Water should not be privatized

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. Now that I have shown why my opponent’s argument is flawed, I will now move onto show why my own arguments stand. P1 and P2 have both been agreed upon by both debaters, so both arguments clearly stand. 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. 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.Sources: 1) http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org...