Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee the right to housing.

My opponent says, and I quote, "Last I checked, natural rights consist only in Life, Liberty, Property, and Self-ownsership- nowhere in the costitution does it ensure free housing, and even if it did- the natural state of a human is not to live in a house, but to live in a hovel or cave. This mens that a 'right to housing' cannot be a natural right- because it isn't natural at all." A few things to say about this: First. I never mention anything in my entire case about natural rights. I solely mention human rights in my case, so we consider it dropped from refutation in its entirety. But if you don't buy that... Natural rights are defined by the Business Dictionary as fundamental human rights based on universal natural law, as opposed to those based on man-made positive law. Although there is no unanimity as to which right is natural and which is not, the widely held view is that nature endows every human (without any distinction of time or space, and without any regard to age, gender, nationality, or race) with certain inalienable rights (such as the right to 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness') which cannot be abrogated or interfered with by any government. And that, whether or not these rights are enshrined in a national legal code, no government is lawful if it fails to upholds them. So I ask my opponent this. Does housing allow the pursuit of happiness? If so, I win because I enable this. If not, please provide tangible evidence to show that a right to housing doesn't give happiness. Furthermore, the natural state of a human may indeed be to live in a hovel or cave. But that fits directly in my definition of housing, so my opponent therefore provides no contradictory evidence against me, which means that the Con isn't actually arguing against the resolution, which further gives reason for me to win. He then closes with the assertion that the right to housing isn't a natural right because it isn't natural. I just showed how housing falls under constitutionally protected rights, therefore making the right to housing making a natural right. Therefore, I again win this debate. Moving on to extend the dropped arguments from round 2. I further the impacts of housing for humans. LGBTQ individuals often struggle to find housing because the federal government does not explicitly prevent discrimination in housing based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Robert Espinoza, 2014: The relationship between aging and housing discrimination forms the subject of a new report from the Equal Rights Center, in partnership with SAGE (Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders). Based on an investigation conducted in 10 states, the report finds that 48 percent of older adult testers in same-sex relationships experienced at least one form of differential treatment when seeking housing. Same-sex couples were provided fewer rental options, higher fees, more extensive application requirements and less information regarding financial incentives than opposite-sex couples"barriers likely faced, though insufficiently studied, among the larger, more diverse spectrum of LGBT people. For example, a 2011 national study of nearly 6,500 transgender and gender-nonconforming people found that 19 percent of respondents were denied housing and 11 percent were evicted because they were transgender or gender-nonconforming. For the same reasons, 29 percent were turned away from homeless shelters, and 25 percent and 22 percent were physically and sexually assaulted, respectively, while in a homeless shelter. Queer people too often wager with risk, danger and personal compromise to survive the night"and if achieved, the years that follow. This hardship of finding both home and housing reverberates as a theme across LGBT-rights struggles. The federal government does not explicitly protect against discrimination in housing based on sexual orientation or gender identity, though recent rules, some legal interpretations and a growing number of states and cities are moving toward more protections. Homelessness among queer youth and transgender people remains disproportionately high. Harsh immigration law keeps many queer immigrants from their loved ones abroad. Housing for low-income people with HIV receives scant attention and government support, with some exceptions. And for queer people raised in towns, states and regions that are politically hostile, or which lose their relevance as we mature and evolve, leaving home can leave psychological scars that we"re left to construe in private. Therefore, the right to housing is more beneficial to LGBT folks then the lack of such a right. Vote Pro on this argument. Furthermore, the Right to housing is necessary for the realization of rights to life, liberty, security, freedom from domestic violence, employment, and a healthy environment New York City Bar Association, 2016 Without full realization of the right to adequate housing, other rights become difficult to realize. At a base level, the right to housing affects the right to life, liberty, and security of person. For example, domestic violence victims especially need secure housing to ensure their safety. The lack of adequate housing also inhibits the realization of the rights to health and well-being, education, and clean water and sanitation. Furthermore, where the right requires proof of residency"as is sometimes seen with the rights to vote, secure employment, or make decisions about the family "the right to housing becomes paramount. AND, Formal mechanisms like rights are the only conduit from material grievances to actual practices Graeme Hayes, 2016 Attention to material grievances is a fundamental starting point for any discussion of the incidence of social mobilization, but has causal force only to the extent that grievances are placed in relation to their social construction, and to their translation by collective actors into sets of practices and claims. Here, I have therefore developed a second, related argument, attempting to bring out how the specifically material construction of austerity as an overarching regime is underpinned by a series of associated ideational, institutional and spatial regimes. These regimes are both pre-conditions for and expressive of the operation of fiscal austerity, and produce a series of enclosures. Social movements mobilize in physical and virtual spaces that are already configured and reconfigured by state power and economic power and social history, and whose multiple configurations both constrain action and provide movements with potent narratives of struggle. Thus the prior existence of regimes of civic and ideological austerity are necessary to the development of regimes of fiscal and political austerity; and because fiscal and political austerities in turn re-produce civic and ideological austerities, they also reveal them, make them visible and enable the productions of social challenge against their material and ideational impacts and premises. Therefore, vote for the Pro in today's debate. Thank you.