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

I must appologize to my opponent. He is misinterpreting how my case functions, and is thus still not sufficiently responding to my case. I'll spend a portion of my time here explaining how my case functions, and why his responses are not sufficient.The strucutre of a disadvantage, I will shorten to disad, come in four points (A - Uniqueness, B - Link, C - Internal Link, D - Impact). Each point serves a unique purpose in the case.A - Uniqueness: What things are happening in the real world that allow this case to apply to the resolution and to the aff/pro case. I make two independant points here: an increase in global population (Kates 1) and a decrease in the availability in water we can drink (Arlington Insitute 1/2). While he's covering the second point pretty well, he's just not adequetly covering the first point. If I am winning off of either point, Point A is to be given to con as I am giving a sufficient reason why this applies. So lets go to the arguments against Kates 1:His only main point is to point out that China and India's population are poised to fall. Fine. But the problem with this is my opponent is conceding three arguments I have made that inevitably screw over this argument:1. He's conceding the analyis under my link that says by giving people clean water to drink, we prevent deaths from things like dehydration and water pollution, thus increasing our population. This is logically true because if less people are dying, obviously there will be more people living, thus meaning a higher population. In so far as he has CONCEDED THIS ANALYSIS through all of the rounds so far, this alone is enough to take out this argument.2. He conceded the point I brought up that even if we were to adopt this policy on a world-wide scale, there would be no real way to enforce it adequetly. People could always just have babies behind their governments backs and then drop them off at a shelter for orphans or a place that will take care of them. He hasn't provided a way to enforce this policy, so this is enough to invalidate this argument.3. He conceded the point I brought up that says the only real way we COULD enforce this would be to either a) kill the illegally birthed baby, which is a MASSIVE rights violation, or b) severely punish the mother and father of the illegally birthed baby, which is another rights violation. In so far as the only way to enforce his policy causes more harm than it prevents, this point is refuted.So at this point, Kates 1 can be extended as a sufficient measure to fulfill point A. I don't even need to respond to the arguments against Arlington Institute 1 and 2, since they are independant from Kates 1, and either can fulfill the point A requirement.B - Links. Why my opponent's case links into the harms of the impact. I give two points here. 1: giving other people water reduces our supply of water, and 2: populations will increase because less people will be dying from things like water pollution and dehydration. Both can be logically confirmed. If I have two water bottles and I give somebody one of them, do I still have two water bottles? No, I only have one. So by giving water to other people, we lower the amount of water we have to give to other people. So this is logically true. The second link is also logically true, as I have already pointed out. So either way, my opponent still links into the harms of the impact, which is nuclear war. This was never really refuted, he only tried to point out why it doesn't apply. But I'm showing you exactly how it still applies, so he's still linking in.C - Internal Link. Why the link leads to the impact. This is the most crucial part of my case, and it is the part that has been ENTIRELY CONCEDED throughout this entire debate. This is where the Hance and Kates 2 cards come into play. Hance explains as our population rises, we push our resources further and further, and create a bubble. Once our population gets to large, we pop the metaphorical bubble and we arrive at Kates 2, which talks about once we reach a certain population (specifically 10 billion) people, the metaphorical crap will hit the fan and cause mass chaos. We will begin using our resources much faster than they can be replaced (through natural or artificial means) and things will begin to spiral out of control. This point has been entirely conceded throughout the entirety of the debate, so by affirming he's still leading things to the impact. In so far as he's conceded it for this long in the debate, don't let him start making new arguments against it once he realizes his mistake.D - Impact. This one is the most obvious one, it talks about what will happen and why it matters. This is where the Arlington Institute 3 and Klare cards come into play. As set up by Kates 2, we will begin to rapidly use up all of our natural resources once our population reaches a certain level. Once water, specifically stated in Arlington Institute 3, reaches a low, intrastate and international conflicts will begin to arise over the need for water. This need for water will push countries into nuclear war, as stated by Klare. Once nuclear war starts, massive amounts of death will consume the globe, and nuclear radiation will plunge the world into extinction. Again, this part of my case was ENTIRELY CONCEDED throughout the debate so far. In so far as it's gone conceded for this long in the debate, don't let him start making new arguments against it once he realizes his mistake.So this leads me to why the impact outweighs the pro's claims. I give two reasons for this: 1. By the pro trying to save people's lives by giving them clean water, they only cause them to die through nuclear war and nuclear radiation. So, the pro is effectively failing to prove his case true. 2. By advocating for a right to drinking water, they cause us to lose our right to life, which prevents us to even having a right to drinking water. If we're dead, we can't have water to begin with. So by affirming, he prevents us from having any rights.Then this case functions in two seperate ways, both of which are sufficient for a con vote. 1: It functions sufficiently as a reason on it's own to vote con, since I'm showing you exactly why we ought not value access to water as a human right. 2. It functions as a case turn to my opponent's case, since I'm showing you exactly how, by affirming, he prevents us from having rights in general, much less a right to drinking water. Since I'm sufficiently proving my side true, and my opponent is not doing enough work to disprove my case, I'm winning on both levels of the debate.So right now, we can easily call the debate an easy win for the con.