Starting off now. So their contention one talks about how we're in an awful housing crisis right now and how prices are reaching unprecedented levels. And my partner and I would completely agree with this and say this is why you must vote for the negation because this status quo has been promoting market rate housing. We've just been letting the market do its thing and that has resulted in a market failure wherein the market is not correcting housing prices to reach the most poor people and to reach the homeless which is why the thesis of our case is effectively that rather than promoting market rate housing we should promote rent controls to serve the most vulnerable populations. So specifically on this first contention we can see that marks of the mint price of news in 2015 explains that actually around the country empty homes outnumber the homeless at a 6-to-1 ratio and this would suggest that a lack of supply of housing isn't necessarily the issue and that there are other factors driving up home prices. Specifically we can see that PANJOR at the LA Times in 2018 says that at least 50% of home increases in recent years have been due to industry consolidation or monopolization of home builders rather than a shortage of homes because when they have more control over the market they can charge higher prices than if there were more market competition. For the more high shift in the New York Times in 2017 writes that the housing shortage and the spike in prices is actually due to restrictive land use regulations which is something that the affirmation doesn't solve. What we can see from this evidence is that the shortage likely is not the main cause or at least it's not the only cause of the housing problem so that's doesn't this means that building more houses isn't necessarily going to solve. But because the thesis of their case is that the shortage is one of the main problems we'll interact with that evidence too and see that if there is a supply problem and if that is causing an increase in prices we actually solve this issue better. So first they don't actually provide a solency mechanism or an explanation of why more houses would decrease costs. They do say that sometimes it will filter down but this wasn't substantiated by any evidence whereas if you look to our case in our contention one sub point A we talk about the phenomenon of price shadow. We're enriched people move into neighborhoods and this causes a sort of gentrification and an increase of prices. When you build one nice market rate house all of the houses surrounding that we're going to be price shadowed seeing the prices go up because we give them periods here you're going to prefer our logic over there because it is supported by the evidence. But for the more goals of new line conducts an analysis of San Francisco and found it when we build substantially more market rate housing in the city the median price of a residence increased and walked 398% over about the 20 year period of the study showing that if there is a supply problem market rate housing isn't the solution. But finally you can turn this argument to our side because we actually solve. If you look to the fourth impact of our contention too Gary Pinter of USC writes in October that because rent control is limiting the option for developers to raise rents they have to go to plan B if they want to continue making profit which is producing more units. This is why policy link in 2019 who who's in California cities with rent control are building far more homes than cities without regulations. So what this is going to show is that the negation provides you the true solvents we look to the issue of the housing crisis. This is because in the first scenario where supply isn't in issue the negation is able to stop the problem by carrying the rent through a recatial system. But if supply is the issue we give you a solvents mechanism which is restricting profit per unit so developers build more which decreases competition lowering prices. But next honors contention too which says housing as a human right. This is my partner didn't cross fire we would completely agree with this but we would say this only supports our side because policy link in 2019 found last month that rent control is the quickest most cost effective and most immediate solution to address the housing affordability crisis and they conclude that if we were to enact rent control 42 million renter houses would be stabilized. This shows that we are going to solve better for the host of psychological harms that my opponent discusses on her bubble speech that are associated with homelessness. The affirmation doesn't provide any solvency and even if they did explain the mechanism they don't explain the time frame in which they solve. But if we were to enact rent control we would stabilize the 42 million renters and we would do it immediately thus we provide better for the right to housing but furthermore we save $33 million a day in healthcare costs provide a way out for victims of domestic violence and we increase the housing supply so you're going to negate. Thank you.