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

My case is below: . https://docs.google.com... #Read through that before continuing onto the rebuttals section. You back with us? Good, let's go over my opponent's case. I'd like to point out one major flaw in her case before I go through it line-by-line. One of her major points is that human rights are frequently violated, so it's okay if not everyone get's access to it. If this is true, then it's impossible for her to actually meet her value premise of human life, because people still wouldn't be getting access to water. I'm best going to be meeting her value by preventing nuclear war, as the negative case clearly shows is what would happen if we were to affirm. Now, onto her first contention, where she's talking about how life is the ultimate human right and without water, we don't have life. The disad is going to be outweighing here because by affirming, she effectively brings about extinction of the human race, which restricts EVERYONE'S right to life. By negating and keeping water as a commodity, we prevent nuclear war and allow the most amount of people to keep their right to life. Then let's go to her contention two, where she says that rights are violated, thus making it okay if not everyone get's water. TURN: If rights are violated, it prevents people from having water, which will restrict them of their right to life. This functions as a reason to negate off of her case because through this contention, she fails to meet her own value of human life and her criterion of the preservation of life. Then to her last contention, where she says that putting a price tag on life is immoral. I'd like to point out that there is literally no warrant to this. All this argument is is just a giant assertion by my opponent. But if this is true, then you can TURN this argument as well because it would be immoral to put a price tag on food and medicine as well, since they give life and it's immoral to put a price tag on life, according to my opponent. If we were to remove the price from things like food and medicine, it would cause massive anarchy as people would be robbing stores blind because they didn't have to pay for things anymore. It would cause the collapse of every food company, restraunt, factory, proccessing plant, and distributer, as well as every pharmaseutical business, supplier, and distributer. With all these businesses gone, we would face absolute collapse of our economy of which the likes would be greater than that of the Great Depression. This functions as a reason to negate off of her contention because while she's trying to promote our wellfare through preserving life, she's only screwing us over in the long-run. So the debate breaks down pretty easily from here:Since we're both agreeing that her value-criterion structure is how the round should be evaluated, whoever is best preserving human life is going to win the round. I'm showing you in three places how she's failing to meet her own value.1. The disad shows that by affirming, we cause nuclear war and eventual extinction.2. Her second contention says that human rights are violated all the time, so it's okay if not everyone gets water. But this only proves that she is unable to actually preserve human life at all if she can't give everyone water.3. Her last contention says that we can't put a price tag on life, but this would also removed a price tag from things like food and medicine, which would cause mass rioting and pillaging and would lead to another Great Depression.