Drinking Water

Before beginning, I would like to assert that my opponent may indeed use all four of their rounds for debate, rebuttal, or however else they may deem necessary. Like I said at the beginning, I do and being at a disadvantage, in fact I welcome the challenge. So again, feel free to use the final round as you wish. = Con = Obs 1: The burden of proof in this debate is on the Pro, as they are advocating a change to the status quo. Currently access to water is not considered a human right. It is instead a commodity, defined by Princeton wordnet as an article of commerce. Meaning something is bought and sold. Obs 2: For something to be a legitimate human right, it must not contradict another already established right. For it to do so proves it to be illegitimate, as it shows that both rights cannot exist at once. I concede to my opponent's definition of Human Right, and would like to take a moment to thank them for providing this necessary clarification. Furthermore I would like to place an emphasis on the later half of this definition, that a human right is something a government may not interfere with. This will come into play as a crucially important issue later on in this debate. That said I will now progress into my arguments. 1. Availability- According to [1]UniversityToday. com 71% of the earth's surface is comprised of water. It is the most abundant natural resource in the world, and is found in almost every corner of creation. So then it would seem that with such an abundance, a lack of water would be something we could only find in fairy tales and blockbuster movies. However of that 71% we also know that less than 3%[2] is actually safe for drinking. It is this very reason that we see shortages of water in many African countries[3], leaving the people without basic necessities for survival. And we've even seen this need in the great state of Texas with the recent droughts[4]. At this point it cannot be denied that Drinking water is incredible important, and that the need for it is great. However at the same time, we also come to the realization that many countries simply aren't able to supply (i. e. give access to) this precious recourse to their citizens. and they certainly aren't able to guarantee it to them as a human right. To do so would inevitably take that water away from some-one else, thus violating the rights of other citizens. Interestingly enough, when we come to this basic realization, the point that water is in fact nothing more than a commodity is shown to be crystal clear. Even if my opponent convinces you that drinking water is a human right, it will still be treated as commodity. Accordingly the vote absolutely must default CON. 2. Moral obligation to business- The right to work hard, and make a living for oneself is a fundamental principle of the american lifestyle. We see this categorized first under the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, and furthermore by America's conformity to the principles of capitalism. So I can easily prove that we have an obligation to honor the rights of business here in the U. S. As for abroad, we see that the idea behind these rights is upheld in these nations as well. People have a right to be able to provide for themselves, and to make a living through the free market. According to philosopher John Locke[5] in the original state of nature, no one owned anything. All natural things where wild, and unowned by any person. However at the point a person put effort into a natural substance, that substance became their property. Dasani, Deja Blue, Aquafina - these are all househeld names, as well as a beloved convience of any thirsty person on the go. I'm talking of course about bottled water. By affirming the resolution, we effectively destroy these businesses, and leave them at the mercy of individual kindness. A thirsty jogger is running down the road, and decides to stop at a convenience store. He realizes he has no money, and decides to just take the bottled water and go. If we affirm that access to drinking water is a human right, then there is ultimately nothing stopping this scenario from becoming a very stark reality. There is no moral obligation to change access to drinking water from a commodity to a human right. We must instead do all we can to protect the rights of individual property. Underview: While it is painfully clear that access to drinking water is not a human right, nor ought it be a human right, this does not mean that the CON opposes helping provide drinking water to those in need. Instead an effort should actively be taken by each individual to help those in need. By claiming that access to drinking water is a human right, my opponent ignores the true problem at hand, and their actions are counter productive to helping those in need obtan clean drinking water. = Pro = My opponent hasn't made any real argument as of yet. essentially, all they've done is help frame the debate and claim that anything that is necessary for survival is a right. However I would like to remind all the voters that without a legitimate warrant to back this claim up, all I have to do to refute it is say that it isn't true. It isn't true. Despite my opponent's argument sounding nice, there is no real reason to validate their claim. Vote Con! = Sources = [1] . http://www.universetoday.com... [2] . http://academic.evergreen.edu... [3] . http://www.africaheartwoodproject.org... [4] . http://www.sfgate.com... [5] . http://plato.stanford.edu...