Acess to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of a commodity

Unfortunately, he just isn't doing enough work to cover every aspect of my case, and thus will be his fatal flaw in the round. Before I go into refuting my opponent's refutations and extending my arguments, I'd like to point out one thing to the voters: my opponent did not extend a single piece of his case. He presents a new point for his case, but this point only further links him into the harms provided by my case. So far as he's not adressing the links to the argument at all, he's still biting straight into the harms, which is the main reason why we can vote con on the resolution right now, regardless of how the rest of the rounds go. Since he still links into the harms, this is going to turn his case, a point that he DID NOT REFUTE in his last round. So as far as I'm winning offense off of my case, it's sufficient to vote con on the resolution. A large portion of my opponent's last round was making a massive non-unique argument on the argument that available drinking water is decreasing, an argument I made in my A point (he didn't implicate his argument as one, but that's basically how he made it to function). Unfortunately for my opponent, he made a poor choice in which argument to spend the entirety of his time refuting, because this is an argument I don't need to win in order to be sufficiently extending offense off of my case. Although I will still refute his arguments, the majority of my time will go to other more important portions of my case. The main problem with my opponent's argument is it commits a massive corrolation-causation fallacy. He is proving that we're going to have an increase in water due to temperature changes from the sun cycle (or something along those lines) but he doesn't warrant as to why an increase in water would mean a decrease in food. I would claim that an increase in water would mean an INCREASE in food supplies, since we would have more water to use on things like irrigation and watering of plants and crops. Thus, he's commiting the corrolation-causation fallacy. We are observing (or supposedly will observe) an increase in water, according to his sources, but this doesn't link to a decrease in food. If anything, it would cause an increase in available food. Since this is what he spent the largest part of his last round refuting, the majority of his refutations are thusly de-railed and are fallacious. You can extend out the first two pieces of evidence from the Arlington Institute as the very first place to vote con here, regardless of the other rounds. But now I would like to point to the virtually conceded Kates card that talks about an increase in population. Even if you're buying my opponent's refutations and the inherent non-unique made on the availability of water argument, this is still independant of that, thus sufficient for me to extend out as sufficient offense for my case to still link into the harm of nuclear war. All he does is propose to limit child birth to one kid per family, but there are a number of things wrong with this:1) We can look to China and see how this example just flat-out doesn't work. China has this exact policy for population control, yet has the world's largest population. While I don't know the exact reason for the increase in population, the policy that China has implemented hasn't solved a thing. So why would it be any better on a world-wide scale?2) This only further infringes on our rights as human beings to the pursuit of happiness, as families are often happier with more kids. There are very few families with JUST one kid, and forcing them to stop would only cause more unhappiness.3) There's no way to actually enforce this law. People can just have babies anyway and give them to foster homes or other organizations that could look after them. So it would be a pointless policy.4) The only real way to punish those who DO break the rule, if there was a way to enforce the rule, would be to either a) kill the baby when born, which is a MASSIVE rights violation and an outweighing harm to my opponent's case, or b) severely punish those who do give birth, which would only infringe on their rights further. Thusly, the policy he has in mind is an absolutely god-awful idea. As this is the ONLY argument placed against the very first piece of Kates evidence, you can extend this out as the second place to vote con, regardless of the other rounds. Next, my opponent proposes a solution to the water scarcity crisis: desalinization of water. The only problem with this is he conceded a piece of evidence that directly responds back to this argument. Look to the second piece of Kates evidence under the C point. What this evidence is talking about is once our population reaches a certain level, a whole bunch of bad things start to occur, and we would start to outstrip supplies, like water, far faster than they could ever possibly be replaced. So the proposal to have water salinization, while appearing to be a good idea, won't do much to help us in the long run. So you can extend Kates 2 as the link to the impact. The Hance evidence was entirely conceded in my opponent's last speech. It provides a piece of the internal link to the impact. Since he concedes it, give it the strength of weight. Extend it out, this keeps his case biting into the harms provided in my case. So ultimately, once we start using up water at a faster rate than we could possibly supply it, as the Kates 2 evidence claims, we then reach the third piece of Arlington Institute evidence. This evidence claims that once we have a shortage of available fresh water, we will be facing problems such as intrastate and international conflicts. And these conflicts are nuclear war, as provided by the Klare evidence directly below it. These two cards were entirely unrefuted in my opponent's last speech, so give them the strength of weight. Because of these two arguments, by affirming the resolution my opponent inevitably seals our fate to be that of extinction by nuclear war. In this, you can extend out the two unrefuted reasons why this impact outweighs the impacts given in my opponent's case. By affirming, he a) causes us to all die from nuclear war, which is far worse than some of us dying from lack of clean water, and b) violates our rights to life in the long run, which prevents us from accessing the very rights he is advocating to get. Then extend the turn made at the bottom of the case that the disadvantage functions as. As long as I am sufficiently winning offense on my case, as I proven to you that I most definetely am, then I am effectively turning my opponent's entire position, thus winning the debate. Because of this, there is no other reason to really continue this debate, and you can vote con right now without even paying attention to the rest of the arguments in the following rounds. But overall, I urge a con vote.