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

Since this round is the conclusion round the con will try to address all arguments discussed in the round and give a brief overview of what happened. Intro The exact position of the con is as follows. Water’s purpose of reaching out to the people and saving their lives would be better served as a commodity than a human right. This was discussed primarily through the outside argument clause and the con’s contention four. If water is recognized as a human right then it will also have to be a commodity as well in order to reach its maximum potential to help people, thus we reach the balanced negative. The reasons for this were given throughout the con’s case, primarily in the con’s first contention, with certain governments having the possibility to become tyrannical and companies seeking to maximize profits thus reaching out to others. Now on to highlight each part of the debate, and this conclude this debate. Outside Arguments The pro has misused the Fallacy of Equivocation as this is a fallacy when you have a phrase of words with two different meanings. The pro has applied this to the term “Human Rights. ” Even though the definition presented was accepted by both parties thus no incurring the Fallacy of Equivocation. Also the definition of Human Rights includes “freedoms, immunities, and benefits. ” If you look back at the first presentation of the con’s first contention they mention and argument that was never addressed by the pro which was “In societies the only sole and final dictator of human rights is a form of government(United States Goverment or a higher form of a government(Unitied Nations). ” Thus the world and their respective governments have decided that they abide by the same definition. The pro even talks about how the governments decide rights and not companies. So from this point forward water is recognized as a human right by governments via the United Nations. In this debate we have also not discussed the definition of commodity. Commodity was defined as an economic good, esp. a raw material or an agricultural product. [1] Water already fits this definition easily and also fits the definition of human rights(Which were decided by governments). So thus the outside argument stands. Contention 1-Human Rights are provided for via government I would like to note at this point the pro never asked the con to fix this contention. The pro does still not address the key point of this contention, which is the problem of tyrannical governments. This is also a logistic based argument as the pro has never explained how they would accurately help more people by water solely being a human right. Another reason the pro did not attack this argument is because this argument directly counters many of the pro’s assumptions about publicly supplied water. Contention 2-Human Rights are abstract As discussed earlier throughout the con’s exact stance and the outside arguments point, the con has established that water is a human right due to the U. N. recognizing it as such. Addressing the hohfeld point it was presented in the con’s third round speech, that Holfeld was discussing the difference between a right and a privilege. He says “Right in one person presupposes a duty in another. The concept of a right without a duty is meaningless. ”[2] This is a critic on the welfare state of western society in which people ask for things but do not earn them. This is further established when hohfeld says “But they seem unconcerned about the need to educate people about duties and the importance of a sense of responsibility. ”[2] Going back to the main point the pro has missed the main point again, which was logistical in the point that since governments provide and decide human rights, water being a sole human right would put the stress fully on governments who might not be able to grant that right. Contention 3-Water being recognized as a human right will lead to ownership disputes The pro still misses the point of this contention and merely discusses some sidebars in this contention. The point of this contention is that if water is recognizes as a sole human right then that means only governments can provide water to the people. Thus it is in the government’s best interest to go to war in order to secure water rights. This was only touched on by the pro from the statement “We can see the fallacy of equivocation clearly here. Con things that the definition for human right alone should be different from human right in "human right and commodity". This is false. ” This statement of equivocation was already addressed earlier. Another weak rebuttal the pro gives is when the con’s quote discussing ownership in which the con discusses how pro did not address a given example and the pro’s response was simply, “No, I didn't. That was Con's source for one of his arguments. ” The pro attempted to circumvent what the con was saying about countries arguing over water rights and merely dismissed it because it was my source. The pro also decides to embrace the idea of liberty while not actually upholding it. In fact if water is only a human right this interferes with the basic concept of liberty. [3] Liberty is essentially the quality to be able to control your own life and not be dictated. In the pro’s established world it is okay to take away someone’s personal property thus infringing on their rights and creating a never-ending circle of infringing property and liberty. Contention 4-Water can be treated (and is currently treated) as a commodity and a human right According to the pro this is where the entire debate is centered at, because water being a commodity cannot respect the definition I presented. This was established earlier in the con’s speech this round that water can meet both definitions easily. So the argument against this contention falls. Pro’s case The pro has really abandoned all arguments they originally presented. This should warrant an immediate vote for con as the pro is simply presenting new arguments for their side in the final round which is against debate etiquette. Nonetheless the con will still discuss these arguments Drinking water should be a human right This is not an argument it is just merely rehashing the same taglines of his original case, without elaborating on them at all or giving any basis. Drinking water should not be a commodity This argument discusses water how water can’t be a commodity and human right at the same time due to commodity not ensuring the right to everyone, while the pro fails to give a rebuttal to the governments who cannot provide water to their people example from the third contention. Conclusion Going back in this debate you can see that at first the pro presented a very weak case and then abandoned this case and brought in new arguments in the final round. You can also see that the pro has cherry-picked lines from the con’s case to attack and even these have been adequately addressed by the con. The pro has also misused a fallacy and ignored a crucial part in the con’s case where human rights are decided by governmental group. Since the con has dropped their own case by default that means they have no arguments to sustain their burden of proof. Due to all of these reasons a con vote is in order. So the key voters in this round are as follows Abandonment of case by the pro Cherrypicking of lines, and not address multiple arguments Since the pro has abandoned their original case they have no basis to uphold their burden of proof The status qou is already met by the con All positive benefits from the pro's original case are met in the con's case If neither side persaudes the judges to vote for them then a con vote is in order due to the pro having the orginal BoP Due to these reasons I urge the judges to vote con [1]- Garner, Bryan. Black's Law Dictionary. 8th ed. St. Paul: Thomson West, 2004. Print. [2]- . http://www.ourcivilisation.com... [3]- . http://en.wikipedia.org...