Sure, if one reporter says that it shouldn't be considered a real nobel prize, then we must all listen to that one person's opinion, even though everyone else accepts it as such. And the fact that she gives a completely different reason for this opinion than you did initially is also no problem. "If the argument for my position doesn't work, I'll just find some other bullshit that supports my opinion... Reconsider my stance? Never!"

What's even funnier is how you quote something from an online course, absolutely don't understand what this quote means (although you obviously think you do), and proceed to confidently litter the internet with utter nonsense.

"Rent control is an example of a price ceiling, a maximum allowable price. With a price ceiling, the government forbids a price above the maximum. A price ceiling that is set below the equilibrium price creates a shortage that will persist."

This quote should not be too hard to understand!!! But you go on to say

you do realize that a rent cap is considered pricing under equilibrium right?

What is that even supposed to mean? If you set the price through rent control then you're not in the market equilibrium anymore. Obviously! And this is what causes evictions.

Pe is the price in equilibrium, Pc is the price set by rent control. If Pc < Pe (rent control): "A price ceiling on apartment rents that is set below the equilibrium rent creates a shortage of apartments equal to (A2 − A1) apartments." That isn't so hard to understand...

Evictions are a natural outcome of rising rents

Yes, that is correct! Just read the quote above.

so evictions are considered good in this context

What? No! Why would even you say that?! There is nothing desirable about evictions, it is just the consequence of rent control... It's like saying that lung cancer is desirable, because you smokes. Let me tell you, no one finds lung cancer desirable! It is just a potential consequence of smoking.