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

For taking this debate and allowing me to practice with a case I haven't been able to run in person yet, and 2. For shooting himself not only in the foot, but in the head with the vast amount of concessions he made in his last round. Let's go through and point out what he conceded and what it means in terms of my case, his case, and the round. The first thing he concedes is the Kates card that says that population is growing. This is probably my opponent's worst mistake in the round. This concession implicates against him in a number of ways:1. With this concession, Point A can be extended out and confirmed as offense for me. This means that the link between points A and C still stands strong.2. With this concession, he concedes that in the aff world, the population is rising. This links him into the disad, outweighing his arguments against the link. So point B can also thusly be extended, thus still showing that the aff uniquely causes the impact. Again, he concedes Kates 1. I'm showing you how it implicates in the round and why this screws him over, don't let him stand up in his last round and read off new arguments against it because he already conceded it. Next thing that he concedes is the ENTIRE C point, which is Hance and Kates 2. This is going to be incredibly problematic for my opponent for a number of reasons:1. Hance shows the link between A and D, meaning once our population reaches a certain level, we enter a state of chaos that leads to Kates 2. 2. Since he concedes Kates 2, he's conceding the warrant coming out of Kates 2 that once we reach this population, we will consume water at a faster rate than it could be renewed. This pre-empts his desalinization argument because even if it's true, Kates 2 explains SPECIFICALLY how it will not be enough to sustain us. 3. Since he concedes Kates 2, it concedes the warrant saying that we will consume water faster than it could be replaced. This links STRAIGHT into water scarcity, meaning that if we affirm, we cause water scarcity. This outweighs the arguments against the first link, showing how he's still linking into the disad by affirming. He even goes as far as to ADMIT he conceded this by saying right under it "Yes it is true that eventually the population will outgrow the supply of water". HOLD HIM TO THIS CONCESSION. In so far as he's conceded ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE, practially HALF of the warrants in my case, he CAN'T win off of the disad. I'm showing you how the aff UNIQUELY causes the impact of nuclear war. He never made any argument as to why the neg causes this as well, only asserted it. I'm show you specifically how if we affirm, we cause nuclear war. My opponent has no evidence to back up his assertion. My impact still stands and it's the main reason why you're going to vote con. This also means that since the impact still stands, that the disad still functions as a case turn and take-out of my opponent's ENTIRE pro case. So he literally cannot gain any offense off of his case, as I'm showing you why HIS OWN CASE functions as a reason to vote con. At this point, I'd assume that my opponent's "Oh sh*t" meter is going off in his head right now, once he realizes the gravity of his mistake. He's going to try and stand up in his last round of speaking and read off a massive amount of new reasons why what I'm saying is false and why he doesn't link and why he's not causing the impact. DO NOT LET HIM because a) he's conceding the warrants in my evidence that prove my case true and disproves his case and b) letting him list off a whole list of new arguments in the LAST ROUND of debate is highly abusive and unfair, since I have no ability to respond to it. So at this point, the debate breaks down pretty easily for the voters:1. I'm sufficiently showing why we ought not accept water as a human right, since doing so would cause nuclear war, thus fulfilling my resolution burden. First easy way to vote con.2. Since I'm proving my case true, my case effectively turns the entirety of my opponent's case by showing that by affirming, we not only lose our right to drinking water in the long run, but lose ALL of our rights, not to mention losing our lives. Thus, he can't get any offense off of his case, and he can't win off of it. In so far as he's conceded practically half of the warrants coming out of my case, I've shown you exactly why these two voters are true. Don't let him stand up and spend 8000 characters dumping new responses on my case, since that's highly abusive and unfair to me since I can't respond to them. So at this point, it's a clear win for the con.