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

*Sources should be cited inside the arguments, no notes to view sources. A glass is placed on a table containing one part water and one part air. A well-known proverb states that an optimist would say that the glass is half full, while a pessimist would say it is half empty. However, a realist would say that there is only so little water to be discussed because according to the Great Lakes Invitational Conference Association (GLICA), 1.1 billion people in the world have no access to any type of improved drinking source of water. It is because I agree with the realist in this situation that I must affirm today's resolution: Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity. The Value I will be upholding in today's debate is justice which is the quality of being fair and reasonable. Justice balances the rights of every individual. Justice should be valued above all other possible values because when debating human rights, we need to be both fair and reasonable. My value of justice is supported by the criteria of allowing equality of opportunity. In order to be just, we must be afforded the chance to accomplish the same exact things. By allowing every human to have the same opportunity to the most basic necessity to life, we allow a better chance to obtain true justice. Essentially, by allowing situations which would help equalize the opportunity in life of all people, we can allow for justice to take place. Contention 1 - not being given access to drinking water as a human right impedes an individual's ability to receive an education; thus, limiting the equality of opportunity which is not just. 1.We should not base the opportunity that those have to education solely off of how much water they are able to purchase. According to an article by the Water Project, lack of clean water has serious effects on student's academic performance and attendance rates. The lack of safe water can cause even the best students to lose momentum as they deal with stomach pains and diarrhea from disease and hunger. We know that access to clean, safe water changes lives. For example, after a well was installed for a village in Kenya, "girls returned to school, women began small businesses, men were no longer too sick to work. Health returned and children grew up to be productive members of their community. Access to clean, safe water isn't an end, it's a means. If we provide water to those who cannot afford it, we allow the opportunity to education. From education, the children are able to work and provide for their families, and ultimately, survive. 2.If children and adults alike in impoverished countries have to spend 8 hours a day just to collect water, they are not able to receive an education, and therefore will not have the same opportunities as those who can access drinking water. Students miss class to go fetch water, or to care for sick parents or siblings. In many places HIV/AIDS has already caused a large percentage of children to become orphans, requiring students to drop out and find work to provide food and care for younger siblings. If teachers are sick, classes get cancelled for all students. Schools cannot run programs if they cannot provide water to students, faculty and their families. If schools in these countries cannot afford to buy water, just as the citizens cannot, they cannot provide the education sufficient to provide equality of opportunity. This is clearly not just, because those that have access to drinking water have a far better chance at education and are therefore awarded with more opportunities. Contention 2 - a lack of drinking water has a server impact on personal finances, limiting equality of opportunity and ultimately justice. 1.According to a document dated July 14, 2011 by Irene !hoaï¿½s, when weighing access to drinking water as a human right or a commodity, "it is suggested that the inclusion of livestock be investigated" as well. In areas such as Namibia, where livestock play a monstrous role in the income of much of the population, we must realize that if these people are unable to pay for water, their livestock can suffer dehydration, leading to death. When the livestock die, so do the chances the Namibians have to make the income they need. Since the dawn of time humans have used livestock to make a living. Making a living in the world is something that everyone must be able to do in order to survive. If water was valued as a human right, it would be provided to these people, who need it the most, and allow them the equality of opportunity to personal finances. 2.If the access to drinking water was valued as a commodity, we see a snowball effect where the lack of potable water leads to the lack of income. Because the people in Namibia cannot afford water, they cannot keep their livestock alive, and lack the ability to provide for themselves, and their family. If these people cannot provide for themselves and their families, it is evident that they will only contribute to the statistics of those 1.1 billion people that will die if access to drinking water is not valued as a human right. However, if water was truly valued as a human right, these people would be able to earn the income that would allow them to live, and give them the equal opportunities in matters of personal finance. Contention 3 - access to drinking water as a human right gives an individual the best equality of opportunity for health. 1.Water is essential to life. If anyone is unable to obtain potable water, or cannot afford to buy it, ultimately, they die. According to the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), "water makes up between 50% and 70% of an adults total body weight. Regular top-ups are required to balance the loss of water through urine and sweat." If we are unable to balance this loss of water, we suffer from dehydration. The British Dietetic Association advises that we should consume 2.5 liters a day to remain healthy. In countries where potable water is hard to come by, as is money, the population is that much more likely to die of dehydration. If water is not provided to people in these very situations, it will end up in dehydration genocide. Not only will this genocide be worse than the one conducted by Adolf Hitler, but it is easier to solve for. By valuing the access to drinking water as a human right, we are able to sustain life, giving the equal opportunity to health. 2.If the access to drinking water is valued as a commodity, all of those who cannot afford it will resort to unclean and unsafe water. When they do this they are willingly letting bacteria into their body. According to an article written by Ashley Seager in The Guardian, dirty water kills 5,000 children a day (that's 1,826,250 people a year!) across the planet. When one cannot pay for water in a region of the world where the access to drinking water is a commodity, they will search out even the smallest source of free water, no matter how dirty and contaminated it is. These 5,000 children a day are dying because in the act of collecting water, they take a few sips, desperate to grasp onto life. Naturally, the dirty water contains bacteria, and the children die of a multitude of diseases. However, the children don't die immediately; they die after they get the water back home, after the rest of their family has had some. Dying slowly by the multitude of diseases in the water is just as cruel, if not more, of a death as dehydration. If these people cannot afford water, they most certainly would not be able to afford medicine to make themselves healthy again. We can see that by valuing the access to drinking water as a human right, we achieve justice in that all humans will be able to get the potable water they need to survive. If we force them to buy water, that they cannot afford, we write the death sentences to entire countries. I now turn it over to con, and look forward to an educational debate.