The Instigator
YsmailovBektemir
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Kaiyrilla
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should water be sold as commodity? (Central Asia)

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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,105 times Debate No: 18099
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

YsmailovBektemir

Con

Many years this issue hasn't been considered actual, and people lived happily, without thinking that sometime they will face a problem of shortage of water. As you know, within last 20th years thisissue becomes more and more actual both among politicians, and among economists. The issue is in this, should water be sold as commodity as oil and gas, or like air, earth and fire it couldn't be sold.
Kaiyrilla

Pro

Since disorder all former Union republics have been applying for riches of state. In those countries where there are oil and gas large supplies, began to develop faster and became rich. And those countries where there are no oil and gas supplies or very little amount of them, began to search new sources of natural resources, especially water. There were attempts to pass laws to level water to the goods.
Debate Round No. 1
YsmailovBektemir

Con

But there were also opponents of the given idea, including me. How is it possible to sell water whereas human life and, in general, life depends on it on the earth? We don't sell air, do we? In Uzbekistan, in particular in Fergana valley, live more than 12 million people, and every year this number increases. If they're not provided with water, they'll simply remain without work and will starve. I think, your justifications in this case purely humanly aren't pertinent. The quantity of the compelled immigrants will increase and it will lead to humanitarian accident.
Kaiyrilla

Pro

But I consider in another way. Moreover, I will tell that water differs nothing from the same gas and oil. Both water and oil, gas are extracted from earth, there's been spent a lot of money for extracting both of them. In that case let's give free of charge gas, once pipelines has been constructed. There's been spent a lot of money for gas purchase, well-being of the people decreases.
Debate Round No. 2
YsmailovBektemir

Con

You know, to extract oil, there's been spent billions of dollars, the countries how we now named upper courses, involve the big investments and take long to extract them? And not only in this case there's been spent money, but also the damage to ecology occurs. After all the Fergana valley is considered as one of the most densely populated regions in the world.
Kaiyrilla

Pro

To save up and submit water, a lot of money also has been spent. I will give an example. When the main water intake in Central Asia - Toktogulsky, has been built a lot of arable earth was flooded and some countries had to be replaced. Expenses were huge and now are. There are also expenses for inhabitants of republic. For example, as you know, the most important line of republic, which connects the south and the north, passes round the Toktogulsky water basin. If it was possible to pass the given site for 15 minutes (7-8 km) before the opening of basin, now drivers do a detour in 90 km and more than hour is spent. It's on the average 10 liters of gasoline for one car, multiply thus amount for 1500 – 2000 cars a day. It's a huge amount of money.
Debate Round No. 3
YsmailovBektemir

Con

But from work of a water basin Kyrgyzstan receives certain benefits, developing the electric power, provides itself and its neighbors by selling it. The same Tajikistan, without having some oil and gas mining, they live by producing electricity from water. It means that these countries should give water free of charge, because they get profit on water. Actually they want to get double profit - from electric power and water sale.
Kaiyrilla

Pro

Yes, of course, these two republics if they didn't have water, in general would appear in a difficult situation. Above I resulted examples to answer your question why water to equate to the goods. It is known that in some countries water sell is sold for irrigation of the earth. For example, Turkey sells water to Bulgaria, Canada sells to USA. I will repeat, for an irrigation of fields. The upper course countries should arrive reasonably, for human need they implicitly should give water free of charge. For example, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan receive water to free of charge, but they sell it to uzbek farmers. We have huge stocks of fresh water, in the country we sell it for irrigation of the fields and for drinking. This means that we equate water to commodity without realizing it.
Debate Round No. 4
YsmailovBektemir

Con

So, we discussed the issue of the possibility of water to be sold as commodity. As we see the arguments of both side are very strong. The compromise should be found by our governments. I think our debate was very good and I hope we'll discuss some other issues later.
Kaiyrilla

Pro

Yes, I agree with you that compromise should be found by our governments. I thank you for discussing with me this issue and I also hope we'll debate on some other topics.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
YsmailovBektemirKaiyrillaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: There was no clear winner in the debate as it really proceeded dialectically more than anything. This was just a regular conversation mostly. I thought Pro could have easily exploited Con's point about water being necessary for life with numerous counter-examples of things needed for life being sold as commodities. Housing, food, transportation, health services, etc. are also necessary to live but are commodities like any other. Vote tied though as there didn't seem to be any clear winner.