Is ghosting ever acceptable?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is ghosting ever acceptable?". Your opponent's style: The Devil

This house believes that water should be a basic human right rather than an economic commodity

You're conflating a moral aspiration with economic reality. Water *is* scarce, and scarcity demands allocation mechanisms. "Basic human right" sounds noble but dodges the hard question: who decides distribution when there isn't enough? Markets use price signals to prevent waste and incentivize conservation. Rights-based frameworks create shortages and corruption when politicians control access instead of price. Chile's water crisis proves this, where treating water as a "right" without market mechanisms led to depletion and chaos. The real debate isn't rights versus commodities, it's whether you want efficient rationing or bureaucratic rationing that leaves the poor with nothing.

Saving is always a good thing to do, but what happens when the vulnerable don't have access ro to water. The other side dodges something of equal nature. Who is meant to control scarce if not the people then is it fair to give water to a capitalistic society, whos aim is to profit off the suffering of others. A scarcity in water does demand an allocation mechanism but such allocation must be free and fair. To all no matter the background

You've just admitted markets work, then rejected them for being unfair. But "free and fair allocation" is a fantasy. Government rationing of scarce goods historically produces black markets, corruption, and worse inequality than prices do. Poor people in Mumbai pay *more* per liter through informal markets than wealthy people on metered systems. Your moral framework ignores incentives. If water is "free," consumption explodes, infrastructure collapses, and the vulnerable suffer most when taps run dry. Capitalists profit, yes, but regulated utilities also innovate—desalination, treatment, efficiency. You're choosing between imperfect systems. Price with subsidies for the poor beats your unworkable ideal every time. Which actually helps them more?

Such regulated utilities promote inequality by providing aid to wealthier communities whom have more income compared to less fortunate communities whom are plagued by poverty. Mumbai is said to be one of the poorest cities in the world. A metered approach to providing access to water would excassebate their financial struggles by putting less fortunate individuals into more debt for something they could have previously secured for free. This is why water should be treated as basic human right. The fact there are black markets to access water means that a regulated system is ineffective by the state to ensure that everyone receives water. It is the duty of the state to ensure that a right such as access to water is accessible by all. And not just any water, safe drinking water by ensuring revenue gained through tax is prioritized is directed in crucial areas such as making sure water is purified. This would make other industries lose out on money but it would ensure that everyone has access to water and keep water as a free basic human right

You're describing subsidized utilities, not abolishing markets. That's not your argument anymore. Metered systems *with targeted subsidies* serve the poor better than "free" water because they fund infrastructure maintenance. Mumbai's problem isn't metering, it's corrupt officials stealing tax revenue. You're blaming capitalism for what's actually government failure. Free water sounds compassionate but requires massive taxation that crowds out healthcare, education, sanitation. You haven't solved allocation, you've just hidden the cost. Why should water monopolize state resources when preventable diseases kill more poor people than thirst? Your moral framing ignores trade-offs. Which services should the poor actually sacrifice so water stays "free"?

Im not saying that water should be the sole objective of governments. Im merely bouncing off your point that water is scare. If water is scarce then there should be prioritization of industries. The poor are not to blame for such sacrifice. If Mumbai's issues are caused by government corruption and oversigt, such oversight is not inherit in all governments. In South Africa for example, people are allocated free drinkable water and sanitation because it is a constitutional progressive right. Meaning, it may not be immediate, but it should exist in the near future regardless of how fantasy it might sound. Trade offs happen all the time and it is a reality. If I have 10 dollars and I can only buy either a coffee or a burger. Im choosing the burger since there are more nutrients. And if Im choosing between free clean water and other industries. Im choosing the one with more benefits. Water over fashion industries

South Africa's constitution is aspirational theater, not proof of concept. Their water crisis worsens yearly despite the "right." You're confusing legal declarations with delivery. Your burger analogy collapses instantly: governments can't just choose water over "fashion"—they need tax revenue from all industries to function. Kill manufacturing, lose jobs, lose tax base, lose water funding. You've created a death spiral. The real question you're dodging: Why does South Africa fail to deliver this "right" despite decades of trying? Corruption persists regardless of constitutional language. You're betting on perfect governance that doesn't exist anywhere. Markets at least work without requiring politicians to be saints. Why trust the state more than incentives?