DDO TT2: Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity.

Introduction:I thank Con for his arguments and rebuttals. I will discuss the burden of proof first. Then I will show the rebuttal o the rebuttals and arguments of the last rounds, and then provide a summary of the arguments that were provided in all the previous rounds.Burden of Proof:I would accept the burden of proof only against the cases where drinking water is not considered a human right (only 1 and 2). The number 3 requires a shared BoP. My arguments for drinking water as a human right are not needed in the third case, and drinking water as a human right and a commodity at the same time possibility should be partly proved by Con. I say partly because I also have that burden.Considering that Con stated in the second round that he is using the third case, the BoP should be shared and the discussion should be centered on the commodity status of drinking water and if it's possible for drinking water to be a human right and a commodity.Rebuttals:"Outside arguments""The fact is that water is currently being sold in stores. Another fact is that a governmental group (The United Nations) has recognized water as a human right. This right now should allow for a con victory. "This is false. Here Con is using a fallacy of Equivocation.The definition Con himself proposed in the first round is not the same definition "drinking water as human rights" has right now in the world. A lot of people can't "claim" water "as a matter of right in the society in which they live". They can't afford it or they just don't have access to it. [1] Then why did I mention the recognition of drinking water as a human right in my argument?I said "For that reason, the UN General Assembly recognized the human right to water and sanitation.", which is true and doesn't suffer said fallacy. That and the fact that the recognition of drinking water as a human right doesn't mean what we see in the world right now is a "happy coexistence" of human right and commodity. That's why I showed an example of a company that needs drinking water as a commodity but not as a human right."governments are the ones to decide right and not private companies. So to sum up this point is essentially the current status quo is that water is a human right and a commodity"Sadly, right now drinking water is a commodity and not a human right. People don't have access to drinking water or can't afford it.Contention 1-Human Rights are provided for via government"The pro did not actually attack the actual contention that human rights are provided for via government."This contention is in a contradiction. Con states that his position is that drinking water should and is a human right AND a commodity. And from the second round it's easy to see that this is an argument against drinking water as a human right.I already addressed this in my third round. I asked Con to fix this contradiction but he embraced it in his third round.Contention 2-Human Rights are abstractHis second contention suffers the same contradiction as the first contention. The fallacy of equivocation is confusing Con. He is defending drinking water as a human right in some arguments and rebuttals and trying to go against in others. It is like he is picking where is beneficial for his position to do one or the other. About the theory of Hohfeld, which is not needed for my rebuttal because Con's arguments contradicts his positions, is not against drinking water being a human right. It is against Con's argument that human rights should not require the duty of someone else and this is false. Drinking water is a human right, even with the need of the duty of someone else because that's what it's needed for human rights to matter. Human rights are meaningless otherwise. The author adds in the next line: "Whether one agrees with this analysis or not, it is undeniable that at the commonsense level a right involves a duty in another person or institution." [2] which is clearly against Con's contention.Contention 3-Water being recognizes as a human right will lead to ownership disputes"Throughout this contention he gives many statements about that have no basis in them such as 'human rights are more important than ownership.'"I gave an example of this. Slaves were considered property and a commodity. People were sold and bought. But their own right was way more important to all the money lost because of the lose of property. This was needed, to ensure a really important right, liberty.The reason drinking water also should have this benefit is because it is akin to the right to life."The pro also states that the problems with ownership would only be within the commodity sense of the water debate, yet the con gave an example with two countries (not companies) arguing over water rights and disputing water claims."No, I didn't. That was Con's source for one of his arguments."Water being recognized as solely a human right then that will lead to ownership disputes."We can see the fallacy of equivocation clearly here. Con things that the definition for human right alone should be different from human right in "human right and commodity". This is false.Contention 4-Water can be treated(and is currently treated) as a commodity and a human right"nestle does not ultimately decide what is a right or not, they merely provide the item of need."As I stated earlier, this is where the debate is centered. That's why I already addressed this in all my rebuttals and the reason Con is contradicting his position and some arguments with his other arguments.The summary would be: Drinking water can't be a human right and a commodity at the same time because being a commodity can't ensure the definition proposed by the Con is respected.The rest of arguments are related to the contradictions of Con.Arguments:Drinking water should be a human right.Despite being recognized as a human right by the UN, right now there is a lot of people that can't claim this important resource. The problems related to this are in the second round of Pro.The health related problems caused by the lack of access of drinking water makes it a really important resource for life.The human right of drinking water is akin to the human right of life. [3] Drinking water should not be a commodity.Even if it was possible for drinking water to be a human right and a commodity at the same time, being a commodity just makes impossible to ensure the right to everyone. This is against the definition of human rights used for this debate because every human being is entitled of this human right.Now, it's true that the first argument needs to be true for the second to be considered. That's the reason of Con's arguments against the human right of water even when he was in favor of it. He didn't want to acknowledge this.Drinking water should not be a commodity.Conclusion:Con was not able to show why drinking water should not be considered a human right only using arguments that favor drinking water as a human right. He tried to argue against the human right to water, without the problems of arguing for drinking water as a commodity only. This leads at the end, to a contradiction to his position.Pro was able to relate health and the human right to life with drinking water to show it should be considered a human right because it is akin to the others.Pro was able to show that drinking water should not be a commodity because it would make impossible to ensure this right to everyone, every human, which is exactly what human rights are about. Rights to every human.I thank Con for this debate. Vote PRO.Sources:1. http://blueplanetnetwork.org...2. http://www.ourcivilisation.com...3. http://www.afrihealthnet.com...