You can't wage a war on a word

War on DrugsThe definition of guilty given by Google is, “Not guilty of a crime or offense”. The only time you are ever formally guilty of a crime is when you are officiated so by a court of law. Until that moment, you are considered a “suspect.” Even if the cops walk in to your house and video tape you doing the crime, you are still considered a suspect until proven guilty by a court. You are not “guilty” yet merely a suspect, still innocent.Pro explains how big pharma is relative to the debate, big pharma an example to illustrate Pro’s point of ‘you can’t have a war on a concept because it’s too broad’. Since I did not know what ‘Big Pharma’ was, I researched it. And what I found did not correlate with what Pro proposed. Pro has the idea that ‘Big Pharma’ gives out drugs to people and the government allows it. Big Pharma is the theory that, ‘the medical establishment in general, and pharmaceutical companies in particular, operate for sinister purposes and against the public good.’https://en.wikipedia.org...These sinister purposes include fake vaccines that don’t work (so pharmaceuticals can make billions of dollars), suppressing real data about vaccines…basically that the pharmaceutical industry is completely corrupt. I found nothing of a ‘Big Pharma’ company selling heroin to people and the government giving permission. I feel that Pro has been misinformed, if not I would ask that he please illustrates what he means with some links and sources.(Just so we are clear, when we are talking about a ‘War on Drugs’ we mean drugs as in heroin, marijuana, etc. not Tylenol and Aspirin.)The focus in the ‘War on Drugs’ is the removal of harmful drugs from our society. Pro needs to provide evidence on how we are trying to remove people, or attack people, or harm people in the War on Drugs instead of removing, attacking, and harming drugs. Thus far he has failed to do so.Pro’s third paragraph is just a repetition of the second which I already touched on.“For example certain drugs are allowed to be sold to certain people, yet not to others. Someone can be prescribed Xanax, while another person cant because they are not prescribed it. A war on drugs would mean no one could use Xanax. This is why it is an attack on people, not the drug. Also it is why we cant have a war on a word. It is too broad.”The War on Drugs entails drugs that are free to use, not drugs for medical purposes. If this is not the case Pro should have defined it in R1. But the common known definition entails free-to-use drugs (e.g. marijuana, cocaine, heroin, tobacco, etc.) This does not include medically prescribed medicine. If this was not the case in Pro’s mind, he should have said so in the prior rounds. Since this is my last response, I cannot respond to the new definition if he gives it.And about words being too broad, I believe poverty is not broad. As long as there is one word that is not too broad, and we can have a war on, then I win. Poverty entails anyone who is poor, there is a set income that labels you as in poverty. The objective in this war would be to eliminate poverty.War on TerrorismI don't think anyone can debate that when a government uses a drone strike on a town, it scares the people of that town. To say that it does not scare people would be irrational.Could you still have a war without any violence? (in our sense of war)Yes.Would educating people on the dangers of terrorism, persuading others of giving up their terrorist views, and stopping terrorism in any method possible without killing or scaring anyone possible?Yes.Just because we haven’t done so yet, doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Remember, all I have to do in this debate to win is show that it is possible that we can. This debate is not whether we have declared war on a word yet, it is whether we can in the future.What Pro brings up is irrelevant.War on PovertyThe objective of this war is to help people, I don’t understand how this attacking them. The enemy is one of two things; poverty or people. My opponent can admit that the enemy of this war is not people, so it must be poverty.Pro then makes a good point in saying that without people there is not concept. Just because we declare war on a product does not mean we are declaring war on its maker as well. Saying that you hate a person does not automatically entail that you must hate their mother as well. You can declare war on a concept, without people.In Pro’s last paragraph, he changes the definition of war as to the traditional sense, as in physical combat. I assumed that we were referring to war as an effort with a goal, not a traditional war with guns. I thought we were smarter than this.Conclusion:This has been a very interesting and educating debate and I am sad to see it end. I would like to wish my opponent the best of luck in the rest of his debating career and thoroughly hope that he will stay on DDO so I can keep in touch with him. I respect my opponent, for he is a very intelligent debater and it has been fun conversing with him. With that I end my case, thank you!