Water should not be privatized

My opponent has made some some interesting arguments, but ultimately fails to make a convincing case, or refute my arguments. First, let me restate the case of Bob the farmer - water that is a part of someones private property should be owned by that individual. Bob owns a farm with a small pond in it. My opponent makes the claim that my argument about Bob the farmer is meaningless: "I argue that my opponent needs to show more than this. In fact, I think that it is not enough to show that there is one hypothetical instance of Bob the farmer (which I will address because that example does not prove anything), but rather than on balance, privatizing water is more beneficial than harmful." My opponent is mistaken because this hypothetical instance is not specific to Bob or his pond, it shows that any individuals that own property with water should have ownership over that water. It could be John and his pool, or Lucy and her well. Currently people have the right to own land and the water that belongs to it, which is a natural consequence of land ownership. Instead, my opponent suggests that Bob the farmer should have ownership over his land and at the same time not have ownership of the water (and doesn't see how this is a contradiction) inside of it as per the following statement of his: "I have argued that since water is so fundamental, ownership of it violates dignity. Therefore, private property rights should not extend to water." Additionally my opponent claims that any property rights Bob has over his land are secondary to peoples right to access the water in his land. "Moreover, dignity rights trump property rights in every situation since they are so much more fundamental" If we accept my opponents arguments then people can come and go as they please taking from Bob's pond as they see fit, not only this, but they could damage his property in order to obtain water. Tom can drive a tractor through Bob's fence and over his garden in order to obtain water, since access to water is required for his dignity. If my opponents reasoning is correct it leads to absurd conclusions and puts into jeopardy peoples rights to property, privacy and safety. So we must conclude that my opponent premise that: free access to water is part of ones fundamental right to dignity is false or that his premise: private ownership of water should not be allowed is false. Either one of these refutes his argument, since his justification for private ownership of water not being allowed is because he believes that it violates persons rights to dignity. Thus I have demonstrated that free access to water is not a fundamental right to dignity, only the bare minimum access to water needed for biological needs (such as survival) is a fundamental right and this fundamental right is not violated by individuals ownership of water. Since there are many other sources of public water such as public food banks and public water fountains. As well as very cheap and readily available water in any grocery or convenience store. It stands to reason that private ownership of water is essential to an individuals private ownership of land, and is essential to an individuals right to privacy and safety. Since private ownership of water does not violate anyones right to dignity, and public ownership of water violates individuals rights to property, safety and privacy it stands to reason that private ownership of water for individuals should be allowed. My opposition agrees with me that: "This is, as a whole, a claim I entirely agree with: people are entitled to the bare minimum of what they need and what they need only." Then he tries to show that privatizing water will cause people to not have access to water: "Everyone is entitled to a bare minimum of water, privatizing water prevents some people (especially poorer people) from being able to receive this bare minimum." He makes the claim that: "They choose via selling it: people who can afford to buy water receive it, those who can"t don"t. Therefore, privatizing water leads to people being prevented from getting any water at all because they can"t afford it." This is an unjustified conclusion to draw, my opponent is assuming that privatizing water will increase the price rather than decrease the price of water, which is false according to [1]. So my opponents argument doesn't stand. I made the argument that a bare minimum of food is a fundamental right of a person, which my opponent agrees with: "People are entitled to obtain the bare minimum of food they require to live, that does not mean that people can just take whatever they want, rather, they should only get (at least) what they need." However food is privatized, so if we follow my opponents argument that privatization of water leads to people not having access to a bare minimum of water; these same arguments apply to food, leading to the conclusion that privatization of food leads to people not being able to afford food which in turn violates their rights to dignity. However this is a contradiction since food is privatized and the overwhelming majority of people are able to afford it; those that cannot can get it for free through food banks. Clearly no ones rights to dignity has been violated therefore my opponents arguments lead to a contradiction. Privatization of water just like privatization of food will not lead to people not having access to a bare minimum of water or food. My opponents response to the reality that privatization of water currently exists and no one has been denied their dignity rights is that: "My opponent has confused the public and private sector, since large portions of the food, shelter, and water provided as a public right are provided by publicly owned corporations/the government, not private entities (e.g. social services that help provide housing is a government initiative). As water becomes more and more privatized, the amount publicly available will decrease and decrease and people won"t be able to access this bare minimum" However, the government has bought the water from the corporations for a cheaper price then they would have gotten it on their own, so there is no incompatibility with private ownership of water and providing a bare minimum of water as a public service. My opponent made the claim that: "This just goes to show how privatization leads to price increases", and cited source: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org..... This source comes from Food and Water Watch: an organization dedicated to fighting privatization of water, and the data is selective and biased. An unbiased study of "every community water system in the U.S. from 1997-2003 to test the effects of ownership and benchmark competition on regulatory compliance and household water expenditures" [1] found that "there is little difference between public and private systems". [1] In fact, the study found that "all else equal, households in counties with 100 percent private ownership would pay about 14$ per year less than households in counties with 100 public ownership." [1] This study controls for variables such as "the share of households whose rent includes their water services" and the portion of our taxes that goes towards water. Whereas my opponents study has selected only some private water companies and does not account for any other confounding variables. Another study by the World Bank of 65 public-private partnerships for urban water utilities in developing countries showed that "PPP projects have provided access to piped water for more than 24 million people in developing countries since 1990". [2] This shows that private ownership of water improves access to water. I have demonstrated how private water ownership increases savings and access, and guarantees your rights to dignity, property, privacy and safety. Thus water should be privatized. [1]: http://papers.ssrn.com... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org...