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

Introduction:I will now present my rebuttals.I have to remind everyone that Pro's position is that Drinking water should be a human right and not a commodity and Con's position is that Drinking water should be both a human right AND a commodity. In other words both positions only disagree on the commodity part.Rebuttals:Contention 1: Here Con contradicts himself. He states that he is arguing that drinking water "can" both be a human right and a commodity, but in his first contention, he challenges drinking water being a human right and how it would be better as a commodity.I will discuss both points:Drinking water as a human right AND a commodity:Drinking water can't be a human right and a commodity at the same time. By definition, drinking water as a human right should be able to be claimed as a matter of right. If drinking water is sold, people that can't afford it would be deprived of their human right.Every other definition of human right used could lead to a fallacy of equivocation.Drinking water as a commodity and not a human right:This is the position that would make sense for the contention. From the contention, Con states that having drinking water as a human right is dangerous because tyrannical governments could take advantage of that, and that drinking water as a commodity doesn't have that problem or similar issues.I disagree with Con's argument here. A tyrannical government being able to affect human rights is not a problem on what are these human rights. Life is a human right too, and if it's "beneficial" to these tyrannical government to control it, I guarantee you that it will find other ways to do it.And drinking water being a commodity doesn't solve the problem because it doesn't guarantee it's acquisition (or easy acquisition) in a country with a tyrannical government, specially if they can control the companies that sell this water, or what enters or leave the country. But not only that but there is a new entity capable of controlling this important resource for life, the companies. [1]Contention 2: Here is another contention that challenges drinking water as a human right.As the theory of Hohfeld states, here can be no right in one person without a corresponding duty in another. [2] This is important because a right is not less right because it "requires work".Contention 3:"Is it justified to take away a private water supply for the sake of others?"Yes, it is. Because it is a human right and because it is necessary for the life of these others. Every economical disadvantages from those companies will be benefits for those that acquire the human right to water. And it's not only to survive, a better health leads to less money used on health care and medication. Then Con states that there might be problems with ownership. These problems are only relevant if water is not a human right.The reason is because human rights are more important than ownership, if these are attempting those rights, example slavery.People owning other people is against human rights, so that ownership should not be respected.So I ask Con to establish his position correctly in the next round so I can address it correctly.One last thin for this contention, the third link is broken.Contention 4:Here we are back to the first position.It is false that currently water is treated as a commodity and a human right.UN recognition of the human right to water doesn't make every group respect that recognition. [1]And as stated before, drinking water can't be a right and a commodity at the same time.There are also cases where privatization didn't work like in Chile. [3]Rebuttals on "attacks of Pro's case":P1: Con agrees on the first point but is back to the second position. He mentions a problem that is explained in the first contention which was already addressed.P2: Con agrees again and claims that this can be done with drinking water as a commodity, which is false considering the huge amount of people that doesn't have access to drinking water because they can't afford it.P3 and P4 are addressed on the rebuttals of the contentions.I await for the Con's response and the clarification of what seems to me like a contradiction.Thanks. Vote Pro.Sources:1. Nestle CEO: Water Is Not A Human Right, Should Be Privatized (Video). http://www.youtube.com...2. http://www.ourcivilisation.com...3. http://www.eclac.org...