The access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity.

I would like to point out that in the comments of this particular debate, I have stated that I will be following UIL LD format. If the Con does not follow this form, he presents no ground for me. Even if he is unsure about the format, or how to debate in this style, he has every resource out for him on the internet to learn. All Con's arguments about framework of this debate will be thrown out. Even Con says it himself, this is a philosophical debate. However, Con does not realize that philosophical debates do not need strictly facts. Values are the prime voting issue. Again, I had made it clear this will be UIL LD format. All Con's arguments about framework of this debate will be thrown out. This includes: "On Value/Criterion" and "On the Normative Presuppositions of Debate" On Con's Arguments: "Contention 1: Objective Moral Values Do Not Exist:" I do not need to give philosophical arguments as to why this is not so, because simply enough, it is not the point of the debate. Again, this is a UIL LD formatted debate as I stated early on. Con brings up an "alternate world" where objective values are meaningless, however, my case is strictly real world, as I thought would be obvious. We are talking about Earth, and the status quo. (Again, LD format). A resolution cannot be considered false without providing evidence to support that claim. Con proposes no such evidence. What we see here is Con sharing why this is not even a debatable topic. This is again an LD format debate, and this argument will be thrown out. "Contention 2: Emotivism Explains Moral Statements:" Again, Con ignores the format of the debate and argues that this should not be debated at all. I extend my previous arguments on this contention and the previous. "Re-Rebuttal 1: L/D Debate Requires Certain Rules" I did not only state the format of what arguments will be given in this debate, but that it is UIL LD format. Thereby, this argument will be thrown out as well. The debate can go to either Pro or Con, it is not defaulted in any way. The vote is on how you achieve your value with your criterion (yet again, LD format). "Re-Rebuttal 2: UIL Would Not Chose A Broken Debate Topic" UIL did not chose a broken debate topic, as both sides have one countless arguments at specific debate tournaments. You can view this on the UIL website itself. "Re-Rebuttal 3: Emotivism Is Unfair/Uneducational" Con says that this argument is not unfair, but yet again, extend my arguments. Con has given himself too much ground in this debate for not following LD style. "Pro's affirmative arguments" Con somehow misunderstood the resolution somehow saying that "you can't get an "ought" from an "is. "" The fact is the access to drinking water is not a human right, my argument is that it should be. Again, Con's arguments will be thrown out. Extend all of my previous arguments as Con has yet to follow correct LD debate format and did not refute my case, not make any claims that water should only be considered a commodity. In all essence of this debate the vote is on who presented their side (whether or not water should be a human right), and that vote goes to me.