The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as 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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,286 times Debate No: 22243
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Resolved: Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity.
The thesis of this case is that human life should be the ultimate value. Without water you have no life, without life you have no morals. Therefor water should be valued as a human right instead of a commodity. With that being said, valuing water as a human right does not necessarily mean every human being will have water. There will be many who are deprived of water, but keep in mind that human rights are violated every day. A human right is only documented which doesn't mean it is enforced in all countries at all times.

Value: Human Life is the superior value in this case
Criterion: Preservation of human life
1.Water sustains life and life is the ultimate human right.
a. Without life then all other rights are irrelevant
b. John Locke argued that people have rights such as the
right to life, and liberty, that have a foundation independent of
law of any particular society.
c. Thomas Hobbes wrote "The Law of Nature" which interlocked the
true definitions of rights, liberty, and law.
2.Human rights are violated but are still documented for guidelines.
a.The right to life comprises the right of every human being not to be deprived of his life. In Article 18 in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it states that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. In February of 2002, 27 Hindu activist were killed by Muslims which triggered a violent spiral of religious revenge and 4 days later 2,000 Muslims were kill. Later investigations revealed that it was planned and done with mutual approval of authorities. The Hindu activist had their human rights violated.

b.We agree that it is impossible to guarantee drinking water to every single human being, thus declaring that drinking water is a human right does not guarantee everyone will be provided with drinking water. Human rights are commonly violated.
3.Since water sustains life, valuing water as a commodity is putting a price on life.
a.Human rights shouldn't be valued as a commodity because putting a dollar amount on life is immoral.


My case is below:

Read through that before continuing onto the rebuttals section.

You back with us? Good, let's go over my opponent's case.

I'd like to point out one major flaw in her case before I go through it line-by-line. One of her major points is that human rights are frequently violated, so it's okay if not everyone get's access to it. If this is true, then it's impossible for her to actually meet her value premise of human life, because people still wouldn't be getting access to water. I'm best going to be meeting her value by preventing nuclear war, as the negative case clearly shows is what would happen if we were to affirm.

Now, onto her first contention, where she's talking about how life is the ultimate human right and without water, we don't have life.

The disad is going to be outweighing here because by affirming, she effectively brings about extinction of the human race, which restricts EVERYONE'S right to life. By negating and keeping water as a commodity, we prevent nuclear war and allow the most amount of people to keep their right to life.

Then let's go to her contention two, where she says that rights are violated, thus making it okay if not everyone get's water.

TURN: If rights are violated, it prevents people from having water, which will restrict them of their right to life. This functions as a reason to negate off of her case because through this contention, she fails to meet her own value of human life and her criterion of the preservation of life.

Then to her last contention, where she says that putting a price tag on life is immoral.

I'd like to point out that there is literally no warrant to this. All this argument is is just a giant assertion by my opponent. But if this is true, then you can TURN this argument as well because it would be immoral to put a price tag on food and medicine as well, since they give life and it's immoral to put a price tag on life, according to my opponent. If we were to remove the price from things like food and medicine, it would cause massive anarchy as people would be robbing stores blind because they didn't have to pay for things anymore. It would cause the collapse of every food company, restraunt, factory, proccessing plant, and distributer, as well as every pharmaseutical business, supplier, and distributer. With all these businesses gone, we would face absolute collapse of our economy of which the likes would be greater than that of the Great Depression. This functions as a reason to negate off of her contention because while she's trying to promote our wellfare through preserving life, she's only screwing us over in the long-run.

So the debate breaks down pretty easily from here:

Since we're both agreeing that her value-criterion structure is how the round should be evaluated, whoever is best preserving human life is going to win the round. I'm showing you in three places how she's failing to meet her own value.
1. The disad shows that by affirming, we cause nuclear war and eventual extinction.
2. Her second contention says that human rights are violated all the time, so it's okay if not everyone gets water. But this only proves that she is unable to actually preserve human life at all if she can't give everyone water.
3. Her last contention says that we can't put a price tag on life, but this would also removed a price tag from things like food and medicine, which would cause mass rioting and pillaging and would lead to another Great Depression.

Overall, the only reasonable vote is for the con debater.
Debate Round No. 1


audreyb2014 forfeited this round.


Sad birthday.
Extend all my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2


audreyb2014 forfeited this round.


Well this was a fail.
Vote for con.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Zaradi 6 years ago
Gah, I can't wait any longer. I'm just gonna do it and screw it if she doesn't like it.
Posted by Zaradi 6 years ago
Hey, is it okay if I post my case in a google doc? Refutations wouldn't be in it, but I'm worried about the length of my case.
Posted by Zaradi 6 years ago
Is it okay if I post my case in a google document?
Posted by Zaradi 6 years ago
Hey, someone else besides me does LD xD
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 6 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF