Drinking Water

1) "Meaning he is NOT ALLOWED to attempt to achieve both at the same time, he must show that access to drinking water ought not be a commodity, and ought instead be a human right." - third round of the debate"Make whatever kind of arguments you'd like, even semantics aren't off limit." - first round of the debate, by the same person. "Debate/Argument style, rhetoric, etc. Feel free to argue however you'd like." - just after that also posted in the same round of the debate by the same personIm arguing that drinking water can be both a human right and a commodity but should be more valued as a human right yet still be able to be bought and sold as a commodity, im allowed to do that according to how you set up this debate in the opening round. Instead of saying I should not do this maybe you should go into detail about how it is fundamentally impossible for something to be a right and a commodity under any circumstances. 2) My BOP is to prove that drinking water should be a human right more than a commodity, I dont have to claim that drinking water should under no circumstances be a commodity. How are rights to speech and rights to drinking water "two completely different things" they both if taken away can constitute a violation of human rights, and I was using it as a comparison to highlight the flaw of Con's logic. 3) You question my logic and then try to mimic it and THIS is what you came up with?"Black metal: Includes the right of free speechSpeaking of murder: Links to black metalMass murdering millions of people: Linked to black metalMass murder: Is human right protected under the freedom of speech."I can point out a flaw in all but one stage of this "logic" the Con uses.Line 2: I can name a dozen other reasons why someone may talk about murder that does not involve their music preference. It could be discrimination against people based on their race (1), ethnicity (2), it could be an act of revenge (3), jealousy (4), it could be by accident (5), it could be to send a message to other people (6), it could be done just because someone is mad at society (7), It could be in a war battle (8), It could be done in self defense (9), it could be done out of fear (10), it could be done because someone thought it was the right thing to do (11) and it could be done because someone thought someone else deserved to die (12)Line 3: Name a single instance in history where something that ridiculous actually has occurred. Line 4: Mass Murder is not a right protected under free speech because it violates many other human rights, drinking water does not do that.The example regarding free speech is a syllogism to show that you can exist and have rights, such as right to free speech, but that does not mean people are entitled to take whatever they please to exercise that right. That completely debunks the Con's fear-mongering tactic to state that if water is a human right then people could take water whenever they please. Rather than actually give intelligent counter arguments to my points the Con has argued about how I have not provided a solid argument showing how access to water is a right, and when I actually do show it he goes AWOL and tries to make my logic look foolish with one of the worst attempts possible. 1) I have argued that water can be considered a human right2) I am allowed to argue that access to water can be a commodity and a right because the COn allowed me to make any arguments at the start of the debate3) I have provided examples of how the Con's logic regarding the consequences of water becoming a human right is flawed. 4) The Con's entire response to my arguments include no actual facts or support or anything, just his own opinions of why he thinks my logic and my arguments are weak and shouldnt be allowed because they have defeated his own arguments and is trying to bend his own rules to try to invalidate them rather than offer evidence against it.