Dalton Chamberlin

Elkins Negative

Novelist Ana Castillo once said: For things to have value in mans world, they are given the role of commodities. I cite this quote because I negate the resolution. Resolved: Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity. In order to clarify the round, I offer the following counter definitions: Access: to make available for use. Ought: used to indicate a desired or expected state. Valued: considered to be important or beneficial. Human right: a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person. Commodity: something useful or valuable. It is also something bought or sold. (Princeton wordnet) Observation: The resolution specifies that we discuss access to drinking water and not simply water alone. If water were to be provided for all, the access could not be provided without infrastructure. This necessary infrastructure is very expensive and access cannot truly be free unless Aff can prove that water, as a human right will provide necessary infrastructure. If Aff is unable to uphold this, then they cannot uphold the resolution because the infrastructure will be paid for and therefore the access to water will be a commodity. They must say how water will be distributed. (make the link that access entails practicality) Good observation! My value for the round is practicality. Practicality is the aspects that involve the actual doing or experience of something rather than theories or ideas. Meaning, it is not practical or reasonable for water to be considered a human right and the distribution of water to everyone is impractical. Practicality is predicated off the fact that governments are not entailed to recognize the individual interests of people within the nation but rather the national interest so in cases where they must make decisions that could affect the whole country, they have to look to practicality which links to societal welfare because it predicates from practicality.

Dalton Chamberlin

Elkins

In order to uphold my case and provide for practicality, I offer the following criterion as a weighing mechanism for the round: maximizing societal welfare. Societal welfare pertains to the quality of life of the people. It is doing what is in the best interest of the people. By saying water is a human right, you are not being practical and are creating more issues in the process. Also, my argument is that even if the affirmative argues that we are promoting one more essential human right, that looking to it as a human right could hinder the governments ability to fulfill other rights entailed to the citizens of the country which impacts back to societal welfare on a level before the affirmative case as whole. Contention 1: Countries do not recognize water as a human right. The United States does not support the UNs water as a human right resolution. Goldberg 10 writes: One of those 41 abstentions was the United States, which said it could not support the resolution because, in fact, access to water is not an internationally recognized human right. In an explanation of the United States vote, John F. Sammis, U.S. Minister Counselor to the Economic and Social Council, argued that This resolution describes a right to water and sanitation in a way that is not reflective of existing international law; as there is no right to water and sanitation in an international legal sense as described by this resolution. Notwithstanding the merits of this particular resolution, this kind of back and forth is reflects a very natural tension between the General Assembly and the United States. The General Assembly is not a legislative bodythe only part of the UN system that can make law is the Security Council. But sometimes, the General Assembly pushes the boundaries, and this causes a reflexive retrenchment by big powers like the United States.
That does not sound all that controversial. But apparently, it is.

Contention 2: Water is not always accessible. Therefore affirming is not practical. Sub-point A: Drinking water is not abundant enough for everyone to have an equal share. According to the United States Geological Survey, about 70 percent of the Earth's surface is water-covered. However of that 70% less than 3% is actually safe for drinking. It is this very reason that we see shortages of water in many impoverished countries in the world, leaving the people without the most basic necessities for survival. We've even seen the need here in the state of Texas with the recent droughts. Drinking water is incredibly important, and the need for it is great. However at the same time, we

Dalton Chamberlin

Elkins

must realize that many countries simply aren't able to give access to this precious resource to their citizens and they certainly are not able to guarantee it to them as a human right. If these countries hand out the little water they have, they would inevitably take that water away from someone else, thus violating the rights of other citizens. We also have to take
into consideration Riparian rights, in that they are rights that allow you to choose exactly what you can do with the water that is on your property, that water is considered yours if it either runs through or is

Considering this fact, you are taking property away from the more advantaged, which is not just. Therefore, you are violating human rights by affirming.
allocated on your land in any way.

Sub-point B: By affirming you are decreasing the amount of water in the world, therefore it is a commodity based on its scarcity. (Change this to a separate contention) Howard 03 writes: Water supplies like other commodities only have economic value in relation to their scarcity. Thus, the value of water is related to the reliability of its supply. Since their will be less water if it is a human right, that makes it a commodity due to its scarcity. And like some other commodities the value stems from its role in the production of other goods and services within society. So, estimates of the economic value of water must
include measures of both its reliability and its impact on economic activity. There are well- established methods in water supply capacity expansion planning for estimating reliability and designing facilities to achieve a specified level of service. There are also well-established methods for estimating the impact of rate increases on water consumption. These two methodologies taken together can provide a basis for estimating the value of water within a specific region.

Due to the fact that affirming would violate societal welfare and the practicality of the access of water, it must be recognized as a commodity. I now stand open for cross-examination.