Water should not be privatized
I will be arguing that water should not be privatized. Con must defend the position that water should be privatized.
P1: The right to dignity is inviolable
The right to dignity (aka the idea that people, by virtue of their humanity, have an innate right to be valued, respected, and receive ethical treatment from others) is the basis upon which all human rights extend. This is because human rights, by nature, aim to allow people to access a certain quality of life and protect that ability (e.g. you have the right to freedom of thought because being able to express yourself is critical to achieving happiness, and you also have the right to not be arbitrarily detained because that would impede upon your ability to pursue that quality of life). If people are not treated with dignity, then it is impossible for them to ever attain that quality of life. This is because they will not be made to feel valuable as human beings (have a lack of self-worth) and they will be unable to connect meaningfully with others in society.
P2: Dignity requires a bare minimum standard of living
I would argue that to achieve human dignity, certain key aspects of what it means to be a person need to be provided (assuming the person cannot provide these for himself/herself). This is because people who cannot access these cannot truly access the basic prerequisites for humanity. The two fundamental aspects of all human life are:
1) Shelter—every person needs shelter from the environment, whether this is through clothes, a tent, house, etc.
2) Resources that satisfy biological needs—this includes things like clean air, water, and food because no one can live without these
P3: Privatization of water violates dignity
As you can see, access to clean water is listed underneath resources that satisfy biological needs (for obvious reasons). By privatizing water, water becomes a commodity just like any other: a resource that can be bought and sold. As a result, water will inevitably become something that people can either afford or cannot afford and those who cannot afford it will lose access to it. I think this is a clear violation of people’s inherent right to be able to access vital resources. Privatizing water means that the fact that you are a human being does not entitle you to what is needed to sustain your life. Rather, it is the money you have available that will determine whether or not you can get what everyone requires. Your ability to be able to sustain yourself and live a life should not be based on such an arbitrary, man-made construct such as money or wealth, but should be based on your nature as a human being.
P4: Water will become a luxury resource, leading to serious practical harms
Large corporations, due to the capital and resources available to them, are the most likely group to come to dominate the water market if it is allowed to be privatized. Corporations are held accountable to share holders instead of to the public. What this means is that they will act to please shareholders rather than the public. More often than not, this means that corporations are profit driven (since, among other pretty clear reasons, profits please shareholders). Water, which has already been established as something that is absolutely vital, will, therefore, have nearly unlimited demand, though only a finite supply. Naturally, corporations will exploit this and charge more than necessary (though not exorbitant amounts and make the mistake Martin Shkreli did) and transform water into a luxury resource (which it should not be).
As with any luxury resource, isolated locations will be unable to access water. This is because there is no reason for a corporation that owns water to invest tons of money into developing distribution chains and infrastructure in poorer, rural towns where there are fewer consumers and operation costs are higher when that money could instead be invested into streamlining water distribution chains in major cities where there are tons of consumers with money to spend. This applies not only to more rural locations, but also to poorer nations. Given globalization and the current trend of massive multinational corporations that exert huge influence over the globe, third world nations that are already poor will end up being exploited for the benefit of first world nations. Water will inevitably be shipped from poor nations to richer nations because that’s where the money is and that’s how corporations will be able to maximize profits. So not only will poorer people as a whole be the most impacted by privatization of water (since they will be the least able to pay), but nations as a whole will be held down.
All in all, I have shown that there is a clear principle that should not be violated. Additionally, I have highlighted numerous practical harms to people who live in isolated or poorer locations.
This is a clear violation of Bob's property rights so it stands that in this case Bob should have private ownership of the pond.
I will now refute some of my opponents arguments:
"P1: The right to dignity is inviolable"
My opponent has claimed that people have a right to dignity. I agree with this this claim. I also agree with my opponents definition of dignity: the idea that people, by virtue of their humanity, have an innate right to be valued, respected, and receive ethical treatment from others
P2: Dignity requires a bare minimum standard of living
I agree with my opponents definition of bare minimum standard of living and I agree with P2.
1) Shelter"every person needs shelter from the environment, whether this is through clothes, a tent, house, etc.
2) Resources that satisfy biological needs"this includes things like clean air, water, and food because no one can live without these
P3: Privatization of water violates dignity
P3 does not follow from the definitions of dignity in P2. Dignity requires a bare minimum standard of living, as you have asserted, so people are only entitled to a bare minimum of water. The amount that they need to survive. You cannot draw the conclusion that just because people a bare minimum amount of water needed to survive should be made publicly available for those who need it, that all water should be made publicly available to everyone.
A similar argument could be made for the privatization of food to conclude that all food should be made publicly available, since food is require for biological needs. So everyone should be entitled to take whatever food they like. This would lead to disastrous effects, so we cannot accept this line of reasoning.
A bare minimum of water and food (and shelter) is already granted as a public right, that is why there are food banks that hand out water aswell as water fountains. There already is currently privatization of water, so clearly privatization of water doesn't violate dignity, thus P3 is false.
"By privatizing water, water becomes a commodity just like any other: a resource that can be bought and sold. As a result, water will inevitably become something that people can either afford or cannot afford and those who cannot afford it will lose access to it."
This doesn't follow, there is a lot of water that is currently privatized and people still have access to it. Actually it improves access to water since the average person doesn't have the means to go to far away bodies of water, nor filter water on their own.
In conclusion, I have demonstrated a specific instance in which private ownership of water is necessary, falsifying Pros claim that water should not be privatized.
Additionally, my opponent has failed to prove their claim that any amount of private ownership would violate a persons rights to dignity
Refutation and reassertion of my own case (underlined statements are my opponent's arguments):
My opponent has taken the stance that water should not be privatized, so my argument will be quite short. If I can show an instance where water should be privatized then I have falsified his claim.
I argue that my opponent needs to show more than this. In fact, I think that it is not enough to show that there is one hypothetical instance of Bob the farmer (which I will address because that example does not prove anything), but rather than on balance, privatizing water is more beneficial than harmful.
People have the right to own land. Some people own land that have bodies of water in them. Therefore people have private ownership of the body of water that belong to this land.
This is not an argument for why water should be privatized. This is essentially a statement of what the status quo currently is (people can own water), not a defense of it. My opponent has not justified why private property rights should extend to water (which is the whole debate here).
Now take for example Bob, who owns a small farm which contains a pond. If you are against private ownership of water, then I should have the right to enter Bob's farm and go to his pond and have a drink of his water if I am thirsty.
Yes, this is exactly what I am arguing. Bob’s neighbor Tom should have the right to go and draw water from Bob’s pond when his own water source runs out. I think it is horrendous that Bob should be able to say “sorry Tom, you can’t have any water to drink, cook, or clean in because that water is mine. The only way you’re going to get any is if you pay me for it,” and eventually, Tom won’t be able to afford Bob’s water (since Bob can charge whatever he wants for it since he knows Tom’s demand is biological and must be satisfied) and will have no water at all.
This is a clear violation of Bob's property rights so it stands that in this case Bob should have private ownership of the pond.
Once again, my opponent needs to justify why private ownership extends to water (which is the whole debate). I have argued that since water is so fundamental, ownership of it violates dignity. Therefore, private property rights should not extend to water. This is different say, from Bob’s ownership rights over his tractor because a tractor is not a fundamental prerequisite for life.
P1 and P2 have both been agreed upon by both debaters, so both arguments clearly stand.
Opposition concedes here that people are entitled to a bare minimum of water. Thus, as I will proceed to show, if privatization prevents people from accessing this bare minimum, then water cannot be privatized. This is, as a whole, a claim I entirely agree with: people are entitled to the bare minimum of what they need and what they need only.
You cannot draw the conclusion that just because people a bare minimum amount of water needed to survive should be made publicly available for those who need it, that all water should be made publicly available to everyone.
This is an entirely valid conclusion. Everyone is entitled to a bare minimum of water, privatizing water prevents some people (especially poorer people) from being able to receive this bare minimum. Why is this the case? Because privatizing water means that corporations can choose who they give water to because they own it. They choose via selling it: people who can afford to buy water receive it, those who can’t don’t. Therefore, privatizing water leads to people being prevented from getting any water at all because they can’t afford it. How is this prevented? Making sure water isn’t privatized and, therefore, keeping it available for everyone. This does NOT mean that people can take all the water they want, but it does mean that people can access water to fulfill their basic requirements.
So everyone should be entitled to take whatever food they like. This would lead to disastrous effects, so we cannot accept this line of reasoning.
This is an inaccurate representation of my argument: I never stated that people can take whatever amount of water they like. Rather, I clearly laid out how some people will be unable to afford water, making it impossible for them to achieve the bare minimum they need. Therefore, it cannot be privatized. However, I think that my argument does logically extend to food. People are entitled to obtain the bare minimum of food they require to live, that does not mean that people can just take whatever they want, rather, they should only get (at least) what they need.
A bare minimum of water and food (and shelter) is already granted as a public right, that is why there are food banks that hand out water as well as water fountains. There already is currently privatization of water, so clearly privatization of water doesn't violate dignity, thus P3 is false.
My opponent has confused the public and private sector, since large portions of the food, shelter, and water provided as a public right are provided by publicly owned corporations/the government, not private entities (e.g. social services that help provide housing is a government initiative). As water becomes more and more privatized, the amount publicly available will decrease and decrease and people won’t be able to access this bare minimum.
This doesn't follow, there is a lot of water that is currently privatized and people still have access to it.
Yes, people have access to it, but at a far greater price than publicly owned water (1). This just goes to show how privatization leads to price increases (for the reasons I presented in R2 which were not clashed and, therefore, stand), which will eventually prevent people from being able to access it at all. This trend will only continue as more and more water gets gobbled up by private entities and less becomes publicly owned.
Actually it improves access to water since the average person doesn't have the means to go to far away bodies of water, nor filter water on their own.
For the reasons I have shown in Round 2 (which again, were not refuted) this is not true. Firstly, the places where people actually go to bodies of water or filter it on their own are largely underdeveloped nations (e.g. countries in Africa where people walk miles to the local well). Should water be privatized, then these people may not be able to go to those wells and draw water because that water is the property of a foreign corporation. That corporation has no reason to build another well or provide clean water to these people because they can’t afford to pay for that water. Secondly, even in places that are developed, the same problem arises. People can be barred from accessing that water by whim: maybe one day Bob doesn’t want to give water anymore to Tom and that’s that. Access is greatly diminished and private owners have virtually no accountability to the public, allowing them to do whatever they want with the water.
Additionally, my opponent has failed to prove their claim that any amount of private ownership would violate a persons rights to dignity.
I have entirely shown this: people won’t be able to afford water, they won’t be able to achieve the bare minimum they need to live, therefore their dignity is violated. Moreover, dignity rights trump property rights in every situation since they are so much more fundamental, so even if you buy the argument that private property rights should exist over water, then opposition still falls because that property right is less important than individuals’ right to dignity.
The resolution is affirmed.
First, let me restate the case of Bob the farmer - water that is a part of someones private property should be owned by that individual. Bob owns a farm with a small pond in it.
My opponent makes the claim that my argument about Bob the farmer is meaningless:
"I argue that my opponent needs to show more than this. In fact, I think that it is not enough to show that there is one hypothetical instance of Bob the farmer (which I will address because that example does not prove anything), but rather than on balance, privatizing water is more beneficial than harmful."
My opponent is mistaken because this hypothetical instance is not specific to Bob or his pond, it shows that any individuals that own property with water should have ownership over that water. It could be John and his pool, or Lucy and her well.
Currently people have the right to own land and the water that belongs to it, which is a natural consequence of land ownership. Instead, my opponent suggests that Bob the farmer should have ownership over his land and at the same time not have ownership of the water (and doesn't see how this is a contradiction) inside of it as per the following statement of his:
"I have argued that since water is so fundamental, ownership of it violates dignity. Therefore, private property rights should not extend to water."
Additionally my opponent claims that any property rights Bob has over his land are secondary to peoples right to access the water in his land.
"Moreover, dignity rights trump property rights in every situation since they are so much more fundamental"
If we accept my opponents arguments then people can come and go as they please taking from Bob's pond as they see fit, not only this, but they could damage his property in order to obtain water. Tom can drive a tractor through Bob's fence and over his garden in order to obtain water, since access to water is required for his dignity.
If my opponents reasoning is correct it leads to absurd conclusions and puts into jeopardy peoples rights to property, privacy and safety. So we must conclude that my opponent premise that: free access to water is part of ones fundamental right to dignity is false or that his premise: private ownership of water should not be allowed is false. Either one of these refutes his argument, since his justification for private ownership of water not being allowed is because he believes that it violates persons rights to dignity.
Thus I have demonstrated that free access to water is not a fundamental right to dignity, only the bare minimum access to water needed for biological needs (such as survival) is a fundamental right and this fundamental right is not violated by individuals ownership of water. Since there are many other sources of public water such as public food banks and public water fountains. As well as very cheap and readily available water in any grocery or convenience store.
It stands to reason that private ownership of water is essential to an individuals private ownership of land, and is essential to an individuals right to privacy and safety. Since private ownership of water does not violate anyones right to dignity, and public ownership of water violates individuals rights to property, safety and privacy it stands to reason that private ownership of water for individuals should be allowed.
My opposition agrees with me that:
"This is, as a whole, a claim I entirely agree with: people are entitled to the bare minimum of what they need and what they need only."
Then he tries to show that privatizing water will cause people to not have access to water:
"Everyone is entitled to a bare minimum of water, privatizing water prevents some people (especially poorer people) from being able to receive this bare minimum."
He makes the claim that:
"They choose via selling it: people who can afford to buy water receive it, those who can"t don"t. Therefore, privatizing water leads to people being prevented from getting any water at all because they can"t afford it."
This is an unjustified conclusion to draw, my opponent is assuming that privatizing water will increase the price rather than decrease the price of water, which is false according to . So my opponents argument doesn't stand.
I made the argument that a bare minimum of food is a fundamental right of a person, which my opponent agrees with:
"People are entitled to obtain the bare minimum of food they require to live, that does not mean that people can just take whatever they want, rather, they should only get (at least) what they need."
However food is privatized, so if we follow my opponents argument that privatization of water leads to people not having access to a bare minimum of water; these same arguments apply to food, leading to the conclusion that privatization of food leads to people not being able to afford food which in turn violates their rights to dignity. However this is a contradiction since food is privatized and the overwhelming majority of people are able to afford it; those that cannot can get it for free through food banks. Clearly no ones rights to dignity has been violated therefore my opponents arguments lead to a contradiction. Privatization of water just like privatization of food will not lead to people not having access to a bare minimum of water or food.
My opponents response to the reality that privatization of water currently exists and no one has been denied their dignity rights is that:
"My opponent has confused the public and private sector, since large portions of the food, shelter, and water provided as a public right are provided by publicly owned corporations/the government, not private entities (e.g. social services that help provide housing is a government initiative). As water becomes more and more privatized, the amount publicly available will decrease and decrease and people won"t be able to access this bare minimum"
However, the government has bought the water from the corporations for a cheaper price then they would have gotten it on their own, so there is no incompatibility with private ownership of water and providing a bare minimum of water as a public service.
My opponent made the claim that:
"This just goes to show how privatization leads to price increases", and cited source: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org.....
This source comes from Food and Water Watch: an organization dedicated to fighting privatization of water, and the data is selective and biased.
An unbiased study of "every community water system in the U.S. from 1997-2003 to test the effects of ownership and benchmark competition on regulatory compliance and household water expenditures"  found that "there is little difference between public and private systems".  In fact, the study found that "all else equal, households in counties with 100 percent private ownership would pay about 14$ per year less than households in counties with 100 public ownership."  This study controls for variables such as "the share of households whose rent includes their water services" and the portion of our taxes that goes towards water. Whereas my opponents study has selected only some private water companies and does not account for any other confounding variables.
Another study by the World Bank of 65 public-private partnerships for urban water utilities in developing countries showed that "PPP projects have provided access to piped water for more than 24 million people in developing countries since 1990".  This shows that private ownership of water improves access to water.
I have demonstrated how private water ownership increases savings and access, and guarantees your rights to dignity, property, privacy and safety. Thus water should be privatized.
This debate can be broken down into two key questions:
1) Do private property rights extend to water?
My opponent’s main argument throughout this debate was that private property rights extend to water found on land. There was no substantial analysis into why this is the case; rather, my opponent essentially stated that it stands to reason that water found on land which is owned belongs to someone. He also raised an interesting point about right to privacy and security, making reference to Tom driving a tractor through Bob’s fence.
However, I have consistently shown why property rights should not extend to water for many reasons. Firstly, inherent in privatization is the complete control over the object (in this case, the private entity would have complete control over the water it owns). I have shown why this is already a harm since corporations are held accountable to shareholders and not the public, meaning that there is no way to ensure accountability and responsible use of water with regards to the public. As a result, there is no way for the public to force a corporation to build wells or provide water to extremely poor or rural locations. This is an argument that has been completely untouched by my opponent, so it stands. In contrast, the government can be held accountable and therefore will provide services to even the poorest and most isolated location, which a private entity will not do because it is too costly. Therefore, the conclusion that can be drawn is that private property rights, if they extend to water, means that irresponsible and harmful use of water can occur, which is something that must be prevented.
As a result, if property rights extend to water, Bob can randomly decide one day that he will not give any water to Tom. He has complete control over the water and no way to ensure he acts in a socially responsible way, so his neighbor Tom, who himself has no access to water at all, can do nothing but die. This is a situation that cannot be allowed to ever arise, but is something that can happen if water is privatized.
As a side note, my opponent has repeatedly mistaken my argument: no, I do not support people coming and taking food or water whenever they please, HOWEVER, I do support the idea that people are entitled to a bare minimum and if they are ever unable to obtain that, they are 100% justified in driving a tractor straight through Bob’s fence and getting the bare minimum they need for themselves.
With respect to food, my opponent shoots himself in the own foot by saying that those who cannot afford food go to public services (because private services will never give food away for free every day because there is no profit in that). What this means then, is that if those public services disappear, there will be people who are prevented from being able to gain access to food. This fact proves two things: firstly, there are likely people who face the same situation with water even though my opponent tries to deny this fact by saying water is cheap and readily available (if you can’t afford to buy groceries, spending an extra $2 a day on water a day on water bottles, or almost $700 on water, is not affordable), and secondly it shows why we cannot allow privatization of such vital resources: people’s lives should not depend on whether these public services can continue to exist, and moreover, as private organizations gain more and more market share as is the current trend, these public services become more overworked, stretched, and become less able to provide for people. People will inevitably be locked out, and at that point, their dignity is being violated.
2) Does privatization of water harm human dignity?
I have argued consistently that it does: the very poor will be unable the bare minimum they need based off of an arbitrary concept like money which violates their basic dignity. My opponent has responded by claiming that privatization actually decreases prices, claiming that my source was biased. Ironic since he presents facts from the World Bank (though no working link is provided) and the WB can hardly be deemed “non-biased” since it has actively campaigned for water privatization for years so will obviously provide facts in support of that. (1) Secondly though, this idea that water becomes cheaper is simply flawed. As Bolivia and many other nations like Senegal show, the introduction of privatized water leads to the price of water increasing exponentially. (1) The lesson of Bolivia for water companies is not to massively increase prices overnight, but to gradually and markedly increase them so the public won’t notice immediately, and this is a practice they put into effect.
People will be unable to access the bare minimum of water as rampant privatization occurs and prices increase. As a result, their dignity has thus been violated, and the answer to the question is a clear Yes, privatization of water flies in the face of human dignity.
In addition to all of this, the very fact that private water companies are unwilling to provide access to clean water to very isolated or poor communities by its own volition (public-private enterprises can hardly be said to be private initiatives, and as public ownership decreases the amount of these enterprises occurring will decrease as well) itself proves that water should not be privatized. My opponent has not shown why companies have a direct incentive to invest millions to provide water to people who can’t afford it. If anybody, let alone a massive group of people, will at some point have their ability to access water compromised, then it should not be privatized. The harms and risks are too high. The resolution has clearly been affirmed.
I thank my opponent for an interesting debate.
My first point which still stands is that without private ownership of water, individuals property rights and rights to safety and privacy will be violated. Illistratating this point using the example of Bob the farmer. My opponent has already unsuccessfully tried to refute this point, but believes that his luck will be better this time. In order to do this my opponent has tried to make the claim that property rights should not extend to water making the claim: "I have shown why this is already a harm since corporations are held accountable to shareholders and not the public, meaning that there is no way to ensure accountability and responsible use of water with regards to the public." which doesn't apply in the case of Bob, since he is not a corporation and is has no intentions of making commercial profit off of his pond.
Even if his argument held it would not have anything to say about individuals property rights, it would only deal with corporations that are providing commercial services by supplying water. Therefore my case for individuals rights to own water that belongs to their property, such as ponds, wells, pools and so on, still holds.
My opponent then tries to subtantiate his argument with the claim that: " if property rights extend to water, Bob can randomly decide one day that he will not give any water to Tom." and as a result "his neighbor Tom, who himself has no access to water at all, can do nothing but die." Trying to draw the conclusion that if someone has rights to the water in their pond, then there is a possibility that their neighbor would die of dehydration if Bob decided to refuse to give Tom his water. This is an impossible scenario since it is inconceivable that Bob doesn't a) have a house where he could get water from his tap, b) is not in the range of any grocery stores or convenience stores with cheap water and c) is not in the range of any food banks or taps where he can get free water provided by the government (which doesn't mean the water water is public as the government buys the water from private distributors). In fact it would be cheaper and easier for Tom to get water from any of those other sources then for him to find a way to transport the water from Tom and somehow filter it himself. If he doesn't have the means to afford or obtain water from numerous free and affordable sources he clearly doesn't have the means to transport nor filter the water from Bob.
Now EVEN IF this incredibly unlikely and almost impossible scenario were to occur, then even then it would not conflict with Bob's right to private ownership of the water.In that case Tom's rights to dignity are being violated and these rights trump Bob's property and privacy rights. My opponent makes the claim that:
"I do support the idea that people are entitled to a bare minimum and if they are ever unable to obtain that, they are 100% justified in driving a tractor straight through Bob"s fence and getting the bare minimum they need for themselves" This however doesn't mean that Bob doesn't have property rights over the water, it simply says that in the incredibly unlikely scenario that someone would not be able to fulfill their biological need for water in order to survive, then Tom's rights to his dignity come before Bob's property rights over his water. This doesn't mean that Bob shouldn't have property rights over his water, only that Bob's property rights come secondary to Tom's right to fulfill his biological needs when the two come in conflict. So Bob's right to own his water is still there it is just temporarily violated in order to satisfy Tom's more important right to survive.
To completely dead this argument (althought I think I've thoroughly refuted it enough) consider once again my food analogy - people have the right to own the food that they grow or buy, yet it isn't resulting in starvation across America.
Therefore I have shown that individuals having the rights to own water that is a part of their property or for their personal use does not violate anyone's dignity and even if it did in some improbable scenario, it wouldn't come into conflict with private ownership of water. Combined with the fact that peoples right to own water as a part of their property and for their personal use ensures their property rights, privacy rights and safety rights are intact - it is clear that individuals private ownership of water should be allowed.
My opponent then makes the following mistake by assuming that public food and water services come into conflict with private ownership of food and water, when this is simply not the case. The government simply buys the water and food from private food and water companies. Unless my opponent is of the belief that the food in food banks is grown and harvested by the government. Clearly public food and water services don't contradict private ownership of food and water, they actually complement each other since the public food and water can be bought from private companies for a cheaper price and better quality.
My opponent then makes the claim that water is not cheap and readily available by making the claim: "there are likely people who face the same situation with water even though my opponent tries to deny this fact by saying water is cheap and readily available (if you can"t afford to buy groceries, spending an extra $2 a day on water a day on water bottles, or almost $700 on water, is not affordable)"
No one has ever died of dehydration in America or any other developed country, water is probably the cheapest and most readily available resource that people require for life, much cheaper then shelter, food and medicine. Yet we have private water companies and private ownership of water. I don't know where you get these numbers from, because I pay around 50$ per month for water, and unless you are buying individual bottles of water from a convenience store, for 2$ each, I buy 10L jugs of filtered water for 5$. But even if you couldn't afford this, you could get the water for free regardless, so my opponents argument is unreasonable.
I have shown that privatization of water will decrease the cost due to competition, profit incentive for technological innovation and efficiency, and specialized companies that are highly experienced and dedicated to this sector. I cited the study from independent researchers Katrina Kosec, and Scott Wallsten which found that "all else equal, households in counties with 100 percent private ownership would pay about 14$ per year less than households in counties with 100 public ownership.". My opponent then misreads my source: "http://papers.ssrn.com...; as being from the world bank, in the following quote:
" My opponent has responded by claiming that privatization actually decreases prices, claiming that my source was biased. Ironic since he presents facts from the World Bank"
when the study from the world bank was actually my second source which didn't even talk about price difference but instead about improved access to communities. Therefore my point that privatization decreases prices still stands.
Privatization of water actually improves access, as I demonstrated with the World Bank Study, which my opponent believes is biased, after mistaking the two studies and misreading them. However according to the World Bank's website they have supported both private and public water supply and are only concerned with the best option.
Additionally, my opponent believes that privatization will cause more isolated and rural areas to not get water supply, since he alleges there would be less profit. This is not the case, the private water supply companies will simply charge more for the water, which is the same thing that public water companies do anyways. The government charges you more for water if you live in a less accessible neighborhood.
Thanks to my opponent for a great debate.