water be considered a public good and not be privatized

Answers to my opponent's questions: 1. I don't see why not. There are several private water companies (such as the American States Water Company) that co-exist with the government's water department. Their prices would have to be similar to the water department's in order to compete. 2. I would think this question is irrelevant to the debate. True, taxes paid to the government translate to public welfare, while bills paid to a company go to the company's employees/shareholders, but in either case you are trading money for the things that you need. 3. "Will the bills payed by the public be consistent with their water usage?" Assuming that the private companies in question are in US, I would say that there would have to be a fixed rate on water in order for the company to survive. If water companies were as corrupt as Bechtel, they would quickly lose their customers to the Water Department. My opponent asks me to cite a source. I would like to ask him how one searches whether bills payed by the public are consistent with their usage. If he cannot answer this question satisfactorily, ignore his request for a source. 4. Well, to start off with they conserve water (www.jpost.com/Sci-Tech/Article.aspx?id=208593). Also, bottled water industries promote recycling (evidence is printed on water bottles). CX: Main round 1. Explain how the fact that companies are motivated by economic profit means that they cannot provide affordable water to all individuals. 2. True, water is a right, but is purified water a right? 3. Explain how the relationship between culture and water is relevant to this debate. 4. How often does a water company dramatically increase the price of water? CX: CX 1. "...the money we pay to the government does not go to the governments pocket rather it is used to help the public in every way possible." Really, so government officials don't need to be paid? Water department employees work for free? The cost of purifying and transporting water is nil? As you can see, many of the expenses related to water are the same for public and private. There is thus no real economic difference between getting your water from a public or private source. My opponent claims that "we would have to pay about three times as much money as we pay the government", but this is derived from an extreme case of corruption, and not from his experience or from a reliable source. 2. "...the money used to improve these technologies still comes from the public. By advancing there technologies, they are moving forward but they also need the budget needed for the advancement." Very true, but it would be the same if the government was advancing these technologies. The private sector has more incentive to advance these technologies because of competition, as mentioned before. 2a. "...there is no need to improve the purifying technology used by the government." I'm sure that was the mind-set of the general public before cars were made. 'We don't need to improve our transportation. Our horse-drawn carts have served us for quite a while and are very efficient if you ask me'. 3. "My opponent; however, failed to provide me with a scenario in which the privatization of water showed a positive outcome." See my Jerusalem Post source from my answer to my opponent's question 4.