Resolved: The United States federal government should ban corporate acquisition of single-family residences.

What the ban would do

Pro’s story is intuitive. When investment firms compete with families for starter homes, families lose: cash offers beat mortgages, prices rise, and the first rung of wealth-building disappears. A ban routes existing housing stock back to owner-occupants. Con’s structural answer is that corporate buyers are a small share of the national market, concentrated in a few metros, so a ban barely moves prices while shrinking the rental supply and build-to-rent investment that low-income families depend on.

The scale fight

Almost every round turns on magnitude: what share of single-family purchases are corporate, and where? Pro evidence tends to focus on specific Sun Belt metros where institutional buying concentrated; Con evidence zooms out to national averages where the share looks modest. Neither side should let the other pick the denominator unchallenged. The strongest teams also separate mega-landlords from the small LLCs that own a duplex, because the resolution’s word "corporate" makes that boundary contested ground.

Second-order effects

Con’s best offense is the renter. If corporations can’t buy houses, single-family rentals shrink, and families who can’t get a mortgage lose access to homes with yards near good schools. Pro’s best response is a turn: corporate buying converts would-be starter homes into permanent rentals, so the ban grows ownership even if it tightens the rental market. Whoever wins whether ownership or rental access matters more for households at the margin usually wins the round.