The access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity.

Con claims that this is a debate that will "constitute an automatic defeat for [me]. " However, I would like to negate this immediately. And prove that this is not a voting issue. If a resolution was brought up that would be impossible to win, there would be no need to debate it. This resolution advocates a change to the status quo, but that does not mean that it is impossible. The world could not progress if an automatic defeat for the Pro was valid. Con would also like to say that his Value is truth, and his criterion is truth. The two do not link because they are the exact same thing. Of course you can achieve truth through truth, but it does not work for an LD style debate, as the criterion needs to be something that will bring us to the value. Truth does not bring us to truth, it can be a value or criterion, certainly not both. Response to Contention 1: Moral Emotivism is True. I concede to my opponents definition of emotivism. a. Objective Moral Values Do Not Exist: Con claims that my value (if I understand his argument correctly) is not valid. He claims that it needs to be valued by the entirety of the world to be considered true. However, a value is not supposed to be fact. If values were facts, there would be no debate, and if values had to be facts to debate, the claim contradicts itself. A value is what I personally value in the debate, and how I achieve that value with my contentions and criterion. Con claims the resolution to be in his favor already without actually supporting a valid argument other than that I should not even be debating this with a value due to it being morally subjective. LD debate (the debate type we are using) requires a value as a voting issue. Without a value, there is nothing to debate. b. Emotivism Explains Moral Statements: Again, the Con says the same thing in that we should not even be debating this because the default is to them. "Emotivism is the correct doctrine for ethics. " By saying this, Con is still claiming that without emotivism we cannot debate ethics. But really, Con claims that I should not be debating this at all because it is not correct to do so with a value. Values are required, as I said above. Without a value we do not have a basis for voting in this debate. In the Conclusion, Con again repeats that the debate goes to them simply because the resolution is not true. If this was the case, UIL would not have decided on the topic. Essentially, this was written to be debated, and Con saying it will default to them no matter what is said is unfair to the Pro, and un educational as true arguments cannot be provided. Rebuttals: This debate is not of ethics only. I've already refuted that Emotivism in unfair and un educational to this debate and should be thrown out. Con groups my entire case and concedes to it all, with the one argument that it cannot be debated. The resolution itself is not what is being debated against, it is the value and criterion. As Con does not even have appropriate or linking value and criterion, the vote must go to Pro. On-Case: I extend all of my arguments, as Con has not sufficiently refuted any of them.