The Instigator
caroline327
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
smileydodge
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

<GY> Water should be Privatized

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,556 times Debate No: 13773
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

caroline327

Con

Before going on to anything else, I will clarify some of the terms stated in the topic. The setting should be limited to democratic countries where the capitalistic distribution is possible, and 'privatized' as letting the distribution and sales of water be responsible to entrepreneurs and companies.

In this debate we have to interpret whether water privatization's advantages out weigh the disadvantages, and I say no. This issue has been brought up because some think that a product managed by the private companies and the market increases quality and efficiency. This can be true in some cases of the products, but let me prove throughout this debate why 'water' is exclusive and should be provided by the government.

First, let's think about the nature of water. Water is the resource that directly affects human life. Access to potable water is included in the UN human rights charter as well. Because water is related to the rights to life, it should not be regarded as a product, but rather a basic, fundamental human rights service that should be provided to everybody. And sources with qualities like these should be provided by the government. Other sources related to rights of citizens such as basic education, access to electricity and protection of the citizens are all provided by the government, not in the company's hands. The government should be responsible in providing the citizens the basic rights.

Second, I will compare the nature of the private companies and government, and state why the government does a better job in providing water citizens. We should keep in mind that the aims of the companies are maximizing profits, not providing water to citizens. In these cases, citizens are not seen as citizens that deserve rights, but rather seen as customers providing profit to the company. And when they don't, their water supplies will be cut. It is true that market economy encourages competition and targets lower price and best quality. However, the company will need to suffer a loss in order to acheive this. And when this happens, the company will turn to making a profit at an expense of either increasing the price or lowering the quality. It is very likely that companis are likely to increase the price of water aiming for profit, because they know it is a life source and people would have to purchase it anyway. In contrast, government targets providing the waters to everyone. Their main goal is to provide their citizens what they need. By this goal, at least the distribution is made. Even if it is underpriced, the citizens get to encounter a source of water.

Let's take a look at some of the examples of the countries where the water was privatized and suffered of negative results. In a case of England, where there are sixteen different water companies, even though the price went down from the initial cost, their prices are still five to ten times higher that that of countries where water is provided by the government. Plus, their tariffs increased by 46%. In Tanzania, where it is a developing country, the bills went up for the users. And people turned into unsafe water resources rather than paying the increased bills.
These were examples of some of the harms that came with the privatization of water.

Finally, let me talk about the environmental harms that can come with the privatization of water. The exploitation and depletion of resources can come. The companies are too much interested in making profits to care about how much resource is actually 'left' to use. Even if there were lack of resources, it wouldn't really matter because little supply can be a good reason for higher demands and increased prices. This might cause the water to be gone, and also affect the plans on various projects in water, such as hydroelectric power or projects in canals.

Because water is so exclusive and necessary for life and all citizens, it should be provided by the government and not be privatized.
smileydodge

Pro

Okay, so I would like to start out by saying that if we made water open for everyone, then there would probably be a higher risk to lose the water that God has given us. Water being cleaned and sold makes money for the companies, yes, but we don't need to worry about losing it. We have plenty, and making costs for the money actually puts standards to meet in order to purchase the water, thus selling less saves the water. We should not make this a big issue in the world right now. We have plenty more other problems. Trust in the Lord, and He will give you the desires of your heart. :)
Debate Round No. 1
caroline327

Con

I will start by suggesting some rebuttals

My opponent has suggested that God wouldn't want water be opened to everyone because a lot of water will be lost, and therefore it should be privatized in companies' hands. However, this argument fails for many reasons;

1) First, more water is going to be lost even more if they are in companies' hands, as I have previously stated in my first round, because companies have their desires for profits. Their desire for profits far outweigh the need to preserve water, and to produce more 'water products', they will even risk using an excessive amount of the water resources that we have. This might lead to the depletion of water.

2) Yes, it is true that our lord wouldn't want the water resources to be wasted. But as I have stated, more water resources are going to be lost if they are in private companies' hands. Plus, if water is privatized, that means that the poor people and those who don't have money will not be granted the access to water, a source that is directly related to life. This is already unfair in the means of human rights. Would God really want his people to suffer the situation where they have no water? God cares about his people first and satisfying their thirst and need for water before he worries about the minor losing of water.

3) Your statement on 'selling less' does not stand, because to make a profit, companies will have to increase the sales; and increasing of supplies is inevitable.
smileydodge

Pro

To counter your statement, my point was not that God would not want water to be open to everyone, but that if we did make water legal and open to everyone, that would cause even more problems in our society.

1) Yes, God cares very much about humans, and does not want them to thirst or starve. However, He does want us to work towards what we want and need. Making the water free, means that even the people that don't work, or don't go out into the world and get a job, get the same priveliges that poeple do who do work hard.

2) There are places where you can get free water. There are many places where you can get free cups of water. People don't NEED bottled water. If they are so picky, they can earn some money and buy themselves a bottle.

3) There are worldwide systems and organizations that help people get water. We should take those oppurtunities and help the countries in need.

Thank you for listening to my side of this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
caroline327

Con

I first express my thanks for the arguments, and let me proceed to a final round :)

Let me first begin by refuting some of the statements;

1) Let me first clarify and inform that distribution of water is not limited to 'drinking water'or , but rather a distribution to homes through pipes such as water used for bath, dish-washing, toilets, and many other purposes. Therefore, once again water is more than just 'drinking' or 'bottled water' but rather a supply for many tasks we need to do in life.

2) Yes, there are worldwide systems and organizations, but they are insufficient to provide every people with water supplies. If those organizations were so great and so effective, how can the nations and people suffering from unapproachable water be existent? I believe that domestic governmental effort through making the water public works much better and efficient. The failures of water privatization is mentioned in my first round's arguments through the examples Great Britain(developed country), and Tanzania(developing country). Let me provide you with some of the successes that public water supply systems have made;
Germany has a public system with very low distribution losses; 100% of the urban areas have access while 97% of the rural areas are granted of access. For both urban and rural areas, over 90% has the high sanitation rate. In Denmark, 100% of the population gets water supplies, with more than 87% of high sanitation rate. For the example of a developing country, we have Costa Rica - nearly 90% or the rural areas are granted access, and with almost all of the urban areas getting the supply as well. These data proves that public water systems are certainly more efficient in providing the public with water with good quality and efficiency.

3) My opponent has stated 'there are places where you can get free water'. However, he/she did not state such specific places, and it is not proved. And EVEN IF there were to be places with free water, still people would have to carry the water they need all the way home - which is very inefficient compared to the water pipe systems.

4) "people who don't work or don't go out into the world and get a job should not get water" ; means that if one does not have money or a job, they should not be granted the access to water. However, let's keep in mind that no money and no job is caused from lack of efforts. So what about people that are born in adverse conditions? If they have money, does that mean their water supplies, a vital source, has to be cut? A nation and a government should be ready to provide its people, at least a VERY BASIC LIFE SOURCE, instead of abandoning them.

5) There are certain RIGHTS that are granted to people regardless of their jobs or status in money- such as rights to life, freedom of speech, rights to be protected, rights to vote, and so on. And water is one of those sources that should be granted and be provided by the government.

Today, I have proved to you that water should NOT be privatized through suggesting;

1) Explaining the nature and qualities of water being a necessary life source and why it should be provided by the government,

2) Explain the Nature of the private companies and how their preference on profits over people can cause harm, plus the comparison with the public water systems which were successful,

3) Possible environmental harms that can come with privatizing water
Plus I believe I have rebutted my opponent successfully.

However, I haven't really seen a direct rebuttal to theses arguments from my opponent. Plus, what I have seen in the arguments of my opponents were vague.

1) My opponent firstly misunderstood the privatization of water - when it should have been considering the supply of overall water, my opponent has only considered 'bottled water' which was a very limited topic.

2) He/she was also irresponsible in providing people with fair and equal source of water- and when I pointed out the responsibilities of the government and necessity of water supply, I haven't heard the response to that.

3) 'Worldwide systems and organizations of water' or 'free sources' of water were what my opponent suggested. However, they were not specified. Plus, getting water supplies to everybody from those water systems are very impractical - but my opponent as ignored these factors.

4) I haven't seen any reason from my opponent on WHY companies are more efficient or better in providing people with water sources, or why companies can manage the water systems better without harming the environment.

5) Not just these reasons, but I haven't seen a solid argument or a reasoning in my opponent's arguments, and therefore, I do not exactly know what possible solutions or suggestions that were suggested by my opponent. He/she was merely irresponsible, and while he/she tried to tackle my arguments, because they were vague and illogical, they do not stand.(please refer to my rebuttals)

Water, once a gain, is a source that is directly related to the rights of life. And because people should be granted these rights, it should be the government who should be managing the system. My reasons have been proved throughout this debate, and if you care for the people and fair distribution of water, please vote for me! We all want water to come out from our sinks, toilets, and showers. :)
smileydodge

Pro

To have a conclusion for this debate, water should not be Privatized because this could lead to water waste. Having water free and open to everyone causes us to lose more water. If anything we should look to purchasing the water saving appliances like China has. It's a wonderful way to save water and would help countries in many ways.

However until we work something out it makes no sense. We need to work hard to help the poeple without water and reach out to them. Thank you for listening to my debate.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by smileydodge 6 years ago
smileydodge
Please, don't talk that way on this comment wall. Thank you.
Posted by Shtookah 6 years ago
Shtookah
Damn I meant to vote bomb.. pro.... holy chit.. where to begin..

"Trust in the Lord, and He will give you the desires of your heart" Now WTF is that about, seriously?

"Yes, God cares very much about humans, and does not want them to thirst or starve. However, He does want us to work towards what we want and need. Making the water free, means that even the people that don't work, or don't go out into the world and get a job, get the same priveliges that poeple do who do work hard." .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. wow It's like I'm watching Jesus camp again..
Posted by losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
just kidding, I thought you were pro ><
Posted by losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
I'd love to take this debate sometime against you, caroline327.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
What does GY mean?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Shtookah 6 years ago
Shtookah
caroline327smileydodgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Warturtle 6 years ago
Warturtle
caroline327smileydodgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:50 
Vote Placed by KevinW 6 years ago
KevinW
caroline327smileydodgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:40