<GY> Water should be Privatized

I first express my thanks for the arguments, and let me proceed to a final round :) Let me first begin by refuting some of the statements; 1) Let me first clarify and inform that distribution of water is not limited to 'drinking water'or , but rather a distribution to homes through pipes such as water used for bath, dish-washing, toilets, and many other purposes. Therefore, once again water is more than just 'drinking' or 'bottled water' but rather a supply for many tasks we need to do in life. 2) Yes, there are worldwide systems and organizations, but they are insufficient to provide every people with water supplies. If those organizations were so great and so effective, how can the nations and people suffering from unapproachable water be existent? I believe that domestic governmental effort through making the water public works much better and efficient. The failures of water privatization is mentioned in my first round's arguments through the examples Great Britain(developed country), and Tanzania(developing country). Let me provide you with some of the successes that public water supply systems have made; Germany has a public system with very low distribution losses; 100% of the urban areas have access while 97% of the rural areas are granted of access. For both urban and rural areas, over 90% has the high sanitation rate. In Denmark, 100% of the population gets water supplies, with more than 87% of high sanitation rate. For the example of a developing country, we have Costa Rica - nearly 90% or the rural areas are granted access, and with almost all of the urban areas getting the supply as well. These data proves that public water systems are certainly more efficient in providing the public with water with good quality and efficiency. 3) My opponent has stated 'there are places where you can get free water'. However, he/she did not state such specific places, and it is not proved. And EVEN IF there were to be places with free water, still people would have to carry the water they need all the way home - which is very inefficient compared to the water pipe systems. 4) "people who don't work or don't go out into the world and get a job should not get water" ; means that if one does not have money or a job, they should not be granted the access to water. However, let's keep in mind that no money and no job is caused from lack of efforts. So what about people that are born in adverse conditions? If they have money, does that mean their water supplies, a vital source, has to be cut? A nation and a government should be ready to provide its people, at least a VERY BASIC LIFE SOURCE, instead of abandoning them. 5) There are certain RIGHTS that are granted to people regardless of their jobs or status in money- such as rights to life, freedom of speech, rights to be protected, rights to vote, and so on. And water is one of those sources that should be granted and be provided by the government. Today, I have proved to you that water should NOT be privatized through suggesting; 1) Explaining the nature and qualities of water being a necessary life source and why it should be provided by the government, 2) Explain the Nature of the private companies and how their preference on profits over people can cause harm, plus the comparison with the public water systems which were successful, 3) Possible environmental harms that can come with privatizing water Plus I believe I have rebutted my opponent successfully. However, I haven't really seen a direct rebuttal to theses arguments from my opponent. Plus, what I have seen in the arguments of my opponents were vague. 1) My opponent firstly misunderstood the privatization of water - when it should have been considering the supply of overall water, my opponent has only considered 'bottled water' which was a very limited topic. 2) He/she was also irresponsible in providing people with fair and equal source of water- and when I pointed out the responsibilities of the government and necessity of water supply, I haven't heard the response to that. 3) 'Worldwide systems and organizations of water' or 'free sources' of water were what my opponent suggested. However, they were not specified. Plus, getting water supplies to everybody from those water systems are very impractical - but my opponent as ignored these factors. 4) I haven't seen any reason from my opponent on WHY companies are more efficient or better in providing people with water sources, or why companies can manage the water systems better without harming the environment. 5) Not just these reasons, but I haven't seen a solid argument or a reasoning in my opponent's arguments, and therefore, I do not exactly know what possible solutions or suggestions that were suggested by my opponent. He/she was merely irresponsible, and while he/she tried to tackle my arguments, because they were vague and illogical, they do not stand.(please refer to my rebuttals) Water, once a gain, is a source that is directly related to the rights of life. And because people should be granted these rights, it should be the government who should be managing the system. My reasons have been proved throughout this debate, and if you care for the people and fair distribution of water, please vote for me! We all want water to come out from our sinks, toilets, and showers. :)