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

I'll refute her case to begin. "The people that decided to do this did this voluntarily because they felt that people need clean water. "How does this help your case at all? Because to me this looks like a stance the pro side would be taking. We need water as is our right because since humans have the inherent right to life, we need the necessary supplies to sustain that right. Which, of course, includes water. "Even though there people who are using their time and money to make these wells for less fortunate people; it does cost a lot to do this. "Why? Where is your proof of this? I know that I could dig a hole deep enough to hit water, given maybe two hours and a shovel. Paying minimum wage for basic physical labor, that's only 14.50 plus the cost of the shovel. So twenty, twenty five bucks to dig a well? Doesn't sound that expensive. "This isn't just about the water; this is about everything in the world. The past affects the future. "I really fail to see your point here. If we were to not give everyone water, as per their human right, wouldn't we be condemning those that didn't get any water to die? Is that a good future that we want? I honestly doubt it. "In many cases, people do have access to drinking water for free. "Oh boy. Nothing is free. Water fountains are paid for by the tax money citizens pay to their respective cities. Tap water comes from utility bills paid to water companies. I am arguing that it should be free, so that everyone can have access to water for free, as per their human rights. So how does this help you? "Different societeies have different moral codes. So to you, having drinking water should be a human right, but the other society could be viewed as an accommodation. "Whoa whoa whoa. Rights and morals are two entirely seperate concepts. Rights are something we all inherently possess. That's not subjective. That doesn't ever change. Everyone, regardless of whatever society they live in, has the right to life. In order to fulfil that right, they need to have the right to the resources to sustain it. This would include water. "Others shouldn't judge them for spending money to buy water. Just because some societies are not as rich as others, it doesn't meant that the poorer people should be upset with people who work to afford it. "What about the people who work and can't afford it? Do they just get to wither up and die from dehydration? So now only the rich and the powerful can have access to water, and everyone else gets sent to hell? That's one heck of a world you're advertising there. "there are many people in this world, so many that we are overpopulated. "Absolutely no proof. I can concede that our population is growing, sure. That's just basic truth. But we're not overpopulated. You have absolutely no proof as to say why we are overpopulated. It's just pure speculation on your part. But even if we are overpopulated, which I still don't believe, why does this even matter? This has absolutely no impact to it. "I understand that death is wrong if it is too soon, but if a family knows that they will not be able to care for a child because of lack of resources, they should move or hot have a child. "Great. That's one great policy you got there. If you can't afford water, don't have any kids! Just die and let the world's population shrink to record lows. That's not going to stabilize our population, that's only going to throw it through another loop entirely. And since my opponent didn't attack any of my arguments made in my last speech, you can extend those as well. I'm showing you that if water is considered a human right, we save lives. If we don't, we condemn hundreds upon thousands of people to die for nothing. I think the vote is fairly simple from here.