I'll begin in three, two, one. I will do three things in my speech today. Number one, I will respond to the propositions arguments. Number two, I will outline my first argument about how criminalization will make people with illegitimate concerns more doubtful of taking the vaccine and discriminate against people who have legitimate concerns. And finally, I will reinforce the principle argument about freedom of speech and bodily autonomy. But before I begin, let's be clear. We are not as opposition. We are not promoting vaccine denial. This is not what this debate is about. This debate is about whether government should be criminalizing jailing people because they choose not to take the vaccine because of one misinformation or mistrust in the government. Instead of criminalizing vaccine denial, we are advocating for governments asking themselves why people aren't taking the vaccine and answering these people's concerns. Jailing them and criminalizing them is the easy answer. So I'm not going to rebut the proposition speaker. The proposition speaker in their speech has talked to you about how developing countries do not have access to vaccines. And so they're not included in this debate, which is completely false. Developing countries do have access to vaccines. They, however, have not been efficiently educating their masses and their citizens about the vaccine. So it's not enough for proposition to only engage in a world where everyone is educated and choosing to be hard headed and not taking the vaccine. Governments criminalizing vaccine denial. No, no, thank you. Government info campaigns have been very ineffective. That's the reality and that's the truth. Leaders of countries have been ineffective at educating their citizens. Take the example of global superpower in the United States. Donald Trump throughout his years as president has expressed doubts about the vaccine and doctors like Dr. Fauci. And by failing to educate the masses, people will deny. Governments will lead people to deny vaccine efficacy. Therefore, governments can't punish you because they failed you. People in poverty steal food. So they shouldn't be jailed. This distracts the state from holding itself accountable. It shouldn't punish citizens for its own failures. It should address them and correct them. The use of violence to not allow for certain kinds of opinions to be voiced is principally wrong, especially when those opinions exist because the government has failed to do its job. And so I also want to respond to the point about criminalizing people who don't take the vaccine, how they would, they would hold them under periods of imprisonment and exclude them from society. This gives corrupt governments and government with restrictive speech measures the power to imprison people. But what do those conditions actually look like? These imprisonments look like rundown jails who in French upon these citizens personal privacy and comfort. Essentially panel, the proposition is encouraging governments to overreach their power and abuse citizens rights to bodily autonomy, which is principally wrong. Now that I have responded to the proposition, I will turn to my first argument. No, thank you. Criminalization will make people with illigitimate concerns more doubtful of taking the vaccine as well as a discriminant against people with legitimate concerns. The context for this argument is as follows. As explained by our first speaker, there exists groups of people who criticize the vaccines or who don't believe the vaccines for a variety of reasons. Number one, they might not be satisfied with the vaccine's efficiency. They don't trust the government. So they subscribe themselves to conspiracy theories about the government's malicious intentions. And they believe that governments are hiding political agendas. Or number three, they're minority groups who do not trust the government because the government has failed them before. Take the example of having a larger percentage of people hesitating to take the vaccine because they don't trust the system. So why is criminalizing vaccine denial going to worsen the situation? The issue with criminalizing vaccine, oh, thank you. I will not take a few while at this moment. The issue with criminalizing vaccine denial is that it increases these groups doubts in the government. If the government begins arresting or finding people for not taking the vaccine, people will begin wondering why the government is taking such radical decisions to ensure that people take the vaccine. So what does the analysis mean? A lot. No, thank you. A lot of people already have restrictive speech measures. These restrictions largely have to do with ensuring that there are no criticisms of the government. These are the, this is the perception that people have about anti-speech laws. So when you associate vaccine denial with these respective restrictive speech measures, it makes people think that there must be something wrong with the vaccine and that vaccine denial is being restricted because the government doesn't want people to criticize the vaccine because there must be something wrong with it. So like recriminalization scares off people. Citizens will begin doubting what the government's true intentions are in enforcing vaccines. And this has two clear impacts. Number one, this will only add fuel to conspiracy theories about government's malicious intentions. So consequently, people that interact with these theories, though, thank you will be further discouraged from taking the vaccine at all. And people, such as minority groups, will further be discouraged from taking the vaccine. Number two, people who are initially okay with taking the vaccine might change their minds. After seeing the government's radical punishments and consequences for vaccine denial, people who are initially to take the vaccine will back out. No, thank you. On both sides of the house, the end goal is clear panel having as many people take the vaccine as possible. But when pop is this and criminalizes vaccines, vaccine denial, it is decreasing the numbers of people willing to take the vaccine. Again, the moment that vaccine denial becomes part of restrictive speech measures, it makes people think that there must be something wrong with it that vaccine denial is being restricted to ensure that there are no criticisms about it. In the case of minorities, disrupting the government, the government criminalizing vaccines further increases these groups, distrust in their government, distrust in vaccines, and thus the total amount of people taking the vaccine at all. So the propositions goal of having people take the vaccine backfires. The proposition asks why is it all better on our side? Why do you have more people taking the vaccine on our side? Why is the COVID-19 going to decrease on our side? The reality is that when you're not forcing people to do something, when you are actually encouraging and educating the masses instead of just jailing them and putting them in restrictive ostracization measures, you're actually telling people and answering their concerns about the vaccine. If someone has a concern about the vaccine and posted online, instead of jailing them and telling them they're spreading false information on our side, we are having governments respond actively, taking the active measure to make sure that people are okay with the vaccine. Jailing them and criminalizing vaccines, like I said, is the easy way out. And so this also discriminates people with legitimate concerns because propositions policy would force people to take vaccines that might a result in some health issues and b, actually in fringe upon their religious rights. There are certain religious communities who cannot take any vaccines because of their religion, such as Protestant orthodox groups who believe it is immoral to insert needles into their skins or other religious groups. And so that would in fringe upon their religious rights, which does not unfold under the propositions framing. And this would also force people to take a vaccine that might result in dizziness, might result in fevers, might result inside effects, but they're not comfortable with. And so it infringes upon people's bodily autonomy, people's freedom of speech, and it does not result in more people taking the vaccine. So for all these reasons, I proudly stand for opposition. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you very much for your speech. Judges, please note that she spoke for seven minutes and 28 seconds. Okay, please welcome the third speaker from the proposition side. Who Zifa? Yep, sorry, I won't be able to on my camera unfortunately, it doesn't work. Just give me a moment and I'd like the timer.