Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned

First of all let me say how happy I am to have an opponent with a sense of humor. I had hoped to have a somewhat relaxed and fun debate, and he has not let me down. Also I apologize for my tardiness. Work has been brutal lately. Onward then: I am glad to hear my opponent concedes the ignorance of people, as this fact is paramount to my case. There has been insufficient scientific research as of yet to conclusively prove that mogwai do not exist. To dismiss their plight, and the plight of all towns everywhere that could so easily be decimated by uncontrolled mogwai propagation is absolute neglect. Next, my opponent claims that water is responsible for many natural disasters. Have I not already shown this to be irrelevant? We cannot ban rain. IT is impossible. And even if it weren't, life requires it [plants need rain, animals need plants, animals need those animals, etc. ]. My opponent here fails to offer any reason why this matters. Life requires DHMO, this does not necessarily mean that this is a good thing. I offer, there would be no significant harm to the universe were all life on Earth to cease immediately, and there would in fact, be the potential for some benefit to this particular portion of the Universe. I offer into consideration- humans cause harm to the environment, other living species, and the atmosphere. Recalling that my opponant conceded the ignorance of people, it seems unlikely that we will ever provide the benifit from our lives we can provide by our extinction. Remove all life now and it MAY be possible for some life to begin again at a later time that would be less destructive. My opponent claims that we must keep this chemical Dehydrogen Monoxide for no other reason that to keep the obviously detrimental life upon this earth, without offering any reasoning as to why this would be a good thing. I propose it would in fact be a neutral thing at worst and a bad thing at best. Again, my opponent has simply stated, "irrelevant" and "We cannot ban rain, it is impossible. " This is irrelevant. As I have shown, there would be long term benefits to just such a ban, as such the resolution is upheld. "Banning the use of water is not ever done. " This does not mean it should not be. In fact high ranking officials have made the attempt, only to be shot down by special interest groups that stood to gain significant advantages with the distribution of DHMO. In fact in 1998 "A member of the Australian Parliament announced a campaign to ban dihydrogen monoxide internationally. " . http://en.wikipedia.org.... Obviously he was blocked from success. "Notice that the topic is stated as a general rule. "Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned" implies that overall, it should be banned. " NO. The topic states that DHMO should be banned. If I can show even one time in which it should be banned, the resolution is upheld. Nothing in the resolution states that DHMO should be banned overall, only that it should be banned, at all. I propose 3 situations in which a ban on DHMO would be beneficial: DHMO should be banned from all mogwai, as stated previously DHMO should be banned from all directionality described female users of mysticism (witches) DHMO should be banned from all forms of torture, specifically of the type known as Chinese water torture. "Consider this hypothetical topic: "People should be brutally slain" PRO for this topic cannot argue that only Hitler and Osama Bin Laden should be brutally slain, because "People" refers to people in general. " It could as easily mean "some people" as it could "all people" the lack of a quantifier does not allow the respondent to pick and choose whichever he so desires. "Here's another one. "I'm better than my opponent. " PRO has to do more than just show that he's better at ONE THING; he has to show that he's better OVERALL, or better at something that is obviously meant by the initial context. " Irrelevant. The use of the word better quantifies the statement, making it inherently different from the actual topic of THIS debate. My opponent has made the claim that the banning of water is bad, without showing why this is so. He claims that it necessary for life without showing how that is beneficial. He has outright tossed out my defense of mogwai, showing a callous disregard for the lives of countless poor souls seeking only to enjoy a rare holiday free from strife and gremlins, and he shows no concern at all, ignoring my call to protect, all witches who may find significant pain upon contact with DHMO. I have shown: 1. mogwai should never be introduced to DHMO 2. Witches, particularly of the western variety practicing a form of of their craft known as wicked, would certainly benefit from just such a ban 3. There are some long term environmental benefits to this ban.