Starting off now. So the thesis of my final focus is that the principles of supply and demand aren't able to solve for shortages when there is a market failure. So when there is a market failure, the government must intervene. A good example of this is how we often regulate the prices of electricity and the prices of water. Because we recognize that these are essentials to human life and recognize that sometimes consolidation, especially in rural areas, needs to increase in prices to lose things, which is why the government steps in and controls them. The same logic applies to the debate today, because both sides do agree that fundamentally housing is human right. However, our side is proving that there are many instances causing a market failure, which is why we must intervene. We first showed you the fact that we see industry consolidation, which was the paint drive incident from the LA Times, says that because so many industry, because so many construction builders are working together and consolidating in the industry, it's raising prices. We also showed the fact that increasing zoning regulations are also driving out prices. At the point in which we see those factors that neither side can address that are driving up the prices of housing, we must rather than looking at the supply and demand, we must directly regulate the price, which is why we're going to see that our side has the true solency in today's debate round. They do talk about triple down, however, they don't provide any studies, and we're currently showing that this is going to happen within the housing market. We would contend that although this may happen in other markets, because of the market failure, this doesn't happen. We have periods to prove this, because we gave you the goals of blue line evidence, which said that in San Francisco, as we increase the development of market rate housing, it increased prices over a 20-period by 398%. However, when you look to the negation, we do provide you solvency both in the short term and in the long term. In the short term, you see that we can stabilize 42 million renter households by directly putting rent controls on their rent. And we see in the long term, by incentivizing developers to build more, because they make less profit on each individual apartment they build, we're going to increase the amount of supply, which in the long term could help to solve the problem. So what we see is that negation is going to solve in the short term and the long term, whereas the affirmation relies on supply and demand, and in instance where there's a market failure, so they do not have any way to solve. Thank you.