DDO TT2: Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity.

IntroThe premise for the Con argument on this resolution is simple. Water can be both a human right AND a commodity. The burden of proof is on the pro to show how water would carry more of a benefit by only being a human right. The con will also demostrate how water is can achieve both sides of the resolution via the con's way.ArgumentsContention 1-Human Rights are provided for via govermentThe definition of Human Rights as accept by both the Pro and the Con states "The freedoms, immunities, and benefits that, according to modern values, all human beings should be able to claim as a matter of right in the society in which they live." In societies the only sole and final dictator of human rights is a form of government(United States Goverment or a higher form of a government(Unitied Nations). It is up to these government to provide the rights to the people. And example of the is in the Unitied States history, when the US freed slaves. It was decided that freedom was a human right and should extend to all people. So if water is recognise as a human right that means it is on the sole burden of the government to provide water to people via some source. The reason this point is important is simple. Having a neccesary life product in sole hands of a government can lead to a tyrannical government controlling life. That is why water is best served as a commodity due to the fact that companies can distrubute throughout the world and governments can only distrubute in their respective countries.Contention 2-Human Rights are abstactThe reason up till now that Human Rights have been fairly easy to grant is simple. They are abstract and differ from society to society. When the con says abstract, what I really mean is that they are imaginary and and basically how society would like all others to be treated. The problem is that with water, you have to actually distribute it and that requires work. This also brings up problems with ownership of water. Is it justified to take away a private water supply for the sake of others?Contention 3-Water being recognizes as a human right will lead to ownership disputesThis contention piggybacks of the final statments of the second contention. In india many problems arose due to a key river in India being shared between India and it's neighbor Bangladesh[1]. In this example it was decided to share the water supply but this is causing a rapid decline of the river itself.[2] While this dispute resolved itself peacfully let us imagine if there was a dispute between a private group and a public group. If the country were to directly oppose a group with sanctions of tariffs. This is already happening[3] and can be easily preventable.Contention 4-Water can be treated(and is currently treated) as a commodity and a human rightWater privitization is the way to go when addressing water problems. There have been mutliple success stories about the privatization of water. In one case it was a public-private relationship over water that helped many get the resource they so deperately need.[4] The fact remains that water right now can be bought or sold, thus making it a commodity. Many organizations and governmental groups, such as the U.N., have already recognized that water is a human right. With this point both sides of the resolution are achieved and the con will go on to attack the pro's case.Attack on the Pro's Case The pro argument was less of an argument and more of some ramblings based off of the resolution. Two of the points are basic science and can easily be achieved with the con's case. The others really do not belong in the realm of the debate since both do not have any positive reason to keep them in the debate.P1-The con actually agrees with this point, as this point does not really support the side of human rights that much. But this point can be turned around and applied to other fundamental human needs[5]. These needs were created by Manfred Max-Neef, and while some of the listed need's can't be provided via an external group as they are internal(affection, leisure etc.) The non-abstract needs can be sustained by providing a good, thus the government would have to provide a good and service to everyone, such as a house, food, water, protection etc. The problems with this are explained in my first contentionP2-Again the con agrees with this point since this is basic science that all humans need water, but these needs can easily be met from being a commodity and even a human right and a commodity.P3-I really don't see the use in this point as it simple states that the pro stance, but does not state any warrants or reasons for the pro stance.P4-This point is negated via my contention 4. Please cross-apply all arguments with this contention.I await the pro's response[1]-http://countrystudies.us...[2]-http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...[3]-http://www.wilsoncenter.org...[4]-http://www.ppiaf.org...[5]-http://en.wikipedia.org...