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

Introduction: The Pro response was pretty scattered across the different subtopics and got repetitive, so to avoid repeating myself in my responses I am going to adopt a new mode of presentation. Pro offered basically no philosophical arguments and made his entire case based on the structure of the debate. In particular, he tries to hold me to rules that were explicitly nonbinding or that were never stated. I am concerned that he does not see the difference between the framework of the debate and the philosophical framework of the discussion. After taking care of some basic issues, I will go over my claims from the previous round and justify why they still stand, and then I will address the principle arguments that Pro has made. On Value/Criterion: I was not required to have a value or a criterion. I think that the whole concept is nonsense. I chose “truth” to be my value to emphasize that fact that I am making a non-normative argument. All I care about is the factual veracity of my contentions. If that is understood, I might as well drop my value/criterion entirely because it's irrelevant to my argument. There is no need for values in making a claim about the structure of reality. On the Normative Presuppositions of Debate: The point of a debate, as I stated in the previous round, is to establish whether or not something is true. When people disagree about some fact and want to determine who is right, they each present reasoning and facts that support their conclusion. Debate can only take place when the matter in question is indeed a fact. If the topic is “Ice cream is delicious” there can be no debate, because it is not an objective statement. Ice cream is delicious to some people, but not to everyone. Those who don't think it is could never be rationally persuaded to change their minds. Throughout this debate, I have kept this point constantly in mind. Pro instead endorses the opposition: he says that we can debate only with values. But values have nothing to do with the topic of many debates! How could be debate science or mathematics if values, not facts, were important. Should be believe that it is possible to exceed the speed of light because that would help us achieve things we value? Of course not! Our values have nothing to do with what is true. My Arguments: Contention 1: Objective Moral Values Do Not Exist: Pro has not given any philosophical arguments why this is not so. I have stated that no physical evidence in principle could lend evidence to a claim about abstract moral statements, so there is no way that we could come to know them, and therefore it is useless to posit their unknowable existence. I have also said that an alternate world in which such values did not exist would be the same as ours in every perceivable way, and that therefore objective values are meaningless. These arguments stand unless challenged. Because objective moral values do not exist, the resolution must at least be false (though I think it is worse than false). Instead of challenging these arguments, Pro appeals to the rules of the debate. I will explain below why this is not a valid response. Contention 2: Emotivism Explains Moral Statements:In the previous round, I argued that moral statements are really just expressions of the speaker's feelings. This explains what people really mean when they talk about morality. An expression of someone's feelings cannot be the resolution of a debate, so the debate must default to Con. Saying “such and such ought to be valued” is the same thing as saying “ice cream ought to be eaten.” It might be good or bad for a particular subject, but with no subject at all it is a meaningless statement. It is nothing more than a reflection of our human tendency to belief that our subjective preferences apply to everyone. Pro once again gave no counterarguments against this position and just said that it should not be allowed. My Responsible to Pro's Rebuttals: Re-Rebuttal 1: L/D Debate Requires Certain Rules No rules were stated in the debate. In the comments section, I asked Pro is there were any rules and he specifically named the following:“Essentially, in your first argument you will present your own case, and rebut mine, of course. All rounds following will be strictly rebuttals and no new arguments may be presented. “I have fully followed that format. No other rules were given. It is not my responsibility to figure out every nuance that Pro wanted me to follow but neglected to state. So I don't particularly care if my value and criterion don't link, whatever that means, because I'm making an argument that's not about values and I was never told that I had to do that. As I said above, I only included that to clarify that my argument was based on facts, not values. Pro has brought the unstated rules of the debate against me in a deeper way, too. He has said that my argument that values do not exist is not acceptable because the rules of the debate require him to have a value. Well, it's really not my fault that the rules that Pro chose and did not tell me about require him to make an argument that I think is unsound. I think that L/D debate is seriously broken so that, depending on the burden of proof, either Con automatically wins or the debate automatically goes to a tie. The reason I think this should be obvious: if the format of the debate requires you to defend a value and all values are in principle indefensible, then you are in a serious predicament. The fact that Pro chose this broken form of debate is not my concern. Could he have chosen a resolution about math, a format the required him to make mathematically incorrect arguments, and then objected when I gave correct arguments? Re-Rebuttal 2: UIL Would Not Chose A Broken Debate Topic Blatant appeal to authority. UIL can make a mistake. Re-Rebuttal 3: Emotivism Is Unfair/Uneducational Pro says that he has, “refuted that Emotivism in unfair and un educational...” Complaining that an argument is unfair or uneducational does not constitute refuting it. If emotivism is philosophically correct, a contention that Pro has made no attempt to challenge, then it obviously should not be thrown out! The only reason it could be considered “unfair” is because Pro has willingly pigeonholed himself into a very limited range of arguments. But even now, it isn't unfair. All Pro has to do is give arguments for why he thinks that emotivism is false and his ethical framework can carry! Instead, he has neglected to debate with me at all and has just said that my perfectly reasonable philosophical arguments can just be dismissed because if they were true it would have negative consequences for the debate format. If he's going to use L/D debate format, shouldn't he at least have philosophical arguments to defend it? Instead of letting his philosophy justify the debate format, he's trying to let the debate format justify his complete lack of philosophical argumentation. And in any case, I think that this example could be quite educational (though that is totally irrelevant to the debate). There is certainly something to be learned about what kinds of claims certain debate formats assume and how those formats interact with the philosophical arguments of the debate. Pro's affirmative arguments:I continue to concede all of Pro's facts. In round one, he just rallied off facts about thirst in the world. As Hume said, you can't get an “ought” from an “is.” His entire argument is one big category error. Conclusion: Pro has made no actual challenges to my claims whatsoever. Instead, he has said that they would break the debate format. Well, if he wants to endorse L/D debate, he has to show that nihilistic arguments won't break it. The method of debate must be supported by the philosophy, not the other way around. As it stands, my arguments should just be considered extended because Pro's responses have been categorically off: they are not even the type of statements that could refute them.