Debatepedia partners with The People Speak Global Debates and the The National Debate Series: Boston (Nov. 10)
Debate Digest Nov 19th: Medical marijuana. Next Debate Digest article: Trying 9/11 terror suspects in NYC courts
Resolved: Water should be considered national property
From Debatepedia
(List of links)
< Resolved: Water should be considered national propertyThe following pages link to Resolved: Water should be considered national property:
View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).- Debate: Water privatization
- Argument: Rapid growth of water infrastructure can only be achieved through private investments
- Argument: Politics often prevent elected officials from adjusting prices and investing appropriately in water utilities
- Argument: Cases in which water privatization is claimed to have improved environmental conditions
- Argument: Water privatization is at odds with the need to conserve water resources
- Argument: Water supply is infrastructure-intensive, making government involvement in it important
- Argument: Water is a human right, not a commodity
- Argument: The case for "negative" and against "positive" rights
- Argument: Profit companies are inherently incapable of securing the right to water
- Argument: When water is not treated as an economic good it is wasted
- Argument: For-profit water companies seek to maximize profits at higher cost to consumers
- Argument: Water is not a public right
- Argument: Water privatization is more economically efficient
- Argument: Water can be treated as an economic good
- Argument: Even if water is considered a right, privatization is the best way to protect that right
- Argument: Private ownership of water can threaten public health and citizen rights
- Argument: Nation states that "own" natural resources are more accountable to protecting those resources
- Argument: Enforcement mechanisms for a global commons are very poor
- Argument: Competing nation-states have an interest in water privatization, problematically
- Argument: Nations are signing away control of water resources to transnational corporations in trade agreements
- Argument: A global water commons would address the mismanagement of water resources by failed states
- Argument: A global commons of water resources will help maintain international security
- Argument: Only a global commons can equally protect the right to water
- Argument: Water nationalization invites damaging water diversions
- Argument: Limited water resources are distributed unequally among nations, making national ownership of water unfair
- Argument: Water is a national security resource that states must be able to own and protect
- Argument: States must secure in Antarctica their right to exploit natural resources
- Argument: Antarctica and the Southern Ocean should be protected within the global commons
- Argument: Water resources should be considered part of national sovereignty
- Argument: Without a global commons powerful nations will hog water resources
- IDEA projects with The People Speak
