ODT: Water Privatization

==My opponent's arguments==C1: Economic Efficiency of Water PrivatizationMy opponent attempts to make the argument that competition and the free market will naturally force private companies to become more efficient. However, one example of this being false would be England's attempt at water privatization. In 1997, a serious outbreak poisoned people in Northern London because of the failing quality of water [1]. The DWI (Drinking Water Inspectorate) concluded that private companies were failing to enforce the given standards in England [1]. Throughout the time when water was privatized, water mains in England were categorized in a bad state [1]. Pro also notes that private companies are out trying to make a profit. This is not a good thing, as there is a direct correlation between increasing water prices and increasing profits [1]. Companies will try to make more and more money, at the expense of those who can't pay. In England, prices rose by 50% within 4 years. In the end 1/5 households in England are in debt to private water sources [2].C2: Water is an economic good, not a rightWater is necessary for all life on Earth, which includes humans. People will always need water to survive, whether they like it or not. My opponent's quote is flawed in the sense that consumers will always use water, since the benefits from using it (which is living) will outweigh any possible cost. This means that privately provided water is basically charging people to live. The differentiation that Pro is trying to make between water and "ideals" is ridiculous. The general ideals such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness all require a person to be alive before they can value the ideals. It's the government's job to protect our inherent rights, such as life. Life requires food. Hence, the government provides food stamps. Life also requires water. Therefore, the government should provide water. Now, the next argument that my opponent brings up is that providing public water utilities might be too much for a government. Now, if that's an issue, then reaching out to the international community and NGO's is always an opportunity. Furthermore, poor governments naturally are likely to also be weak, and possibly corrupt. How do you expect profit-seeking private companies to abide to the standards - even in England some have failed to. The issue of exploitation and free reign by the companies is also possible. Higher costing water will further hold back to poor, and in succession weaken the entire country. A smart, dependable government would try its best to provide water to its struggling people.C3: Water Privatization is good for the environmentIn this contention, my opponent states that companies will always be interested in protecting the future, which will encourage private water companies protect the environment. A direct counter-example would be how two large private companies have actually supported fracking, which increases the profit for these companies but risks the health of everyone [3]. Private companies, like always, will attempt to reduce the costs involved, but maximize the gain. The value of the environment is incalculable, and when compared to the possible gains of exploiting the environment - the answer of the companies is evident. Finally, Pro points out how governmental organizations don't have to follow the same rules as private companies.A- Some regulations apply to private, but not governmental organizationsThis is necessary, as the nature of private companies is to make profit, not to help the entire society.B- If regulations apply to government companies, then these requirements can be changedI don't see how this is important, as any sort of "requirement" can be changed by the government.==Conclusion==Privatizing water is a dangerous idea. Allowing money-seeking companies to exploit people, the environment, and possibly even governments is not what we want.I might possibly add some arguments to my own position next round, but my opponent already covered most of the ground that I wanted to argue.Sources:[1] http://www.socialistdemocracy.org...[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk...[3] http://www.alternet.org...