The Instigator
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Buddamoose
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,260 times Debate No: 21538
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (56)
Votes (1)

 

Zaradi

Con

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

Pro affirms the resolution, con negates it.

Since this is the Spring UIL topic for LD currently, I would like whomever accepts this debate to be well-versed in LD debate and how LD cases function. This isn't mandatory in order to accept the debate, but it would be more beneficial to me so that I can prepare for the district tournament. Value/criterion or some burden system of some sort, frameworks, contention level arguments, the whole nine yards. Of course, this is only a preference, and anyone can accept the debate if they so choose to do so.

Rounds break down as such:

1. Pro presents case
2. Con presents case and refutes. Pro refutes and defends.
3. Con refutes and defends. Pro refutes and defends.
4. Con refutes and defends. Pro refutes and defends.
5. Con defends. Pro defends. Voters are presented. No new arguments in this round.

Good luck to whomever accepts this debate.
Buddamoose

Pro

Before I begin I would like to thank Zaradi for starting this debate, and for allowing the maximum 8k character limit as I'm sure it will be necessary at points. Best of luck Zaradi :)

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

As pro I will be arguing in support of the resolution and will begin using the following points:

P1: As a necessity for human survival access to drinking water should be ensured for all people.
P2: To deny access to drinking water, regardless of reason is equivocal to murder, as without it, a person will die.
P3: The feasibility of ensuring all are afforded access to clean drinking water, despite it being extremely difficult does not outweigh the previous two points.

P1: It is a scientific fact that human survival is dependant upon access to drinking water. It is essential for bodily functions. Why is it so important? "Every cell, tissue and organ in your body needs water to function correctly[1]." Some important functions include maintaining temperature, removing waste, and lubricating joints. However as my previous quote showed, every part is dependent upon water. Indeed water makes up the majority of the parts of the body as well, "Up to 60% of the human body is water, the brain is composed of 70% water, and the lungs are nearly 90% water. Lean muscle tissue contains about 75% water by weight, as is the brain; body fat contains 10% water and bone has 22% water. About 83% of our blood is water[2]..."

Indeed not having drinking water, even having drinking water but insufficient amounts has negative effects that are seen quickly, "Dry mouth, the eyes stop making tears, sweating may stop, muscle cramps, nausea and vomiting, heart palpitations, lightheadedness (especially when standing), weakness, and decreased urine output. Also as thee body tries to maintain cardiac output (the amount of blood that is pumped by the heart to the body); and if the amount of fluid in the intravascular space is decreased, the body tries to compensate for this decrease by increasing the heart rate and making blood vessels constrict to try to maintain blood pressure and blood flow to the vital organs of the body. This coping mechanism begins to fail as the level of dehydration increases. With severe dehydration, confusion and weakness will occur as the brain and other body organs receive less blood. Finally, coma, organ failure, and death eventually will occur if the dehydration remains untreated."

Indeed all these scientific reasons/effects lead nicely into proving my second point, to deny access to drinking water, regardless of reason is equivocal to murder, as without it, a person will die. To further prove my point I will ask the question, "Does one have to be personally involved in a persons death to be at fault(wholly or partially)?" A reasoned point can be made that by making water a commodity instead of a right that we would all thusly become responsible for every death that results from lack of drinking water.

Lastly, my third point, that the feasibility of ensuring all are afforded drinking water does not outweigh my previous two points. As I am sure not even my peer wishes to be involved in another persons death, either directly or indirectly. As making water a commodity would be equivalent to sentencing those who are unable to afford water to death.

I look forward to my peers arguments. Again, best of luck Zaradi.
Debate Round No. 1
Zaradi

Con

A: Uniqueness - Populations are rising. Kates[1]writes:

It took the world population millions of years to reach the first billion, then 123 years to get to the second, 33 years to the third, 14 years to the fourth, and 13 years to the fifth billion,The U.N.’s revisedpopulation projection estimated world populationwould swell to 11 billion by 2050.

And the availability of drinkable water is decreasing for two reasons:

1 – Climate change is lessening our supply of water. The Arlington Institute[2] states:

Climate change is depleting [the] supply of water. As the climate warms, glaciers in the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau have been melting. According to the IPCC, global temperatures have warmed by .76 Celsius over the last 100 years. In subsequent years, there will be less and less glacial meltwater to continuously supply India’s rivers.Nearly 70% of discharge to the River Ganges comes from Nepalese snow-fed rivers,if Himalayan glaciers dry up, so could the Ganges. The Ganges has numerous tributary rivers which supply water to hundreds of millions of people across India. Therefore, if the Ganges even partly dried up, it would have drastic consequences for a huge population.

2 – Government ability to gain drinkable water is failing. The Arlington Institute furthers:

India receives an average of 4,000 billion cubic meters of rainfall every year. Unfortunately, only 48% of rainfall ends up in India’s rivers. Due to lack of storage and crumbling infrastructure, only 18% can be utilized. Rainfall is confined to the monsoon season,when India gets 75% of its total annual precipitation. Due to India’s storage crunch the government is unable to store surplus water for the dry season. Such uneven seasonal distribution of rainfall has not stimulated the development of better capturing and storing infrastructure, making water scarcity acritical problem.

B: Link – The affirmative claims that everyone ought to have access to water as per their human rights links in because a) it lowers our supply of water to give to other people and b) further causes the population to rise by increasing the quality of life.

C: Internal Link – As the population rises in the affirmative world, it causes us to deplete more and more resources, which has the potential to set up a very bad situation. Hance writes:[3]

Wealth is dependent on the environment, and our environmentis both finite and increasingly plundered. There is a limited amount of oil, coal, and gold in the world. There is only so far one can push renewable resources. The rise of a global throwaway culture has resulted in an economy based on collapsing environmental capital, creating the ultimate bubble. As more people populate the planet the wealth disparity has been widening.

Once our supplies reach a certain limit, and the population reaches a certain size, mass chaos comes from it. Kates 2 writes:

Ecologists havecalculated [that] if world population grows to 10 billion people, that will create a “dire situation,” with “catastrophic” health and environmental problems. Birth rates would spiral out of control, and the crowded planet couldn’t continue to efficiently sustain its population, which would consume water at a faster rate than it could be renewed. There are physical limitations to how much food can be grown on the planet’s surface, and the density of a 10-billion person world would be incompatible

D: Impact – Once our world enters a state of water scarcity, it sets up the possibility of wide-spread conflict arising out of the need for water. The Arlington Institute states:

More than two billion people worldwide live in regions facing water scarcity. In India this is a particularly acute crisis. Millions of Indianslack access to clean drinking water, and the situation is only getting worse. India’s demand for water is growing at an alarming rate. India’s populationis expected to overtake China’s by 2050 when it reaches1.6 billionputting strain on water resources as the numbergrows. A rapidly growing economy and a large agricultural sector stretch India’s supply of water thinner. Meanwhile, India’s supply of water is rapidly dwindling Climate change is expected to exacerbate the problem causing unpredictable weather, which could drastically diminish the water coming from rainfall and glaciers. As demand for potable water outstrip[s] supply in coming years, India will face a slew of problems, such as food shortages, intrastate, and international conflict.

And by conflicts I’m not talking about just a simple skirmish. The conflict that I’m talking about is nuclear war. Klare writes:[4]

The[re is an] inadequate capacity of poor countries to cope with the effects of change, and the resulting state collapse, civil war and mass migration. "More than 300 million people in Africa currently lack access to safe water," provoking more wars like Darfur. these scenarios use more deadly weapons. As oil and natural gas disappears, more countries will rely on nuclear power to meet their energy needs -- and this "will accelerate nuclear proliferation as countries develop enrichment capabilities to ensure their national security. Drought, flooding and storms can kill us but so will wars among the survivors over what remains of food, water and shelter.

This impact is going to outweigh because:

1) The affirmative is trying to save lives by giving everyone access to water, but by doing this they only damn people to death via nuclear war and eventual extinction via nuclear explosions and radiation.

2) By advocating for the right to access drinking water, the affirmative only violates people’s base right to life in the long run, which prevents them from even accessing a right to drinking water.

This case functions in two ways:

1) It’s an independent reason to negate because I’m saying that by affirming, we violate the ultimate human right to life through causing a nuclear war. By negating, we prevent nuclear war, which solves back for the aff harms of dying from lack of water.

2) It functions as a case turn to the affirmative because they’re advocating that we distribute water to all people, as per their human rights explicitly stated in the resolution. But I’m telling you that if we did that, we would only further violate their rights in the long run. So as long as I'm winning my side of the case, you have to vote con as I'm sufficiently case turning the entirety of the pro case.

To respond to the pro case:

I concede the third point of my opponent's case. Since I'm not attacking the feasibility of giving everyone drinking water, this third point doesn't apply to the debate in any way. To respond to my opponent's two other points, the disadvantage I read functions as a turn to both of these contentions. Since my opponent read no framework, he MUST WIN both points in order to win. In order to win both points, he MUST sufficiently and successfully refute the disadvantage I read, since it functions as a turn to those two contentions.

Since I lack characters to go further in depth to my opponent's arguments, I'll conclude here for the round. Vote con. Sources are listed below.


[1] Professor of Philosophy at Ithaca College – 2004 [Carol, Reproductive Liberty And Overpopulation, Reproductive Liberty, Environmental Values 13:1]

[2]"Imminent Water Crisis in India." The Arlington Institute. Web. 08 Feb. 2012. <http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org...;.

[3] Jeremy Hance [economist and environmentalist activist for mongabay]. 11 challenges facing 7 billion super-consumers. October 31, 2011. http://www.mongabay.com...

[4] Michael T. Klare [professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., and the author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Petroleum Dependency]. The Coming Resource Wars. Alter Net.

Buddamoose

Pro

I thank my peer for such an extensive response.

My peer has made many good points, and I will attempt to refute each in turn. First I cede that the supply of resources in the planet is indeed finite. Yet is drinking water one of those that need be a problem? There is indeed a solution to the dwindling fresh water supply, a solution that is obvious enough. Considering the majority of the earth is composed of water, we need only look at the oceans to solve the problem. Yes, seawater is not drinkable, but it is as such because of its high saline(salt) content. We are able to desalinate water though, and have been doing as such for hundreds, if not thousands of years, "Desalination/Distillation is one of mankind's earliest forms of water treatment, and it is still a popular treatment solution throughout the world today. In ancient times, many civilizations used this process on their ships to convert sea water into drinking water. Today, desalination plants are used to convert sea water to drinking water on ships and in many arid regions of the world, and to treat water in other areas that is fouled by natural and unnatural contaminants. Distillation is perhaps the one water treatment technology that most completely reduces the widest range of drinking water contaminants.[1]"

This solution as simple of a concept as it is, would require a massive global effort. Yet with the stakes being so high as my peer has stated, it is a step that must be taken. My peer also has falsely stated that by negating water as a right we would prevent a nuclear war. Yet even if we were to take this step, other dwindling resources would cause the same outcome. Therefore the situation has turned into one of, "damned if we do, damned if we don't." Logically speaking, whether or not a solution for water is found, another scarce resource, such as food will cause the same outcome.

On the note of climate change, I can only assume my peer realizes that .76 degrees Celsius temperature change within a 100 year period is well within the norm for previous temperature changes in Earths history. Indeed .76 degrees is quite mild as compared to, "The ice core showed the Northern Hemisphere briefly emerged from the last ice age some 14,700 years ago with a 22-degree-Fahrenheit spike in just 50 years, then plunged back into icy conditions before abruptly warming again about 11,700 years ago.[2]" Yet he is correct in stating that it will affect the worlds freshwater supply negatively. As such we must begin taking steps immediately towards seeking alternative means of freshwater(desalination). The bonus to the warming would be, well, becoming warmer, "Agriculture in the U.S. and other industrialized countries is expected to be less vulnerable to climate change than agriculture in developing nations, especially in the tropics, where farmers may have a limited ability to adapt. In addition, the effects of climate change on U.S. and world agriculture will depend not only on changing climate conditions, but will also depend on the agricultural sector's ability to adapt through future changes in technology, changes in demand for food, and environmental conditions, such as water availability and soil quality. Management practices, the opportunity to switch management and crop selection from season to season, and technology can help the agricultural sector cope with and adapt to climatic variability and change." One need only be prepared, and if indeed there were such a catastrophe approaching us, the effort must be global. Also one important factor in this, as the planet becomes warmer, habitable land will increase, think Greenland, and Iceland becoming moderate temperature zones. This will increase available land for agriculture as well. If, and I will stress IF, humanity prepares properly, climate change(warming) could be beneficial. I will state that warming has the possibility of being beneficial, if it were to get colder(a distinct possibility) indeed much colder, think mini ice age, and scientists are saying that it is possible, if not likely, "The supposed ‘consensus' on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum' in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.
Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.
We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24' – which is why last week's solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.
Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun's surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.[3]" Indeed if this were the case, it would signal an increase in available freshwater from glaciers/snowmelt, but would spell disaster for agriculture, thus shifting the cause of a war from water, to food. Which supports the aforementioned statement, that a nuclear war over resources is likely regardless of whether or not water is scarce. Indeed water is perhaps the one problem that we can easily solve if enough effort is put into it. As we already have to technology to desalinate water in mass quantities, one need only build sufficient facilities to meet the need.

Continuing, my peers point is true, that government ability to secure drinking water is indeed failing. Yet this is not because we do not have the ability to meet the need. It is because there is not enough effort to solve the problem. In terms of survival of a species, need wealth even be necessary to undertake steps to solve problems? It shouldn't, yet sadly it is. This is more of a failing on humanities part, not because we do not posess the means and technology to do so, but rather because we do not see the unnecessary deaths of billions to be an urgent issue that must be solved now. A sad point indeed.

In terms of population growth, again my peer is correct that this poses a serious problem. Yet again it is a problem that can be solved. Indeed it can be done without harming anyone. A limit upon the number of children a couple(or person) can have is a way to solve it. It would not immediately solve the problem but within a couple of generations population would decrease. Think 1 child for every 2 people, and within a 50 year span one could surmise that a 8 billion pop. could become as little as 4, if not even less as not every person has children. I cant say I wholly agree with that solution morally and ethically, but it is a better alternative to a nuclear war.

Finally I will make one additional point,

P4: Because we posess the technology/ability to ensure every person has drinking water, we have a moral/ethical responsibility to ensure that every person does, to not would, again, be equivalent to murder.

1) http://ga.water.usgs.gov...
2) http://www.sciencedaily.com...
3) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
Zaradi

Con

I thank my opponent for a valiant effort to refute my position. Unfortunately, he just isn't doing enough work to cover every aspect of my case, and thus will be his fatal flaw in the round.

Before I go into refuting my opponent's refutations and extending my arguments, I'd like to point out one thing to the voters: my opponent did not extend a single piece of his case. He presents a new point for his case, but this point only further links him into the harms provided by my case. So far as he's not adressing the links to the argument at all, he's still biting straight into the harms, which is the main reason why we can vote con on the resolution right now, regardless of how the rest of the rounds go. Since he still links into the harms, this is going to turn his case, a point that he DID NOT REFUTE in his last round. So as far as I'm winning offense off of my case, it's sufficient to vote con on the resolution.

A large portion of my opponent's last round was making a massive non-unique argument on the argument that available drinking water is decreasing, an argument I made in my A point (he didn't implicate his argument as one, but that's basically how he made it to function). Unfortunately for my opponent, he made a poor choice in which argument to spend the entirety of his time refuting, because this is an argument I don't need to win in order to be sufficiently extending offense off of my case. Although I will still refute his arguments, the majority of my time will go to other more important portions of my case.

The main problem with my opponent's argument is it commits a massive corrolation-causation fallacy. He is proving that we're going to have an increase in water due to temperature changes from the sun cycle (or something along those lines) but he doesn't warrant as to why an increase in water would mean a decrease in food. I would claim that an increase in water would mean an INCREASE in food supplies, since we would have more water to use on things like irrigation and watering of plants and crops. Thus, he's commiting the corrolation-causation fallacy. We are observing (or supposedly will observe) an increase in water, according to his sources, but this doesn't link to a decrease in food. If anything, it would cause an increase in available food.

Since this is what he spent the largest part of his last round refuting, the majority of his refutations are thusly de-railed and are fallacious. You can extend out the first two pieces of evidence from the Arlington Institute as the very first place to vote con here, regardless of the other rounds.

But now I would like to point to the virtually conceded Kates card that talks about an increase in population. Even if you're buying my opponent's refutations and the inherent non-unique made on the availability of water argument, this is still independant of that, thus sufficient for me to extend out as sufficient offense for my case to still link into the harm of nuclear war. All he does is propose to limit child birth to one kid per family, but there are a number of things wrong with this:
1) We can look to China and see how this example just flat-out doesn't work. China has this exact policy for population control, yet has the world's largest population. While I don't know the exact reason for the increase in population, the policy that China has implemented hasn't solved a thing. So why would it be any better on a world-wide scale?
2) This only further infringes on our rights as human beings to the pursuit of happiness, as families are often happier with more kids. There are very few families with JUST one kid, and forcing them to stop would only cause more unhappiness.
3) There's no way to actually enforce this law. People can just have babies anyway and give them to foster homes or other organizations that could look after them. So it would be a pointless policy.
4) The only real way to punish those who DO break the rule, if there was a way to enforce the rule, would be to either a) kill the baby when born, which is a MASSIVE rights violation and an outweighing harm to my opponent's case, or b) severely punish those who do give birth, which would only infringe on their rights further.

Thusly, the policy he has in mind is an absolutely god-awful idea. As this is the ONLY argument placed against the very first piece of Kates evidence, you can extend this out as the second place to vote con, regardless of the other rounds.

Next, my opponent proposes a solution to the water scarcity crisis: desalinization of water. The only problem with this is he conceded a piece of evidence that directly responds back to this argument. Look to the second piece of Kates evidence under the C point. What this evidence is talking about is once our population reaches a certain level, a whole bunch of bad things start to occur, and we would start to outstrip supplies, like water, far faster than they could ever possibly be replaced. So the proposal to have water salinization, while appearing to be a good idea, won't do much to help us in the long run. So you can extend Kates 2 as the link to the impact.

The Hance evidence was entirely conceded in my opponent's last speech. It provides a piece of the internal link to the impact. Since he concedes it, give it the strength of weight. Extend it out, this keeps his case biting into the harms provided in my case.

So ultimately, once we start using up water at a faster rate than we could possibly supply it, as the Kates 2 evidence claims, we then reach the third piece of Arlington Institute evidence. This evidence claims that once we have a shortage of available fresh water, we will be facing problems such as intrastate and international conflicts. And these conflicts are nuclear war, as provided by the Klare evidence directly below it. These two cards were entirely unrefuted in my opponent's last speech, so give them the strength of weight. Because of these two arguments, by affirming the resolution my opponent inevitably seals our fate to be that of extinction by nuclear war. In this, you can extend out the two unrefuted reasons why this impact outweighs the impacts given in my opponent's case. By affirming, he a) causes us to all die from nuclear war, which is far worse than some of us dying from lack of clean water, and b) violates our rights to life in the long run, which prevents us from accessing the very rights he is advocating to get.

Then extend the turn made at the bottom of the case that the disadvantage functions as. As long as I am sufficiently winning offense on my case, as I proven to you that I most definetely am, then I am effectively turning my opponent's entire position, thus winning the debate. Because of this, there is no other reason to really continue this debate, and you can vote con right now without even paying attention to the rest of the arguments in the following rounds.

But overall, I urge a con vote.
Buddamoose

Pro

I thank my peer for yet another fine round,

"I would claim that an increase in water would mean an INCREASE in food supplies, since we would have more water to use on things like irrigation and watering of plants and crops. Thus, he's commiting the correlation-causation fallacy. We are observing (or supposedly will observe) an increase in water, according to his sources, but this doesn't link to a decrease in food. If anything, it would cause an increase in available food."

It has already been stated that an increase in temperature would lead to a decrease in water supply. My peer is correct in stating that an increase in water would aid to agricultural yields, yet that does not account for all factors. If scientists are correct that the planet might very well enter a "mini ice-age" this would equal a decline in the space of time for crops to grow, thus yielding fewer crops. A period of colder temperatures would also lead to less terrain that would be "farm able." During the periods of cold known as ice-ages glacier advance upon lands, and reduces land that would otherwise be available. Warmer temperatures although reducing available freshwater, would not reduce seawater. Does my peer understand that seawater can be used for irrigating crops?

"A British company has created an irrigation system that can grow crops using salt water. The dRHS irrigation system consists of a network of sub-surface pipes, which can be filled with almost any water, whether pure, brackish, salted or polluted. The system can even take most industrial waste-water and use it without the need for a purification process.[1]"

I assure my peer that no correlation/causation fallacy is occurring as my reasoning is sound. Indeed it is quite logical and takes into account a multitude of factors for what climate would be most suitable for producing the highest agricultural yields. While my peers opinion accounts for one, availability of drinking water(freshwater).

"Since this is what he spent the largest part of his last round refuting, the majority of his refutations are thusly de-railed and are fallacious. You can extend out the first two pieces of evidence from the Arlington Institute as the very first place to vote con here, regardless of the other rounds."

I would request to know how a majority of my refutations are fallacious? I would request my peer not throw around baseless accusations as it only lessens the integrity of the debate itself. Further, I will state that my peers evidence from the Arlington Institute proves nothing except:

A: Climate Change is reducing availability of current freshwater sources
B: Governments are not doing a well enough job of obtaining freshwater.

I refuted point A by stating that there is one source unaccounted for, seawater through desalination. Which had the capability of solving the problem of water sources for a very long time. Indeed water makes up 71% of the earths surface, and out of that 71% only 3% of that water is "freshwater", and this takes the cake here, ONLY .007% OF ALL WATER ON EARTH IS ABLE TO BE USED BY PEOPLE(not counting saltwater of course)[2]. This is water in rivers, aquifers, etc. One only needs to realize that to see that saline water(saltwater) is a solution that would work for generations. Finishing his second piece of evidence has nothing to do with actual availability, if these governments were efficiently storing/obtaining this water, there would conceivably only be a minor problem if one at all. In other words the evidence does not actually refute my argument at all, as it has nothing to do with the actual supply of water(except in stating that governments aren't doing well enough to capture/store available amounts.) Which I will repeat the point made in the previous round,

P4: "P4: Because we possess the technology/ability to ensure every person has drinking water, we have a moral/ethical responsibility to ensure that every person does, to not would, again, be equivalent to murder."

I have proven we possess the technology and therefore the means to ensure every person on the planet is afforded drinking water. My evidence has further shown that these solutions would solve the problem for quite a long time in the future, even with increases in population. Therefore disproving my peers claim that, "The affirmative is trying to save lives by giving everyone access to water, but by doing this they only damn people to death via nuclear war and eventual extinction via nuclear explosions and radiation." Beyond that my previous refutation that regardless of whether or not water was available to everyone, as well as being scarce or not, a war is likely to occur over another dwindling resource, and therefore we are damned if we do and damned if we dont, does a sufficient job of refuting the basis that a nuclear war is guaranteed if affirmatives position is taken.

My opponent states that his case functions in two ways, "1) It's an independent reason to negate because I'm saying that by affirming, we violate the ultimate human right to life through causing a nuclear war. By negating, we prevent nuclear war, which solves back for the aff harms of dying from lack of water. 2) It functions as a case turn to the affirmative because they're advocating that we distribute water to all people, as per their human rights explicitly stated in the resolution. But I'm telling you that if we did that, we would only further violate their rights in the long run. So as long as I'm winning my side of the case, you have to vote con as I'm sufficiently case turning the entirety of the pro case."

Indeed so long as you are they would. Lets examine that further though to see if you are. First you have not outright proven that choosing the path of affirmative would result in nuclear war. That is but a hypothetical, a likely hypothetical given the scenario in the evidence. Yet it is entirely dependent upon water actually being a scarce resource. The evidence that I have brought forth shows not only that we possess the means to supply sufficient resources to meet the needs for water, but also shows this next point(notice the framework starting to piece together)

P5: Because we possess the technology and therefore the means to supply the worlds population with sufficient drinking water, to proclaim that drinking water is a "scarce" resource, is false. Water is not scarce, we as a species simply are not using the tools at our disposal to solve the problems at hand."

If water is not scarce, any war that would be caused over it would be humanities fault and solely humanities fault on basis of being downright lazy. To possess the means to prevent a catastrophe and not do so(whether its war or billions dying of thirst) is outrageous, morally reprehensible, and sickening.

"B: Link – The affirmative claims that everyone ought to have access to water as per their human rights links in because a) it lowers our supply of water to give to other people and b) further causes the population to rise by increasing the quality of life.
C: Internal Link – As the population rises in the affirmative world, it causes us to deplete more and more resources, which has the potential to set up a very bad situation."

If you insist I shall refute. I will point out that A in the first link is only true if water is scarce, a point I have already shown to be false. B is only a problem if there is no way to prevent population growth, yet the policy of child limits does actually work, and Ill point out that out of any option, its the least reprehensible one, "China and India will face a triple threat.�Their birth rates have approached total fertility rates that are insufficient to maintain population levels.[3]" Also keep in mind that both China and India's standard of living is increasing, yet population is poised to decrease, thusly disproving causation.

Ahhh my kingdom for more space. Ill finish this next round. Onto you Zaradi. :)
Debate Round No. 3
Zaradi

Con

I must appologize to my opponent. He is misinterpreting how my case functions, and is thus still not sufficiently responding to my case. I'll spend a portion of my time here explaining how my case functions, and why his responses are not sufficient.

The strucutre of a disadvantage, I will shorten to disad, come in four points (A - Uniqueness, B - Link, C - Internal Link, D - Impact). Each point serves a unique purpose in the case.

A - Uniqueness: What things are happening in the real world that allow this case to apply to the resolution and to the aff/pro case. I make two independant points here: an increase in global population (Kates 1) and a decrease in the availability in water we can drink (Arlington Insitute 1/2). While he's covering the second point pretty well, he's just not adequetly covering the first point. If I am winning off of either point, Point A is to be given to con as I am giving a sufficient reason why this applies. So lets go to the arguments against Kates 1:

His only main point is to point out that China and India's population are poised to fall. Fine. But the problem with this is my opponent is conceding three arguments I have made that inevitably screw over this argument:

1. He's conceding the analyis under my link that says by giving people clean water to drink, we prevent deaths from things like dehydration and water pollution, thus increasing our population. This is logically true because if less people are dying, obviously there will be more people living, thus meaning a higher population. In so far as he has CONCEDED THIS ANALYSIS through all of the rounds so far, this alone is enough to take out this argument.
2. He conceded the point I brought up that even if we were to adopt this policy on a world-wide scale, there would be no real way to enforce it adequetly. People could always just have babies behind their governments backs and then drop them off at a shelter for orphans or a place that will take care of them. He hasn't provided a way to enforce this policy, so this is enough to invalidate this argument.
3. He conceded the point I brought up that says the only real way we COULD enforce this would be to either a) kill the illegally birthed baby, which is a MASSIVE rights violation, or b) severely punish the mother and father of the illegally birthed baby, which is another rights violation. In so far as the only way to enforce his policy causes more harm than it prevents, this point is refuted.

So at this point, Kates 1 can be extended as a sufficient measure to fulfill point A. I don't even need to respond to the arguments against Arlington Institute 1 and 2, since they are independant from Kates 1, and either can fulfill the point A requirement.

B - Links. Why my opponent's case links into the harms of the impact. I give two points here. 1: giving other people water reduces our supply of water, and 2: populations will increase because less people will be dying from things like water pollution and dehydration. Both can be logically confirmed. If I have two water bottles and I give somebody one of them, do I still have two water bottles? No, I only have one. So by giving water to other people, we lower the amount of water we have to give to other people. So this is logically true. The second link is also logically true, as I have already pointed out. So either way, my opponent still links into the harms of the impact, which is nuclear war. This was never really refuted, he only tried to point out why it doesn't apply. But I'm showing you exactly how it still applies, so he's still linking in.

C - Internal Link. Why the link leads to the impact. This is the most crucial part of my case, and it is the part that has been ENTIRELY CONCEDED throughout this entire debate. This is where the Hance and Kates 2 cards come into play. Hance explains as our population rises, we push our resources further and further, and create a bubble. Once our population gets to large, we pop the metaphorical bubble and we arrive at Kates 2, which talks about once we reach a certain population (specifically 10 billion) people, the metaphorical crap will hit the fan and cause mass chaos. We will begin using our resources much faster than they can be replaced (through natural or artificial means) and things will begin to spiral out of control. This point has been entirely conceded throughout the entirety of the debate, so by affirming he's still leading things to the impact. In so far as he's conceded it for this long in the debate, don't let him start making new arguments against it once he realizes his mistake.

D - Impact. This one is the most obvious one, it talks about what will happen and why it matters. This is where the Arlington Institute 3 and Klare cards come into play. As set up by Kates 2, we will begin to rapidly use up all of our natural resources once our population reaches a certain level. Once water, specifically stated in Arlington Institute 3, reaches a low, intrastate and international conflicts will begin to arise over the need for water. This need for water will push countries into nuclear war, as stated by Klare. Once nuclear war starts, massive amounts of death will consume the globe, and nuclear radiation will plunge the world into extinction. Again, this part of my case was ENTIRELY CONCEDED throughout the debate so far. In so far as it's gone conceded for this long in the debate, don't let him start making new arguments against it once he realizes his mistake.

So this leads me to why the impact outweighs the pro's claims. I give two reasons for this: 1. By the pro trying to save people's lives by giving them clean water, they only cause them to die through nuclear war and nuclear radiation. So, the pro is effectively failing to prove his case true. 2. By advocating for a right to drinking water, they cause us to lose our right to life, which prevents us to even having a right to drinking water. If we're dead, we can't have water to begin with. So by affirming, he prevents us from having any rights.

Then this case functions in two seperate ways, both of which are sufficient for a con vote. 1: It functions sufficiently as a reason on it's own to vote con, since I'm showing you exactly why we ought not value access to water as a human right. 2. It functions as a case turn to my opponent's case, since I'm showing you exactly how, by affirming, he prevents us from having rights in general, much less a right to drinking water. Since I'm sufficiently proving my side true, and my opponent is not doing enough work to disprove my case, I'm winning on both levels of the debate.

So right now, we can easily call the debate an easy win for the con.
Buddamoose

Pro

I thank my peer for yet another fine round. This has been quite fun.

"So right now, we can easily call the debate an easy win for the con." I suppose its a good thing that you are not deciding. Anyways, let us see, can we really? In reference to point A, "His only main point is to point out that China and India's population are poised to fall." First off this piece of evidence was used in contention of Link part B and for a support in favor of child limits as a solution to population growth. It had nothing to do with point A. I concede point A. Population is growing, period. Regardless of whether
China or India will have a reduction of population, other parts of the world will continue to increase. Eventually the population will reach a point that the planet cannot sustain.

It is only useful in refuting Link part B, and a support in favor of child limits. In this sense this piece of evidence is key, as without it the conclusion that, an increase in quality of life does not equal population growth is not true. Indeed if that were true then the nations with the highest quality of life should have the highest population. This successfully refutes link, "b) further causes the population to rise by increasing the quality of life."

Moving on to Link part, "a) it lowers our supply of water to give to other people." Of course this is only true if water cant be reused/renewed in any way. Which is not true, distillation and desalination are purification techniques that are completely effective in removing contaminants from water(not just salt). Using the seawater/waste water irrigation techniques water can be used, reused, distilled/purified and drank again. Netting, 0 loss of water. I have two bottles of water, a person uses a bottle, and I gain the bottle back after it is recycled.

"He's conceding the analysis under my link that says by giving people clean water to drink, we prevent deaths from things like dehydration and water pollution, thus increasing our population." Please refer to china and India example. Also need I seriously address every minute detail of your argument? If quality of life is increasing in these countries(common knowledge will tell you it is) why is the population poised to drop? I will repeat what I stated in the previous round, this disproves causality. As it does this, the link that increased quality of life leads to population growth is negated. Regardless of what your logical deduction states, evidence does not back these assertions. Not to put too fine a point, it is false. As such there is nothing to link the affirmative position to my peers disad argument. Yet even though I no longer am required to respond further to this disad, I will anyways.

As of yet I have not had the chance to address the internal link. If my peer re-examines the previous round he will see that I was in the process of addressing both the link and, "Internal Link – As the population rises in the affirmative world, it causes us to deplete more and more resources, which has the potential to set up a very bad situation." Population will rise in the pro and the con world, I do believe Kates 1 proves this quite sufficiently. The internal link does not have sufficient reason to suggest that it will not raise in the con world and will in contrast reduce.

This plays nicely into my impact turn, "Logically speaking, whether or not a solution for water is found, another scarce resource, such as food will cause the same outcome." To state this more concisely as there appears to be confusion as to what exactly my arguments have been, Impact Turn: A nuclear war over resources is likely whether or not the affirmative position is taken. My previous damned if we do, damned if we dont statement was just a less abrupt way of putting it.

I of course concede the evidence used by my peer to support the impact turn, as this is the logical outcome of overpopulation as put forth by Kates 1 and 2 as well as Hance. The only part I refuted was that water was one of those problems that would result from Kates 2, indeed I have shown already how water is not scarce, and should not be considered as such. Thus even further removing any connection of the affirmative position to the internal link and the impact. Yet here I will supply more evidence in support of this,

Yes it is true that eventually the population will outgrow the supply of water, but given the techniques presented how long will it be till that will occur. Well considering, there is "326 million trillion gallons(roughly 1.3 billion trillion liters) [1]" of water on earth, and current consumption is, "828,748 billion liters a year," and that will increase by, "64 billion cubic meters a year[1]," or 64 trillion liters per year, and we begin to see the enormity of the amount of water on earth and how long it would take to reach such a point if all used water were recycled and seawater were desalinated. Thousands of years is an extreme low-ball estimate. This magical 10 billion number may be true for other resources, but for water, its purely nonsense. Yet even more evidence that both turns the internal link, and the impacts connection to the affirmative position.

To tally my argument thus far I have:

1) Turned the link, this alone is reason to vote the affirmative position as my peers disad argument only works if there is a connection between the aff position and the disad.
2) Turned the Internal Link by removing all connection to the affirmative position,
3) Turned the Impact by removing all connection to the affirmative position, as well as proving water is not scarce.
4) Refuted Arlington 1 and 2. The only evidence that supports my peers conclusion that availability of drinking water is decreasing. Was this necessary? No, as both examples are extraneous to my peers argument and are useless. I admit I fell for this distraction ploy and wasted precious space.

Which leaves us with my points:
P1: As a necessity for human survival access to drinking water should be ensured for all people.
P2: To deny access to drinking water, regardless of reason is equivocal to murder, as without it, a person will die.
P3: The feasibility of ensuring all are afforded access to clean drinking water, despite it being extremely difficult does not outweigh the previous two points.

P1 was conceded, yet P2 was not, P2 was refuted under the pretext that to ensure access to drinking water would result in a worse outcome(total extinction via nuclear war) and that pretext was proven false, therefore P2 still stands as valid. P3 was conceded therefore it is true. I further expanded upon these with:

P4: Because we possess the technology/ability to ensure every person has drinking water, we have a moral/ethical responsibility to ensure that every person does, to not would, again, be equivalent to murder. I have proven this to be true, and again the only refutation my peer offered was the same used to refute P2. For the same reasons P2 is valid so is P4.

P5: Because we possess the technology and therefore the means to supply the worlds population with sufficient drinking water, to proclaim that drinking water is a "scarce" resource, is false. Water is not scarce, we as a species simply are not using the tools at our disposal to solve the problems at hand. This has been proven true in the same way that P4 was proven true.

Finishing, I will say that all of my points lay sufficient groundwork to vote affirmative on the basis that to not would be morally reprehensible on the grounds that it is equivalent to murder. Due to it being morally wrong we have a responsibility to ensure people are provided with the water necessary for survival. That the feasibility of ensuring this supply of water is outweighed by the moral reprehensibility of not. Wealth is never a sufficient reason to take the life of another, never has been, never will. Lastly, that water is not scarce.

--------
Sources:
1) http://www.worldometers.info...
Debate Round No. 4
Zaradi

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for two reasons: 1. For taking this debate and allowing me to practice with a case I haven't been able to run in person yet, and 2. For shooting himself not only in the foot, but in the head with the vast amount of concessions he made in his last round. Let's go through and point out what he conceded and what it means in terms of my case, his case, and the round.

The first thing he concedes is the Kates card that says that population is growing. This is probably my opponent's worst mistake in the round. This concession implicates against him in a number of ways:
1. With this concession, Point A can be extended out and confirmed as offense for me. This means that the link between points A and C still stands strong.
2. With this concession, he concedes that in the aff world, the population is rising. This links him into the disad, outweighing his arguments against the link. So point B can also thusly be extended, thus still showing that the aff uniquely causes the impact.

Again, he concedes Kates 1. I'm showing you how it implicates in the round and why this screws him over, don't let him stand up in his last round and read off new arguments against it because he already conceded it.

Next thing that he concedes is the ENTIRE C point, which is Hance and Kates 2. This is going to be incredibly problematic for my opponent for a number of reasons:

1. Hance shows the link between A and D, meaning once our population reaches a certain level, we enter a state of chaos that leads to Kates 2.
2. Since he concedes Kates 2, he's conceding the warrant coming out of Kates 2 that once we reach this population, we will consume water at a faster rate than it could be renewed. This pre-empts his desalinization argument because even if it's true, Kates 2 explains SPECIFICALLY how it will not be enough to sustain us.
3. Since he concedes Kates 2, it concedes the warrant saying that we will consume water faster than it could be replaced. This links STRAIGHT into water scarcity, meaning that if we affirm, we cause water scarcity. This outweighs the arguments against the first link, showing how he's still linking into the disad by affirming. He even goes as far as to ADMIT he conceded this by saying right under it "Yes it is true that eventually the population will outgrow the supply of water". HOLD HIM TO THIS CONCESSION.

In so far as he's conceded ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE, practially HALF of the warrants in my case, he CAN'T win off of the disad. I'm showing you how the aff UNIQUELY causes the impact of nuclear war. He never made any argument as to why the neg causes this as well, only asserted it. I'm show you specifically how if we affirm, we cause nuclear war. My opponent has no evidence to back up his assertion. My impact still stands and it's the main reason why you're going to vote con. This also means that since the impact still stands, that the disad still functions as a case turn and take-out of my opponent's ENTIRE pro case. So he literally cannot gain any offense off of his case, as I'm showing you why HIS OWN CASE functions as a reason to vote con.

At this point, I'd assume that my opponent's "Oh sh*t" meter is going off in his head right now, once he realizes the gravity of his mistake. He's going to try and stand up in his last round of speaking and read off a massive amount of new reasons why what I'm saying is false and why he doesn't link and why he's not causing the impact. DO NOT LET HIM because a) he's conceding the warrants in my evidence that prove my case true and disproves his case and b) letting him list off a whole list of new arguments in the LAST ROUND of debate is highly abusive and unfair, since I have no ability to respond to it.

So at this point, the debate breaks down pretty easily for the voters:

1. I'm sufficiently showing why we ought not accept water as a human right, since doing so would cause nuclear war, thus fulfilling my resolution burden. First easy way to vote con.
2. Since I'm proving my case true, my case effectively turns the entirety of my opponent's case by showing that by affirming, we not only lose our right to drinking water in the long run, but lose ALL of our rights, not to mention losing our lives. Thus, he can't get any offense off of his case, and he can't win off of it.

In so far as he's conceded practically half of the warrants coming out of my case, I've shown you exactly why these two voters are true. Don't let him stand up and spend 8000 characters dumping new responses on my case, since that's highly abusive and unfair to me since I can't respond to them.

So at this point, it's a clear win for the con.
Buddamoose

Pro

Ill start out this round by thanking my peer for such a fine debate as I have thoroughly enjoyed myself. I will also say that throughout this round I will use different abbreviations that are as follows:

R- Reason
D- Round
S- Source

Now then, Here is a reason to vote affirmative.

R1- Due to the complete refutation of the Link in my peers disad argument, all conection to the affirmative position was lost, and therefore the disad as a whole is not a valid defense/offense within the context of the debate.

To explain, my peers whole argument is based on the pretext that upon taking the affirmative position, it will
1) Cause population growth
2) Population will grow to a point that the planet cannot sustain.
3)Thusly leading to a Nuclear War over resources.

To prove that the affirmative position causes population growth, thusly linking it to the disadvantage, he states, "The affirmative claims that everyone ought to have access to water as per their human rights links in because a) it lowers our supply of water to give to other people and b) further causes the population to rise by increasing the quality of life." This was part B of his argument, the link between my case and the disad. To successfuly refute his argument against the affirmative position one need only break the connection between it, and the con position(disad).

I have done this by refuting both parts of the link, this was necessary because even if one remains valid, the Link has not been sufficiently broken because it still connects my position to the disad. The refutations were:

A: Water can be reused/recycled so to say that by giving water to someone you reduce what can be given to another is false.(D2-S1)Water is not scarce therefore it makes no sense to even bring up this point.(D2-S1/D3-S2/D4-S1&2) As even if it were valid, which it is not, water being scarce is a prerequisite of why this point should even matter.
B: An increase in quality of life(standard of living) does not equal population growth.(D3-S3)

Indeed my peer for some reason chose not to refute these, even though the Link is the most integral part of the disad within the context of the debate, and chose to focus instead of
how i havent refuted other parts of his case. Before I continue I will point out that:

1) I need not refute every single part and the evidence used to support it for the case to be declared invalid within the context of the debate, just the link.(So as to reassure my peer that I am not creating new arguments here and just repeating or rephrasing what I have already said I'll quote) "As such there is nothing to link the affirmative position to my peers disad argument."
2) I conceded the evidence NOT the conclusions(Parts A, C, D of the disad) my peer drew from them. A subtle difference but one worth mentioning, as even though the evidence is true it does nothing to support his case so long as the link is invalid. In fact it works against his case too, as population will rise in the pro and con world. As such the impact is not valid as well, given it will occur in both worlds.

Due to my refutation of the link, thus negating the entire disadvantage, my case still stands as the strongest, as there has not been a sufficient defense mounted against it. As such the vote must go pro.

P.S.- This debate really should go to con for these reasons:

R1) Without his assistance in the comments i would not have come to these conclusions. My moral compass cannot allow me to claim victory given this factor.
R2) I have misused terminology throughout the entire debate and thusly debased my whole refutation as nonsense, and unintelligable.
R3) My peer was not afforded sufficient time to respond to my refutations as to do so he would have had to make new arguments as to why my position still links into the disad as a whole.
Debate Round No. 5
56 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Buddamoose 2 years ago
Buddamoose
and the point you made, to undertake something such as this would require an infringement upon the rights of others. And ahh, i see your point, although i still maintain rights are what belongs to us as individuals, that we are born with them, and they arent
based in the physical realm. I no more have a right to water as a person, as a right to food. If i wish to drink or eat, i must provide for myself. I would say the only exception would be those that cannot possibly care for themselves, such as children, disabled, etc. Although within reason, as it is a persons responsibility to ensure they have proper care for themselves when retired.

Once we start proclaiming what belongs to others, is really ours as a collective, and violate property rights, that which is truly essential for capitalism, or a free market to function, we open the door for further breaches upon rights.

"Yet that is the goal of most of today's intellectuals. At the root of all their conceptual switches, there lies another, more fundamental one: the switch of the concept of rights from the individual to the collective—which means: the replacement of "The Rights of Man" by "The Rights of Mob."

Since only an individual man can possess rights, the expression "individual rights" is a redundancy (which one has to use for purposes of clarification in today's intellectual chaos). But the expression "collective rights" is a contradiction in terms.

Any group or "collective," large or small, is only a number of individuals. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members. In a free society, the "rights" of any group are derived from the rights of its members through their voluntary, individual choice and contractual agreement, and are merely the application of these individual rights to a specific undertaking. Every legitimate group undertaking is based on the participants' right of free association and free trade."
- Ayn Rand
Posted by Buddamoose 2 years ago
Buddamoose
Overall though Roy, i agree, the cost is what this really boils down to. Not just how much it is to consumers, but how much it would cost from an investment standpoint. If access to water were ultimately considered a human right, who would enforce that right? Who would make sure this happens? Government? Putting the power of control of water, into the hands of a government, or even an organization such as the UN is screaming of potential for abuse.
Posted by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
So your premise is that survival of the individual is obviously more important than survival of the species? Nonsense, the species is clearly more important. Yes, if the right were given to men it would have to be given to women too. So what? It remains absurd.

The absurdity is the claim that a person has a right to force others to provide his needs. In practice people don't live where there is no water available. People move to where they can get water. The resolution claims others must provide for me because it is my right.
Posted by Buddamoose 2 years ago
Buddamoose
No one can doubt that the human species cannot survive without reproduction. Reproduction cannot occur without men having unprotected sex with women. Therefore men have a right to unprotected sex and must be supplied with it. Right? No, wrong. What is the error?

That you are comparing sex to water. Sex is not a basic condition of an individuals survival. Sex may be essential to the species continuance, but one of individual survival? Also one can spin that and say why men? Women have the right too so really it should be the all people have that right. Very slick sir, strawmanning with such a negative connotation(rape).
Posted by Buddamoose 2 years ago
Buddamoose
@Roy

Yet dont we all have the right to life? Essentially theres two things held in common by all people that are required for human survival, water and food. Because every person holds this need in common should it not be considered a human right, not a commodity to be bought and sold?

Also, your right, the cost would be enormous. Yet zaradi did bring up a good point, population is growing. This is an end game that can only be avoided from what I can see by 1 of 3 things:

1) Child Limiting
2) Mass Death to cull populations, SO NOT A GOOD OPTION, and eventually will water being a commodity not ultimately cause this?
3) Prolong the inevitable by increasing water supply thru desal/distill. If my math is even in the ballpark from the total amount of water on earth(solid/liquid not atmospheric, though theres an oceans worth there too) and how long it would take to reach the threshhold in terms of water, it would be so far off that its utterly ridiculous to even consider it a "problem."

@Zaradi- lol im wondering the same thing out of curiosities sake, i thought my formatting was much worse, considering a "format" was really nonexistant throughout my round entries
Posted by Zaradi 2 years ago
Zaradi
@Roy:

In your RFD, you said that the format of my R2 arguments was bad. What do you mean by this? What was wrong with the formatting?
Posted by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
No one can doubt that the human species cannot survive without reproduction. Reproduction cannot occur without men having unprotected sex with women. Therefore men have a right to unprotected sex and must be supplied with it. Right? No, wrong. What is the error?

In order for every person to be supplied with water as a right, other people must be forced to give up their livelihoods, and possibly risk their lives, in order to dedicate themselves to supplying water to others. The notion is that the right to water trumps all other rights. People cannot be granted rights to the property of others while maintaining a productive society.

In practice, well water costs about twice surface water and desalinated water cost about four times surface water. Society will have adapt to higher water costs in some places, but it's not life or death. It's a cost issue. Very poor places need all sorts of things in addition to water. They need capitalism to solve the general problem.
Posted by Buddamoose 2 years ago
Buddamoose
"Water is not scarce therefore it makes no sense to even bring up this point" That shouldve been labeled a "No Threshold" from the beginning.
Posted by Buddamoose 2 years ago
Buddamoose
Lol I fully read up on disads/terminology, and yeah, im totally labeling stuff wrong... Impact turn, wow I really shoulda figured out the proper terminology, i've "non-uniqued" it i think, at least from what i can surmise from what ive read.

Internal Link Turn/Link TurnLol, i just used turn as a synonym for refuting, I just ran a no link on both accounts(well tried to, idk if it was wholly effective.)

I read the whole debate after figuring out all this terminology and ive used the wrong term for every thing... I know I have a good case here ive just gotta format it and word it correctly... I'm onto something with the No Link i feel. Impact turn, lol, how can i honestly say a nuclear war works in my favor when my case is based on moral grounds.

Im sorry dude, i sure as didnt help you out any with practicing the case. Heck by the time I finally got my act together and made a decent refutation(thank you for the tips btw) of your disad it was round 4. Coulda done in Round 3 what I said in Round 4.

We can restart this if you want because im sure this hasnt been a sufficient mode of practice. Seeing as i think im onto something with the No link/Non-Unique argument...

Ill make you an offer, let me restart the debate, unless of course you dont want to, which i suppose would be understandable considering the total cluster my argument has been. Ive been all over the dam place. You cam still run your disad, as im sure you have easy responses to my Non-Unique Impact and No Link arguments.

Oh yeah and ima still put out a final round, but im also going to concede the debate because well, I wouldnt of come to the conclusions without your assistance
Posted by Buddamoose 2 years ago
Buddamoose
Yeah so
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
ZaradiBuddamooseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: A game effort by both sides, with good adherence to debate protocol. Pro conceded, giving Con arguments. The bad formatting in Con's R2 made that argument very difficult to read. More on the topic in comments.