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

Ill start out this round by thanking my peer for such a fine debate as I have thoroughly enjoyed myself. I will also say that throughout this round I will use different abbreviations that are as follows: R- Reason D- Round S- Source Now then, Here is a reason to vote affirmative. R1- Due to the complete refutation of the Link in my peers disad argument, all conection to the affirmative position was lost, and therefore the disad as a whole is not a valid defense/offense within the context of the debate. To explain, my peers whole argument is based on the pretext that upon taking the affirmative position, it will 1) Cause population growth 2) Population will grow to a point that the planet cannot sustain. 3)Thusly leading to a Nuclear War over resources. To prove that the affirmative position causes population growth, thusly linking it to the disadvantage, he states, "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. " This was part B of his argument, the link between my case and the disad. To successfuly refute his argument against the affirmative position one need only break the connection between it, and the con position(disad). I have done this by refuting both parts of the link, this was necessary because even if one remains valid, the Link has not been sufficiently broken because it still connects my position to the disad. The refutations were: A: Water can be reused/recycled so to say that by giving water to someone you reduce what can be given to another is false. (D2-S1)Water is not scarce therefore it makes no sense to even bring up this point. (D2-S1/D3-S2/D4-S1&2) As even if it were valid, which it is not, water being scarce is a prerequisite of why this point should even matter. B: An increase in quality of life(standard of living) does not equal population growth. (D3-S3) Indeed my peer for some reason chose not to refute these, even though the Link is the most integral part of the disad within the context of the debate, and chose to focus instead of how i havent refuted other parts of his case. Before I continue I will point out that: 1) I need not refute every single part and the evidence used to support it for the case to be declared invalid within the context of the debate, just the link. (So as to reassure my peer that I am not creating new arguments here and just repeating or rephrasing what I have already said I'll quote) "As such there is nothing to link the affirmative position to my peers disad argument. " 2) I conceded the evidence NOT the conclusions(Parts A, C, D of the disad) my peer drew from them. A subtle difference but one worth mentioning, as even though the evidence is true it does nothing to support his case so long as the link is invalid. In fact it works against his case too, as population will rise in the pro and con world. As such the impact is not valid as well, given it will occur in both worlds. Due to my refutation of the link, thus negating the entire disadvantage, my case still stands as the strongest, as there has not been a sufficient defense mounted against it. As such the vote must go pro. P. S. - This debate really should go to con for these reasons: R1) Without his assistance in the comments i would not have come to these conclusions. My moral compass cannot allow me to claim victory given this factor. R2) I have misused terminology throughout the entire debate and thusly debased my whole refutation as nonsense, and unintelligable.