The Instigator
TrueJustice
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
TheBrorator
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
TheBrorator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,166 times Debate No: 22845
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

TrueJustice

Con

First let it be known that the con side of the resolution is not stating that water is not a human right but rather we must value it as a commodity also in order to keep the access of water. The con will explain thoroughly to the extent of every detail in this case.
In order to win this case the con will value social welfare. with social welfare, society is provided with certain minumum standards and opportunities. It supports life in the factor that it looks to the needs of the people.
To support the con's value, the con' criterion is to maximize economic growth. by healing the economy water can become easily accessible in other countries that may need it more than others.
Contention 1: THE SCARCITY TO THE ACCESS OF WATER IS GAINING SO MUCH THAT WATER WILL BECOME MORE VALUABLE THAN OIL.
According to the General assembly of the UN resolved on July 28 of this year, clean drinking water and sanitation provisions are human rights. Unfornately 2.6 billion people all over the world do not have access to clean drinking water. that is over one third of the world's population!
WARRANT: the data supporting my contention shows the very factor that even though water will always be in the human existence, clean drinking water will not be if we do not pay for this very water to be cleaned. In other words to get access to clean water we must clean it and labor is not free. we have to pay for filtering systems and reverse osmosis plants to keep access possible.
CONTENTION 2: DRINKING WATER IS NOT USED FOR JUST DRINKING. people use drinking water to clean dishes, their bodies, and appliances around the house. This is an obvious fact that I do not need data on but I will say that according to Larry Macdonnell, Ph.D., former director of natural resources law centerat the university of colorado. "13 gallons of water per day is essential but we use more than 100 times as much, why dont we trust markets to provide the 99 percent that is 'nonessential' water?
TheBrorator

Pro

My case will be found here: https://docs.google.com...

Now, onto my opponent's case:

Value/Criterion:
a. No link. By healing one nation's economy, we cannot help others. If the case is that water should be valued as a commodity, which is indeed Con's case, it must be paid for by the people using it, not the distributors. We cannot say that fixing one nations economy will heal all wounds in the world. If we fix the American economy, we will not solve for water shortages or the lack of access to water in other countries. Also, to prove that the criterion and value link, the Con side of this debate must prove that we are able to improve the economy, and what economy will be growing to provide for social welfare.
b. Social welfare, defined by Con as: providing society "with certain minimum standards and opportunities." Con offers no definition to minimum, so I will offer my own.
minimum - the least quantity or amount possible, assignable, allowable, or the like. (Dictionary.com)
My point here is, that providing society with the least amount possible of opportunities, and the worst standards without having any is not good. My value will be valued higher because if we use Con's to provide society with just above nothing, we do not value justice. By valuing Justice we give people what they need, and apply to the resolution.

Contention 1: Scarcity is gaining, huh?
According to the World Water Counsel, Con's "fact" is false, and there are only 1.1 billion people without access to clean drinking water in the world, this is about 16%. You can cross apply my observation here in that we are discussing what is moral, not what is possible. We are debating what should be done, and not how much it will cost anyone. Con claims that we need to keep access possible, but according to the resolution itself, it is. Con strays from the initial objective of this debate by talking about keeping the access possible, as opposed to whether or not access should be free or not. Attacking the point that access is possible does not help Con's case.

Contention 2: Cleaning is not the no. 1 priority.
a. Con claims that drinking water is used for more than just drinking water. What Con doesn't realize is that "Drinking Water" defines this water as to be used for drinking. I do not use drinking water, which can also be defined as water meant for only the purpose of drinking, to wash my dishes, or my body. I use it to drink, and nothing else.
b. Most third world countries would much rather gain drinking water for the purposes of drinking before they feel they need to wash themselves, or their plates. Con completely excludes these countries in his case, and assumes that, even if he did include them, their priorities are not to drinking the water they would be given in my side of the resolution.
Debate Round No. 1
TrueJustice

Con

i cant see your case
TheBrorator

Pro

Note: The link works perfectly, and goes right to my case. Even if he couldn't see mine, Con didn't argue my attacks on his case. This round will be counted as a forfeit by Con.

All arguments extended.

Voters, please check the link, as it does work.
Debate Round No. 2
TrueJustice

Con

the speech that my opponent just made is completely and utterly wrong the link has not worked for me so it is not a forfeit for me it is wrong for me to have to debate against something i cant see do not extend any of his arguments
TheBrorator

Pro

TheBrorator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheBrorator 4 years ago
TheBrorator
This isn't my reason of this being an easy win, but okay. Dude, post concerns in comments, not in the debate.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Alright truejustice. I'll challenge you to this in a week. You can use this case, and I'll prove why against you case, the aff has an easy win.
Posted by TrueJustice 4 years ago
TrueJustice
As long as people on this site can see it
Posted by TheBrorator 4 years ago
TheBrorator
Slight issue: my case will meet the character limit, but I will not be able to post and attacks. Do you mind if I use google docs for my case?
Posted by TheBrorator 4 years ago
TheBrorator
I have two cases, just deciding which to use.
Posted by TheBrorator 4 years ago
TheBrorator
It's quite an easy win, the Aff is actually impossible. I'll show you why in my case when I post.
Posted by TrueJustice 4 years ago
TrueJustice
I come to realize that this topic is actually pretty fair on both sides and yes its LD i seriously doubt it would be an easy debate.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
And yeah, it would be an easy win. At least if your opponent had an idea of what they were doing.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
It's the spring UIL LD topic. Yeah, it's LD
Posted by lddebate234 4 years ago
lddebate234
Would this be an LD style debate?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ixaax 4 years ago
Ixaax
TrueJusticeTheBroratorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: FF goes to Con, But Pro had valid points while Con piddled about.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
TrueJusticeTheBroratorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Countered the FF... and argument goes to Pro. Con is just a troll.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
TrueJusticeTheBroratorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff