Tournament: TFA State | Round: 1 | Opponent:  | Judge:
I negate resolved: The United States ought to guarantee the right of housing.

I value morality as ought implies a moral ideal. We determine whats good by if its moral or immoral. Thus the standard is to maximize societal wellbeing.
Life has intrinsic value. Living is the telos of organic life. Allowing death and suffering must be ethically rejected.
Schwartz and Wiggins, 10 (Michael A Schwartz and Osborne P Wiggins Department of Psychiatry, University of Hawaii and Department of Philosophy, University of Louisville, Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, Psychosomatic medicine and the philosophy of life, http://www.peh-med.com/content/5/1/2)
As we have said, the metabolic activity of the organism is geared toward sustaining the existence of the organism. This being geared toward the sustaining of its own being shows that the metabolism of the organism is "for the sake of" its own continuation in being. The being that the activity is geared toward preserving is the organism's future being. The metabolic functioning is for the sake of bridging the temporal gap that separates the organism in the present from its own existence in the future. In slightly different terms, metabolic activity serves the temporal enduring of the organism. Hence it is temporal duration that poses the main threat to the organism's contingent existence: the question of whether the organism will endure from moment to moment always remains an unanswered question until the future becomes the present and the organism still lives. And the threat can be defeated only if the activity of metabolism is sustained. Life is thus teleological: the present activity of the living being aims at its own future being 8,9.  If we can speak of the metabolic activity of the organism as occurring "for the sake of" the organism's future being, this means that at some fundamental level the organism posits its own continuation in reality as a "good." In other words, the organism posits its own existence as having a positive value. Value is thus built into the reality of organic life: it is organic life itself that places value there. It is not human beings and certainly not human agency that introduces value into an otherwise value-free universe. Living beings themselves, by striving to preserve themselves, already signal that, at least for the being involved, its own life is a good 10-12.  We can see, then, that the values that motivate medical practice are grounded in organic life itself. While only human beings can develop and practice medical treatment, it is not human beings who introduce into the world the values that call for and justify that treatment. Living beings themselves posit the goodness of an activity that prevents death and alleviates suffering. If for the organism its own continuation is good, then its death would be bad. Hence the moral need to combat death issues from the organism's own internal striving. And therefore the need to treat and hopefully cure the ill organism so that it does not die - at least not before its naturally allotted time - is based on a value that the organism itself posits. The same would be true for suffering and pain, at least for those organism's that can feel. Felt suffering and pain are posited by the organism feeling them as bad. Hence the moral need to relieve and even eradicate pain through medical treatment arises at the most basic levels of life, even if only human beings can recognize this value as a moral requirement and develop the medical techniques to respond to it 11,13. 

We must protect our society and make sure that we maximize the life and quality for life. 

Contention 1: Discrimination

The affirmative provides public housing that groups minorities and further pushes them into poverty
John Atlas and Peter Dreier '94 (John Atlas is President of the National Housing Institute and Peter Dreier, Professor of Public Policy at Occidental College, is a National Housing Institute Board member. A longer version of this article, which included suggestions for reform, appeared in the Summer 1992 issue of The American Prospect. 617-547-2950.), Sep/Oct 1994, "Public Housing: What Went Wrong?, by John Atlas and Peter Dreier," National Housing Institute Issue #74, http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/77/pubhsg.html
There are 1.3 million public housing apartments and about 800,000 families on the waiting lists of the nation's 3,060 local housing authorities. Public housing developments often are no worse than privately owned, low-rent apartments; most, in fact, are better, which is why the waiting lists continue to swell. But because public housing involves tax dollars, it is more visible and open to public scrutiny. Many projects, especially racially isolated high-rises in big cities, have indeed failed. These represent less than one-quarter of the nation's public housing, but they cast a giant shadow. The projects isolate and concentrate minorities dependent on welfare, suffering from high unemployment rates, teenage pregnancy, single parenthood and a climate of serious crime. Some projects, like St. Louis's infamous Pruitt-Igoe homes, virtually ceased to function as viable communities. Pruitt-Igoe was eventually dynamited by the city not because of structural flaws but because it was an unlivable environment. Today many public housing families face the daily fear of death from drugs, drug wars, or random shots that hit innocent victims. Children are afraid to walk to school, and elderly tenants, for whom hallways and elevators are as dangerous as streets, are afraid to leave their apartments. In these devastated neighborhoods, families are destroyed. These projects have become the playgrounds for drug-dealing predators, as depicted in the 1991 movieStraight Out of Brooklyn by Matty Rich (who grew up in Brooklyn's Red Hook projects) and in Alex Kotlowitz's book chronicling life in the Chicago projects, There Are No Children Here. As they portray it, public housing has become more a trap than a ladder. Were public housing's troubles inevitable? During the Depression, public housing began as an ad hoc public-works program to create jobs. From the program's formal legislative inception in 1937, it was aimed at providing housing for the "submerged middle class" who could not find suitable housing in the private market, but not the very poor with no means to pay rent. Senator Robert Wagner of New York, principal author of the Housing Act of 1937, declared. "There are some whom we cannot expect to serve: those who cannot pay the rent." Rents originally covered all operating expenses except debt service. The principal and interest on bonds floated by local housing authorities to construct the buildings were paid by the federal government. For years, this arrangement worked. Vincent Lane, chairman of the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA), remembers when public housing was new. Four decades ago, Lane's family moved from the South to a cold-water flat opposite the CHA's Wentworth Gardens development. It boasted broad playgrounds, heat, hot water, and basketball courts. "I envied the kids in public housing," Lane recalls. "The best housing in the community was Wentworth Gardens." By 1942, 175,000 public housing apartments – most in two-to-four-story buildings – were constructed in 290 communities. By 1946, another 195,000 units of "permanent" housing were built in areas where war industry or military bases had created new demand for housing. After the war, recognizing the pent-up demand for housing and fearing competition from public housing (which it claimed was an opening wedge for socialism), the real estate industry sabotaged the public housing program by pressuring Congress to limit it to the very poor. That new rule, embodied in the 1949 Housing Act, was the beginning of the decline of public housing. From 1944 to 1951, minorities represented between 26 percent and 39 percent of all public housing tenants. By 1978, the figure reached over 60 percent. From 1950 to 1970, the median income of public residents fell from 64 percent to 37 percent of the national median. By 1988, the average income of public housing households was $6,539, one-fifth of the national average ($32,144). Today only about 40 percent of non-elderly households in public housing have a wage earner. Among big cities, the percentage of working poor is highest in New York City – about 60 percent – which perhaps explains why, with some exceptions, its public housing projects are among the best in the country. The look of public housing, cheap and proud of it, contributed to the isolation of its residents. By constructing buildings often compared to warehouses, the program stigmatized "government housing," rendering it unattractive to even the lower middle class, who would rely instead on private builders for the American Dream. High-rise designs, reflecting the need to minimize land costs, contributed to the rise in crime. One study found that in New York the difference between high-rise and low-rise projects was much more significant as an explanation of crime rates than was the ratio of welfare families. The study showed that the number of robberies in a housing project rose proportionately with its height. Despite the popular stereotype, high-rises account for only 27 percent of public housing buildings (32 percent are garden apartments, 16 percent low-rise walk-ups, and 25 percent single-family homes or townhouses). But high-rise projects, most of them in the largest cities, account for many of the problems. Congress ended the construction of high-rises in the mid-1970s, except those built for the elderly. Conservatives and the real estate industry also fought to ensure that participation by cities was voluntary and administration was local. Decisions about whether, or where, to build developments were left to local officials, often dominated by private real estate interests. Few units were built in affluent areas. As public housing became the home of blacks and other minorities, local control by white politicians contributed to patterns of racial segregation. Since the 1960s, fast-rising operating expenses have far outpaced tenants' incomes. As a result, local authorities have lacked the income to provide day-to-day maintenance, deferring repairs and capital improvements. Rising energy costs in the early 1970s further strapped residents. Faced with a decaying stock of public housing, Congress appropriated additional subsidies so that tenants would pay not more than 25 percent (since Reagan, 30 percent) of their incomes on rent. But the additional funds were inadequate to meet operating expenses, so even the best-managed projects continued to deteriorate physically and. Cutbacks during the Reagan era merely made a bad situation worse. A 1987 Abt Associates study estimated a with a $21.5 billion backlog in basic repairs and capital improvements for the nation's public housing stock.

A right to housing has historically been used to discriminate against minorities—this is specific to the United States.
IWHRC 09 International Women’s Human Rights Clinic (CUNY Law). “A Gendered Perspective On The Right To Housing In The United States”. CUNY. 2009. HW. http://www1.cuny.edu/mu/law/files/2013/03/IWHR-Gendered-Housing-Perspective.pdf
After the U.S. Civil War, the federal government enacted legislation to redress the expropriation of labor under slavery; however, many federal reconstruction-era homesteading programs were never realized and those that were enacted disproportionately benefitted white landowners.2 Post World War I zoning restrictions that excluded rentals and commercial housing from planned housing developments served to privilege the concept of single family homes, usually with a male bread-winner and head of the household.3 New Deal era suburbanization further exacerbated existing inequalities. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was created in 1934 with the National Housing Act.4 From its inception, the FHA had a strong focus on home ownership. It created federal mortgage insurance for creditors and new loan policies which allowed payments over a longer period of time. Significantly, the FHA did not provide assistance for low-income families,5 single women who could not qualify for FHA loans (with the exception of war widows), the elderly without income, or racial and ethnic minorities that were not permitted to participate in the loan assistance program due to the ‘redlining’ of minority neighborhoods.6 In 1937, the Wagner- Steagall Act (the Housing Act) passed, which provided housing assistance for the poor and the creation of local housing authorities to administer public housing programs.7 The Federal Housing Authority (FHA) channeled low-interest, federally backed mortgages away from urban centers and almost exclusively into suburban white communities.8 The deliberation of this discrimination is evidenced by FHA underwriting manuals that openly encouraged racial segregation.9 Denied access to federally-backed mortgage programs, black families were unable to access the opportunities for wealth-building and intergenerational transmission that lifted millions of white Americans into the middle class.10 Residential segregation has created conditions through which entire communities have been politically disenfranchised and economically disempowered.11 These early 20th century government policies resulted in a system where the “right to housing” seemingly only applied to white middle-class citizens who were receiving federal subsidies and tax breaks toward home ownership. The rest of Americans were left to maneuver the private rental market, inadequate public housing, and the high levels of government supervision required for access to affordable housing through rental subsidies.12 The common practice of redlining, a form of racially-discriminatory credit denial, has excluded nonwhites from the most secure form of housing. Those who were able to purchase homes in minority neighborhoods were given unfairly high interest rates for homes that were devalued in terms of market prices simply because of their locations, in essence causing homeowners to overpay for undervalued homes. 13
Housing reform proliferate de facto segregation in the 21st century that creates more poverty and insecurity.
BOUIE, JAMELLE. "How We Built The Ghettos.". March 13, 2014. Web. February 06, 2017.  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/13/how-we-built-the-ghettos.html.
Related to this was block-busting. Remember, many of these cities faced a housing shortage, due to the large number of black migrants. Panicked by the prospect of black neighbors—and facilitated by highways and subsidized mortgage loans—countless whites left the cities for the suburbs. They were pushed along by “block-busters”; unscrupulous realtors who encouraged blacks to move into white areas (or created the appearance of transition), sparking an exodus and driving down prices. Once completed, more respectable realtors converted the homes and apartments into multi-family dwellings, cramming large groups into row houses meant for a handful of people. “In one Oakland apartment,” writes Hirsch, “the space that was rented to one white family at $25 per month was able to house three black families at $100 per month.” Journalist Isabelle Wilkinson describes the human side of this in her wonderful book, The Warmth of Other Suns. Block-busting inspired tremendous violence and anti-black sentiment, especially from working-class whites, who were often outbid by blacks, but couldn’t afford suburban housing outside of the city. What’s more, it—along with contract-buying and the destruction of the tax base—helped create the perception that blacks were responsible for the deterioration of a neighborhood. All of these tools and approaches were facilitated by the federal government and its partners at the state and local level. For decades, it was a project of Democrats and Republicans, who worked to appease a white supremacist majority, and often, shared their assumptions. This continued into the 1960s, and arguably, never stopped: Public housing projects, for instance, were placed in these segregated, depressed neighborhoods as a compromise with conservatives who opposed them outright. This, in turn, ensured concentrated poverty and all its attendant problems, as well as bad schools and poor public services. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 was meant to tackle all of this, but as Nikole Hannah-Jones details for ProPublica, it saw sporadic enforcement, if that. After a half century (or more), it’s not hard to see how we get to here from there: When you prevent a whole class of people from building wealth, accessing capital, or leaving impoverished areas, you guarantee cultural dysfunction and deep, generational poverty. When it comes to inner-city poverty—we built that.
The AFF just makes the situation worse and doesn’t provide good living conditions. This proves that the housing that the AFF is advocating for just discriminates and pushes people into poverty.

Contention 2: Tradeoff’s

Social security is effectively keeping 21 million Americans out of poverty.
Reno, Virginia. "Social Security: The Foundation Of Economic Security." Retirement and Disability Policy. March 21, 2016. Web. February 07, 2017. http://blog.ssa.gov/socialsecurity- the-foundation-of-economic-security/.

For example, many people know that 10 percent of seniors, or 4.6 million individuals, live in
poverty. Yet many don’t know just how important Social Security is in preventing seniors from
falling into poverty. If today’s seniors had to rely on only their income from sources other than
Social Security, fully 4 in 10 would be poor. Social Security is our nation’s most effective
poverty prevention program; its retirement, disability, and survivor benefits keep 21 million
Americans out of poverty, including 14 million seniors. So, keeping Social Security strong is one
of the best ways that we, as a nation, can address senior poverty and promote economic security
for all.
Any increase in spending necessitates a tradeoff in other programs.
Sange, Alexandra. "House Passes New Rules For The 112th Congress." National association of community health centers. January 18, 2011. Web. February 07, 2017. http://blogs.nachc.com/washington/house-passes-new-rules-for-the-112th-congress/.

The new rules replace the previous ‘pay-as-you-go’ or PAYGO requirement with a ‘cut-as-yougo’
or cut-go requirement. Cut-go prohibits the House from considering any bill that produces a
net increase in mandatory spending within the 1-year, 5-year and 10-year budget windows, as opposed to PAYGO’s ten-year window. If a bill increases mandatory spending by any amount, the bill must cut the budget somewhere by that same amount. Under PAYGO, spending cuts could serve as offsets to spending increases, however, revenue increases could also serve as offsets. Under he ‘cut-go’ rule increases in revenue cannot be used to offset increases in mandatory spending.

And Right to Housing will cost $80-$100 billion annually

Chester Hartman (chartman@prrac.org ) is director of research at the Poverty and Race Research Action Council in Washington, DC., 2006, The Case for a Right to Housing, http://nhi.org/online/issues/148/righttohousing.html
Cost is possibly another barrier. To provide every American household with decent, affordable housing, given the large and widening gap between incomes and housing costs, will require vastly more government subsidies than we now devote to housing - the exact amount of course depends on what kinds of programs, what systems of financing, ownership, development and management we choose (the more market-oriented, the larger the cost; the more we create a social housing sector, the smaller the cost), but think along the lines of $80-100 billion annually. Maybe it would be an easier sell if we make clear the costs of having one-third of a nation ill-housed - and explain how eliminating those costs greatly reduces the bill. And it may be an easier sell if we drive home the point that upper-income taxpayers already get subsidies of that order via the tax system. Not that the society can't afford this: look how easily we come up with similar amounts to bail out savings and loans, make war, give massive tax breaks to the wealthy. It's all a matter of political will.

Republicans will demand that cuts come from major welfare programs and social services.
Mcauliff 17, Michael. "GOP Passes Deficit-Hiking Tax Cuts, Accuses Dems Of Irresponsibility." Huffington Post. June 12, 2014. Web. February 07, 2017. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/12/republicans-raise deficit_n_5488588.html.
Democrats accused Republicans of hypocrisy, pointing out that a few months ago when the House passed a budget, the GOP declared that the deficit was one of the greatest threats facing the nation. “What happened to all the rhetoric about fiscal discipline, about getting our deficits in order? Out the window,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) the top Democrat on the Budget Committee. Democrats also suggested that the evolving bid to make permanent all the temporary breaks currently on the books amounted to a ruse to make cuts to social programs later on. Rep. Sander Levin (Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, noted that Republicans on his panel had already approved permanent tax cuts — including the two passed by the House on Thursday — that would add $614 billion to the deficit over 10 years. And if all the temporary breaks currently on the books were included, Levin said, it would tack $1 trillion onto the nation’s credit card. “The Republicans are going to come back here and say, ‘Wow, look at how much the deficit has increased,’ so you now need to cut these critical programs relating to the lifeline of all of the people in this country, the middle class and all who need some help,” Levin said. Van Hollen noted that the cuts already passed by Ways and Means — most of which benefit big businesses — would cost 30 times what it would cost to extend long-term unemployment insurance for a significant period of time.

Cuts in other social programs directly harm poverty rates turns case.
Rank 17, Mark. "Toward A New Understanding Of American Poverty." Washington University Journal of Law and Policy. January 01, 2006. Web. February 07, 2017 http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1241andcontext=law_journa l_law_policy.

Similarly, changes in various social supports and the social safety net available to families will make a difference in terms of how well such households are able to avoid poverty or near poverty. When such supports were increased through the War on Poverty initiatives of the 1960s, poverty rates declined.57 Likewise, when Social Security benefits were expanded during the 1960s and 1970s, poverty rates among the elderly declined precipitously.58 Conversely, when social supports have been weakened and eroded, as was the case with children’s programs during the past twenty-five years, poverty rates have gone up.59 The recognition of poverty as a structural failing also makes it quite clear why the United States has such high poverty rates as compared to other Western countries. These rates have nothing to do with Americans being less motivated or less skilled than individuals in other countries, but have to do instead with the fact that our economy has produced a plethora of low-wage jobs in the face of global competition and that our social policies have done relatively little to support families compared to those of our European neighbors. From this perspective, one of the keys to addressing poverty is to increase the labor market opportunities and social supports available to American households. In sum, a shift in thinking about the causes of poverty from an individually to a structurally based explanation allows us to distinguish and make sense of two specific questions. First, why does poverty exist? Second, who is more likely to experience poverty? Poverty exists primarily as a result of a shortage of viable economic opportunities and social supports for the entire population. Given this shortage, a certain percentage of the population is ensured of experiencing poverty. Individuals with a heightened risk of being on the short end of this economic stick will be those who are least able to effectively compete for the limited number of decent economic opportunities. This includes those with fewer marketable skills, less education and ill health, as well as single parents, racial minorities, and residents in economically depressed areas. A new paradigm recognizes the fundamental distinction between understanding who loses out at the game, versus understanding how and why the game produces losers in the first place.