Well, by virtue of the fact that you're engaging in a debate between opposing points, you're engaging in argumentation. Arguing doesn't mean yelling at each other :)

Again, hoarding land requires enormous use of resources unless that land is being utilized. Maintaining a nature preserve like Yosemite privately, for example, would be enormously expensive. The cost of hoarding land puts an upper limit on how much land can be hoarded just to keep it. If your concern is buying up the land to drive up the cost, developed areas would compete with those people hoarding land to provide housing for people, driving down the cost. Market forces exert a downward pressure on costs and an upward pressure on quality.

Access to land isn't a right. The only right you have is to not have your consent violated; it's the only so-called right that can be universalized to everyone. It's the reason why acts like murder and rape are always going to be immoral. Since private property extends from that (based in the exclusive control you exercise over your body, which is itself a scarce, rivalrous resource), softening on that opens the door to soften the ethical limits on trespass against individual human beings.