Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned

My opponent starts his second round claiming that he is "prepared to refute [his] claim that dihydrogen monoxide should be banned" Well shoot, and here I thought that was my job! Seriously, though. MY opponent now decides to say that since he never specified from where it should be banned, he would now do so. But before he does that, he cites another bit of info from dhmo.org - "Two separate studies found that 86% and 90% of Americans, respectively, felt that they would in fact sign a petition and support and outright ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Both studies also concluded that more education was necessary of the sample before conclusive decisions should be made." Let us realize that these studies obviously were worded the same way my opponent's opening arguments were. In a way that makes it appear harmful, at least before we think about it. These studies only prove that people are ignorant, something that's been well-documented for quite some time. I assure you that if the words "Dihydrogen Monoxide" had been changed to "water" in the surveys, the percentage of people in favor of banning it would fall to near 0%. Now, my opponent decides to make a ridiculous case - that what he really meant by the resolution is that water should be banned from all mogwai. Since mogwai do not exist, it would seem that we would gain absolutely nothing from banning water near them. Second, he claims that contaminated water should be banned from drinking water. First, 'banned' is not the word to be used here, 'removed' is. Banning it would be like saying 'if that drinking water's contaminated, you're not allowed to drink it.' Next, consider that my opponent gave us no way to do this. Also, consider that it is not water, H2O, being banned here, it is contamination. Water is exactly what we want in drinking water. 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.]. Also, I never said rain was not water, as my opponent confusedly claims I did. And yes, perhaps contaminated drinking water can cause tumors. As my opponent pointed out, water is not the culprit, it's simply a means of transportation for the contamination. Banning contaminated water is the same as banning contaminated anything-else. It's a ban on the harmful chemicals, not a ban on the water [or the anything else]. Banning the use of water is not ever done. Banning excessive drawing from city water lines is sometimes done, but this is not an effective ban on water. A person can still do whatever with whatever water they have, they just have a limited supply from the city. Limiting a city's supply of water is not banning water. Anyways, a ban requires complete disallowance. I'll go over this one more time. "Dihydrogen Monoxide" in the topic refers to H20, otherwise known as water. Therefore, we are only talking about H20, not H20 with poisons mixed in with it. H20 is it. Mixing other things in with it, it ceases to be H20. We are only talking about WATER, not a mixture of water and X. Notice that the topic is stated as a general rule. "Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned" implies that overall, it should be banned. 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. 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. My opponent is doing this same thing - he's changing "Dihydrogen Monoxide" to mean "Dihydrogen Monoxide that also contains contamination", which ironically enough, ceases to be Dihydrogen Monoxide, but is rather a mixture thereof. Also, consider that my opponent completely made up an entirely new advocacy between this round and last. The topic is stated generally, and the opening paragraph seemed to be speaking generally, but now he is claiming that it should only be banned in these few eency weency scenarios.