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, "I would claim that an increase in water would mean an INCREASE in food supplies, since we would have more water to use on things like irrigation and watering of plants and crops. Thus, he's commiting the correlation-causation fallacy. We are observing (or supposedly will observe) an increase in water, according to his sources, but this doesn't link to a decrease in food. If anything, it would cause an increase in available food." It has already been stated that an increase in temperature would lead to a decrease in water supply. My peer is correct in stating that an increase in water would aid to agricultural yields, yet that does not account for all factors. If scientists are correct that the planet might very well enter a "mini ice-age" this would equal a decline in the space of time for crops to grow, thus yielding fewer crops. A period of colder temperatures would also lead to less terrain that would be "farm able." During the periods of cold known as ice-ages glacier advance upon lands, and reduces land that would otherwise be available. Warmer temperatures although reducing available freshwater, would not reduce seawater. Does my peer understand that seawater can be used for irrigating crops? "A British company has created an irrigation system that can grow crops using salt water. The dRHS irrigation system consists of a network of sub-surface pipes, which can be filled with almost any water, whether pure, brackish, salted or polluted. The system can even take most industrial waste-water and use it without the need for a purification process.[1]" I assure my peer that no correlation/causation fallacy is occurring as my reasoning is sound. Indeed it is quite logical and takes into account a multitude of factors for what climate would be most suitable for producing the highest agricultural yields. While my peers opinion accounts for one, availability of drinking water(freshwater). "Since this is what he spent the largest part of his last round refuting, the majority of his refutations are thusly de-railed and are fallacious. You can extend out the first two pieces of evidence from the Arlington Institute as the very first place to vote con here, regardless of the other rounds." I would request to know how a majority of my refutations are fallacious? I would request my peer not throw around baseless accusations as it only lessens the integrity of the debate itself. Further, I will state that my peers evidence from the Arlington Institute proves nothing except: A: Climate Change is reducing availability of current freshwater sources B: Governments are not doing a well enough job of obtaining freshwater. I refuted point A by stating that there is one source unaccounted for, seawater through desalination. Which had the capability of solving the problem of water sources for a very long time. Indeed water makes up 71% of the earths surface, and out of that 71% only 3% of that water is "freshwater", and this takes the cake here, ONLY .007% OF ALL WATER ON EARTH IS ABLE TO BE USED BY PEOPLE(not counting saltwater of course)[2]. This is water in rivers, aquifers, etc. One only needs to realize that to see that saline water(saltwater) is a solution that would work for generations. Finishing his second piece of evidence has nothing to do with actual availability, if these governments were efficiently storing/obtaining this water, there would conceivably only be a minor problem if one at all. In other words the evidence does not actually refute my argument at all, as it has nothing to do with the actual supply of water(except in stating that governments aren't doing well enough to capture/store available amounts.) Which I will repeat the point made in the previous round, P4: "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 we possess the technology and therefore the means to ensure every person on the planet is afforded drinking water. My evidence has further shown that these solutions would solve the problem for quite a long time in the future, even with increases in population. Therefore disproving my peers claim that, "The affirmative is trying to save lives by giving everyone access to water, but by doing this they only damn people to death via nuclear war and eventual extinction via nuclear explosions and radiation." Beyond that my previous refutation that regardless of whether or not water was available to everyone, as well as being scarce or not, a war is likely to occur over another dwindling resource, and therefore we are damned if we do and damned if we dont, does a sufficient job of refuting the basis that a nuclear war is guaranteed if affirmatives position is taken. My opponent states that his case functions in two ways, "1) It's an independent reason to negate because I'm saying that by affirming, we violate the ultimate human right to life through causing a nuclear war. By negating, we prevent nuclear war, which solves back for the aff harms of dying from lack of water. 2) It functions as a case turn to the affirmative because they're advocating that we distribute water to all people, as per their human rights explicitly stated in the resolution. But I'm telling you that if we did that, we would only further violate their rights in the long run. So as long as I'm winning my side of the case, you have to vote con as I'm sufficiently case turning the entirety of the pro case." Indeed so long as you are they would. Lets examine that further though to see if you are. First you have not outright proven that choosing the path of affirmative would result in nuclear war. That is but a hypothetical, a likely hypothetical given the scenario in the evidence. Yet it is entirely dependent upon water actually being a scarce resource. The evidence that I have brought forth shows not only that we possess the means to supply sufficient resources to meet the needs for water, but also shows this next point(notice the framework starting to piece together) 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." If water is not scarce, any war that would be caused over it would be humanities fault and solely humanities fault on basis of being downright lazy. To possess the means to prevent a catastrophe and not do so(whether its war or billions dying of thirst) is outrageous, morally reprehensible, and sickening. "B: Link – The affirmative claims that everyone ought to have access to water as per their human rights links in because a) it lowers our supply of water to give to other people and b) further causes the population to rise by increasing the quality of life. C: 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." If you insist I shall refute. I will point out that A in the first link is only true if water is scarce, a point I have already shown to be false. B is only a problem if there is no way to prevent population growth, yet the policy of child limits does actually work, and Ill point out that out of any option, its the least reprehensible one, "China and India will face a triple threat.ï¿½Their birth rates have approached total fertility rates that are insufficient to maintain population levels.[3]" Also keep in mind that both China and India's standard of living is increasing, yet population is poised to decrease, thusly disproving causation. Ahhh my kingdom for more space. Ill finish this next round. Onto you Zaradi. :)