The Instigator
BigSky
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MassiveDump
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Humans Do Not Have the Right to Water

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 6 votes the winner is...
MassiveDump
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,530 times Debate No: 31303
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (6)

 

BigSky

Pro

Thanks to whoever accepts this, I say that humans do not have the right to water, I will elaborate later on. One is just acceptance.
MassiveDump

Con

I accept this challenge and wish my opponent best of luck.

I am fascinated. Please do elaborate.
Debate Round No. 1
BigSky

Pro

My argument is actually a play on words in a sense. Many people think that someone dying of thirst should be provided water by the government. If this truly is the case, certainly that person needs water! Technically, that person doesn't truly have a right to that water. To understand what I'm saying, I'll put it into this context: Citizens currently have the right to bear arms. That doesn't mean that people have the right to arms from the government, or from other people, it means they have the right to own and carry arms. Many people say that people have the right to water, and by a technicality, that isn't true. On the other hand, I am all for charity, and yes you should give someone who is thirsty water. I will not force you though, and no one should be able to force you. Therefore, people don't have a right to water, they have more of a right to live in a sense.


Hope this was informative!
MassiveDump

Con

Wow. Just... wow. Anyway...

1. Right v. Entitlement

The main issue here is my partner is mistaking "Right" for "Entitlement".

Right - A just claim.

Entitlement - The right to guaranteed benefits under a government program.
(Random House Dictionary, 2013)

My opponent is trying to say that people are not entitled to water, which claim has some validity. However, people are right to have water.
Allow me to explain using the Unalienable Rights from the Social Contract Theory as an example. These rights are rights that we believe should not be taken away from any individual under any circumstances. They are, of course, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These aren't things the government provide us with, they're simply things that can't be taken away by the government.
Therefore, while my opponent has proved that we aren't entitled to water, he has given no reasonable argument that we don't have the right to it.

He may argue that some people don't currently have water and we don't have to give water to them simply because it is a right. However, this is again, where he should use the word "entitlement". Some people don't have life. It's not up to us to give life to the dead, we just can't take life away from the living.

The unalienable right to life brings me to my second point.

2. The Right To Water = The Right To Life

According to the Social Contract Theory, all humans have the right to live. Our own common sense tells us that we need water to live. Because we need water to live, if water is not being provided to us, then neither is our right to life.

Now for this point, it may seem like I used the word "entitlement" as a substitute for the word "right", because water would have to be provided. But in this situation, with it being wrong to take away someone's life, If someone does not give them water when they have water to spare and when the person in need is dying of thirst, that person is negligently taking away one's right to live.

With that, my opponent admitted that people have a right to live. An because people have the right to live, by my argument stated above, people also indirectly have the right to water.

...and finally, the obvious.

3. My Opponent's Case is Abusive

My partner cleverly chose not to explain what he meant by "the right to water" in the first round when clearly he displayed in the second round that he was capable of doing so.
As such, I showed the capability of countering his argument. However, playing the card he played is a troll strategy used by novice debaters who so desperately need a win and will attempt to do so by tricking an opponent into thinking a debate he created would be easy.

I of course would not have posted this argument if he would have simply defined the resolution in his opening statement. However, by attempting to use deception as a cheap way of winning a debate, he now only has one more argument on his hands. Moral: this strategy is counterproductive.


Hope this was informative!
Debate Round No. 2
BigSky

Pro

My intent was not an easy win to a debate, and while I disagree that the right to water isn't equal to the right to life, I will concede to show my good intentions. I'm sorry for wasting my opponents time.
MassiveDump

Con

I thank my partner for providing me with an opportunity for an original, fun debate.

Vote Con :D
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
what a crazy debate.
Posted by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
Good concept, well done. I enjoy something different :D
Posted by BigSky 3 years ago
BigSky
I have other deadlines I have to meet
Posted by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
That tends to happen when you concede. I liked rross' Sun Tzu quote. ;)
Posted by BigSky 3 years ago
BigSky
Lol, getting destroyed
Posted by Reni-1_3 3 years ago
Reni-1_3
Interesting debate....
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by DWolf2k2 3 years ago
DWolf2k2
BigSkyMassiveDumpTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro Conceded the debate
Vote Placed by ladygagadisco 3 years ago
ladygagadisco
BigSkyMassiveDumpTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's case was amazingly thorough. Pro was abusive. Pro's case was unorganized and confusing.
Vote Placed by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
BigSkyMassiveDumpTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: That was an interesting debate. I honestly agree with BigSky in the sense that people do not have the right to water, but because of his purposeful trolling I am setting the "Who made more convincing arguments?" as a tie.
Vote Placed by rross 3 years ago
rross
BigSkyMassiveDumpTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Aww BigSky, you shouldn't have let him intimidate you! That "My Opponent's Case is Abusive" thing is just a trick. You could have still won this. The whole "right to life" argument was bizarre. Still, lovely prose from Con. As Sun Tzu said in the Art of War: "There are five dangerous faults which may affect a general: (1) Recklessness, which leads to destruction; (2) cowardice, which leads to capture; (3) a hasty temper, which can be provoked by insults; (4) a delicacy of honor which is sensitive to shame; (5) over-solicitude for his men, which exposes him to worry and trouble." BigSky, you need to think about (4).
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
BigSkyMassiveDumpTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: While awarding Con arguments would be justified by BigSky's concession alone, I would also like to commend MassiveDump for presenting a well-written round two differentiating between rights and entitlements, and also providing excellent support for his position. After that, it was already difficult to imagine Pro winning this debate. Sources for sourcing his definitions and unalienable rights.
Vote Placed by Daktoria 3 years ago
Daktoria
BigSkyMassiveDumpTied
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: Derp.