DDO TT2: Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity.

I would like to start this round by discussing many issues out-side the realm of the actual debate. Burden of Proof The clear burden of proof is on the pro in this debate due to the structuring of the resolution; the pro has to prove access to drinking water out to be a human right instead of a commodity. The con does not have to actually prove anything. The con merely has to disprove how access to drinking water should not be a human right. Here are the options for either side to win. Pro:1. The pro has to prove that access to drinking water ought to be a human right and not a commodity Con1. The con shows how access to drinking water ought to not be a human right2. The con shows how access to drinking water ought to be a commodity3. The con shows how access to drinking water ought to be a human right and a commodity(This option is best known as a balanced-negative) Outside arguments Now the arguments against my first contention do not really apply to that set contention so I will address them in this section. The pro states that drinking water can’t be a human right and a commodity at a same time. The fact is that water is currently being sold in stores. [1] Another fact is that a governmental group (The United Nations) has recognized water as a human right. This right now should allow for a con victory. This would fall under the balanced negative victory scenario for the con. This point is further backed up from the fact that the pro themselves has validated the U.N. as a governmental organization in their first speech. This point is further backed up by the fact that multiple countries selected delegates voted for water being recognized as a human right and none voted against and some abstained though. [2] So a majority of the world countries recognizes drinking water as a right then it is a valid right, especially considering the actual argument behind my contention 1 was that governments are the ones to decide right and not private companies. So to sum up this point is essentially the current status quo is that water is a human right and a commodity. Now on to the con’s actual case. Con's Arguments Contention 1-Human Rights are provided for via government The pro did not actually attack the actual contention that human rights are provided for via government. The key with this contention is that the pro can’t really attack this contention due to pro taking a state focuses approach and suggesting that the state distribute water. I did not fully understand the rest of the pro’s argument concerning this contention and I believe it was a tangent of sorts but I will still address it. I believe that the pro is actually supporting this point by saying that tyrannical governments will try to manipulate life. The pro ends his discussion on the point by saying that a tyrannical government can control private companies, which means they would not be a company. The pro is also failing to realize that the objective of private for-profit companies is to provide the most goods to the consumer for the maximum profit. Contention 2-Human Rights are abstact Simply put, the pro failed to attack this contention. The pro merely refers to the theory of hohfeld, yet this theory actually is against water being a human right. The source states “Right in one person presupposes a duty in another. The concept of a right without a duty is meaningless. Likewise he also distinguished between rights and privileges. A privilege is available on sufferance…On this analysis what are commonly called rights to employment, welfare, etc are not rights.” Contention 3-Water being recognizes as a human right will lead to ownership disputes At this point the pro becomes extremely illogical stating that we should take away one person’s belongings for the sake of others. Throughout this contention he gives many statements about that have no basis in them such as “human rights are more important than ownership.” The pro also states that the problems with ownership would only be within the commodity sense of the water debate, yet the con gave an example with two countries (not companies) arguing over water rights and disputing water claims. [4] Since the pro asked me to establish my exact position for this contention I will state this as my final position on this position. Water being recognized as solely a human right then that will lead to ownership disputes. Contention 4-Water can be treated(and is currently treated) as a commodity and a human right This contention has already been explained at length in the outside arguments sections, but I will still address this part. The pro brings up an interesting point with Nestle not recognizing the right to water. That point is moot, because nestle does not ultimately decide what is a right or not, they merely provide the item of need. This goes back to my contention 1 (which the pro never really addressed) which is that government or governmental organizations recognizes what are rights and such. Now on to the opponent’s case. Pro's Arguments P1 – The pro never addresses the underlying argument against this point, which is that the pro has to find an way to provide this human right via government that would not cause the government to collapse. The pro half-heartedly address the reference point in my first contention which was discussing tyrannical dictatorship. I would like to remind the judges that this arguments key tagline is "Water is a primary necessity." Which was agree upon. P2 – Again, all this point says is that humans need drinking water. In the con’s first address the problem of people not having access to drinking water is not discusses in the second point. What is discusses is that human’s need drinking water, which is what the con actually agrees with. This is why I believe this point has no use in today’s debate. This point can also be grouped into P1 due to it saying the exact same thing, which is "Drinking water is necessary for a healthy life." P3 – I don’t know why the pro said this argument was address earlier in the round, because I can’t find anywhere the pro explicitly discussed this point in excess. Why would this point be discussed if the majority of the arguments given for this point were quotes and not actually discussing the argument. In fact there is not clear argument except “"Drinking water" and sanitation are essential for the realisation of all human rights.” What are these human rights and why are drinking water and sanitation important for the rest of human rights? That is the key reason the argument should be dropped in this round is due to the fact that there is no basis on this argument and no explanation to it P4 – This point is still directly cross-applied to my fourth contention and I still do not find anywhere is the pro’s second address where this is actually discussed in full. Outro I would like to point out as this point is that the pro has not actually presented any reason why water should solely be a human right. This is important because as explained earlier this is the only way the pro can win. I would also like to add that in this debate if neither side successfully proves anything then the vote must go to con because the pro has the burden of proof i.e. the pro has to actually prove something unlike the con. In this debate the pro has also not actually fleshed out and actual coherent argument and the bulk of the pro's case stated in the second round is purely qoutes or facts with no actual arguments behind them. I would also like to point out that by pure sematics the con has already won this debate due to the outside arguments points. Sources [1] - http://www.walmart.com... [2] - http://www.un.org... [3] - http://www.ourcivilisation.com... [4] - http://countrystudies.us...