will be exploited hard by private. Common resource is not private property, so the use of it has to be considered. In Africa, most of the conflict areas are related to private resources. Again, it also increases the efficiency of land utilization. It increases its efficiency because it is used privately. Also, if the land is privately owned, there are rights to the land for the investors. It's not as easy as it seems to be used for migration or any other purpose in private. Sometimes, when the governments have a vision for the specialization of developing the cluster of industries in states, they focus on the investment in building infrastructure. The negotiation among the private is easier than that among the public, but actually, it may not bring good solutions.

　　OK, I see. You can ask questions to the process. How could you ensure the rational allocation of resources under private ownership? I couldn't find any economic benefits. Willing to own a house is combined with high housing prices, and the information on the price comes from privatization. Maybe it brings some impact. Actually, there are only three coverable questions in this session, but we'll move on to the next topic.

　　No, said you can answer questions for three minutes. OK. Thank you very much. Important questions, ah, as we have mentioned. Private ownership encourages investment and increased productivity. Literature there might be any, but as we are the which is called is still as. Better advantage because it is an incentive for local investment or for. Uh, which can be for longer investments on land for nixurs. Ah, which can be supported by strengths because in. Is writing problem that also inefficiency resource. And that leads to inequality. With with this all parts. Ownership as advantage of incentive incentsings for long-term investment.

　　Regarding the second question, the distinguished class actually we would like to give some explanation. Actually, we never talk about the property rights in the vacuum circumstances. I mentioned before the legislation and regulations will provide the protection and the regulations will provide the protection of the uh environment. Just as the case I mentioned in my uh intervention, the uh Germany laws and constitutions. There are clear legal guarantees to uh provide for the protection of the environmental protection. And definitely, actually, under the private ownership of land, the farmer they realized that it is their own source of their life, so it will promote them to rational use of the land. Such as I mentioned, for example, they will not only conduct technological innovation and upgrading to conduct the regional cultivation and job rotation in order to improve not only the ecological environment but also reduce the environmental problems. Thank you. OK, even you have. I got it. So, I like to answer. Example in well, they have a history of but might the government implemented a large programs which of course decision ignore government. OK, so remember.

　　Time for free questions and answers among Debaters. It is reminded that each speaker should keep their time short to reserve time for the next question. Then, the discussion can begin.

　　China. I think in a country. It is claimed that it's AI. Just like a professor in. In. So the issue I have is that historical experience shows that privatization often leads to concentration, which means each farmer acquires more and more land while poor farmers will be disadvantaged because the rich have more power. So how can you deal with the problem of farmers' losses, especially in most agricultural countries?

　　OK, I think I would like to answer this question. You know, it doesn't mean that it is practically going back. I would like to answer you by giving an example that happened in the land rights in Australia. When they, well, in the colonization of Australia, they tried to get rid of the indigenous people. And you know, until they supported the commoners, thinking that it would help the indigenous people's living conditions. But in fact, it led to more instability and inequality for those who came to Australia. So if you say that the government always has a good option for the society, even in Australia today, their people still have to come to every meeting of the government to get back what actually belongs to the private. And they were in a very good situation before. People had their own land. And they said their partners were private investors. They used it for many consumption purposes, and the majority of it led to the development of the region. Again, it will cause a decline in foreign investment due to the issue of land ownership. So that is the reason why people need to have a clear line.

　　So if the government of China wants to increase the railway, it doesn't benefit any Chinese. Because if the government wants to build a railway on the land, the private ownership of land is a very challenging issue. OK, collective ownership is more suitable. How do you know the distribution of land is exclusive? It is very important. So how can you reallocate the language resources? We use the market to allocate the language resources. Also, at this point, we would like to emphasize that with regard to the current agricultural contract management system in China, the nature of the collective ownership of land decides that all collective members should equally distribute the land and must constantly adjust the distribution of the contracted land with the change of the population. Otherwise, it would be unfair. This is why this is actually needed in countries.

　　Talk one by one. OK, otherwise I'm not sure which I should. Now, move to the conclusion part. Please give your conclusion. OK, so on our study point and I debate here, I would like to express why. It can be very difficult as it largely involves social and investment and resource conservation, but it can lead to a social problem if not well managed for months. For mostly mismanagement and inefficiency, the selection of the best life policy is crucial for social and sustainability since this debate. It's a matter of the specific situation. So, I would like to give you three points that we can share. The first is that this helps to increase investment by allowing residents to improve their homes and businesses. The second one is that access to credit is facilitated as formal titles allow owners to use their property as collateral, following facilitating access to credit and opportunities. And the third one is that it provides a sense of ownership, and for those who lack property in the class, secure ownership gets similar investment, economic growth, and social inclusion. However, for developing countries, the country that aims for a higher economic flow through efficient resource use and capital, lack of ownership is not the best. Thank you. OK, actually, you are from the... OK, so we change our other.