Acess to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of a commodity

I thank my peer for yet another fine round. This has been quite fun. "So right now, we can easily call the debate an easy win for the con." I suppose its a good thing that you are not deciding. Anyways, let us see, can we really? In reference to point A, "His only main point is to point out that China and India's population are poised to fall." First off this piece of evidence was used in contention of Link part B and for a support in favor of child limits as a solution to population growth. It had nothing to do with point A. I concede point A. Population is growing, period. Regardless of whether China or India will have a reduction of population, other parts of the world will continue to increase. Eventually the population will reach a point that the planet cannot sustain. It is only useful in refuting Link part B, and a support in favor of child limits. In this sense this piece of evidence is key, as without it the conclusion that, an increase in quality of life does not equal population growth is not true. Indeed if that were true then the nations with the highest quality of life should have the highest population. This successfully refutes link, "b) further causes the population to rise by increasing the quality of life." Moving on to Link part, "a) it lowers our supply of water to give to other people." Of course this is only true if water cant be reused/renewed in any way. Which is not true, distillation and desalination are purification techniques that are completely effective in removing contaminants from water(not just salt). Using the seawater/waste water irrigation techniques water can be used, reused, distilled/purified and drank again. Netting, 0 loss of water. I have two bottles of water, a person uses a bottle, and I gain the bottle back after it is recycled. "He's conceding the analysis under my link that says by giving people clean water to drink, we prevent deaths from things like dehydration and water pollution, thus increasing our population." Please refer to china and India example. Also need I seriously address every minute detail of your argument? If quality of life is increasing in these countries(common knowledge will tell you it is) why is the population poised to drop? I will repeat what I stated in the previous round, this disproves causality. As it does this, the link that increased quality of life leads to population growth is negated. Regardless of what your logical deduction states, evidence does not back these assertions. Not to put too fine a point, it is false. As such there is nothing to link the affirmative position to my peers disad argument. Yet even though I no longer am required to respond further to this disad, I will anyways. As of yet I have not had the chance to address the internal link. If my peer re-examines the previous round he will see that I was in the process of addressing both the link and, "Internal Link – As the population rises in the affirmative world, it causes us to deplete more and more resources, which has the potential to set up a very bad situation." Population will rise in the pro and the con world, I do believe Kates 1 proves this quite sufficiently. The internal link does not have sufficient reason to suggest that it will not raise in the con world and will in contrast reduce. This plays nicely into my impact turn, "Logically speaking, whether or not a solution for water is found, another scarce resource, such as food will cause the same outcome." To state this more concisely as there appears to be confusion as to what exactly my arguments have been, Impact Turn: A nuclear war over resources is likely whether or not the affirmative position is taken. My previous damned if we do, damned if we dont statement was just a less abrupt way of putting it. I of course concede the evidence used by my peer to support the impact turn, as this is the logical outcome of overpopulation as put forth by Kates 1 and 2 as well as Hance. The only part I refuted was that water was one of those problems that would result from Kates 2, indeed I have shown already how water is not scarce, and should not be considered as such. Thus even further removing any connection of the affirmative position to the internal link and the impact. Yet here I will supply more evidence in support of this, Yes it is true that eventually the population will outgrow the supply of water, but given the techniques presented how long will it be till that will occur. Well considering, there is "326 million trillion gallons(roughly 1.3 billion trillion liters) [1]" of water on earth, and current consumption is, "828,748 billion liters a year," and that will increase by, "64 billion cubic meters a year[1]," or 64 trillion liters per year, and we begin to see the enormity of the amount of water on earth and how long it would take to reach such a point if all used water were recycled and seawater were desalinated. Thousands of years is an extreme low-ball estimate. This magical 10 billion number may be true for other resources, but for water, its purely nonsense. Yet even more evidence that both turns the internal link, and the impacts connection to the affirmative position. To tally my argument thus far I have: 1) Turned the link, this alone is reason to vote the affirmative position as my peers disad argument only works if there is a connection between the aff position and the disad. 2) Turned the Internal Link by removing all connection to the affirmative position, 3) Turned the Impact by removing all connection to the affirmative position, as well as proving water is not scarce. 4) Refuted Arlington 1 and 2. The only evidence that supports my peers conclusion that availability of drinking water is decreasing. Was this necessary? No, as both examples are extraneous to my peers argument and are useless. I admit I fell for this distraction ploy and wasted precious space. Which leaves us with my points: P1: As a necessity for human survival access to drinking water should be ensured for all people. P2: To deny access to drinking water, regardless of reason is equivocal to murder, as without it, a person will die. P3: The feasibility of ensuring all are afforded access to clean drinking water, despite it being extremely difficult does not outweigh the previous two points. P1 was conceded, yet P2 was not, P2 was refuted under the pretext that to ensure access to drinking water would result in a worse outcome(total extinction via nuclear war) and that pretext was proven false, therefore P2 still stands as valid. P3 was conceded therefore it is true. I further expanded upon these with: P4: Because we possess the technology/ability to ensure every person has drinking water, we have a moral/ethical responsibility to ensure that every person does, to not would, again, be equivalent to murder. I have proven this to be true, and again the only refutation my peer offered was the same used to refute P2. For the same reasons P2 is valid so is P4. P5: Because we possess the technology and therefore the means to supply the worlds population with sufficient drinking water, to proclaim that drinking water is a "scarce" resource, is false. Water is not scarce, we as a species simply are not using the tools at our disposal to solve the problems at hand. This has been proven true in the same way that P4 was proven true. Finishing, I will say that all of my points lay sufficient groundwork to vote affirmative on the basis that to not would be morally reprehensible on the grounds that it is equivalent to murder. Due to it being morally wrong we have a responsibility to ensure people are provided with the water necessary for survival. That the feasibility of ensuring this supply of water is outweighed by the moral reprehensibility of not. Wealth is never a sufficient reason to take the life of another, never has been, never will. Lastly, that water is not scarce. -------- Sources: 1) http://www.worldometers.info...