Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned

I'll make this simple. Let's examine something my opponent said last round. "the lack of a quantifier does not allow the respondent to pick and choose whichever he so desires." However, that is just what my opponent himself is doing. Let's take a look at the facts. The topic does not specify the context of the debate. My opponent's first round was solely GENERAL FACTS about water. At this point in the debate, no specifics had been determined, so the only conflict that made any sense was whether or not it should be banned IN GENERAL. After my round 1, we had 2 rounds where debaters had argued the topic on a general level, and no rounds where anyone was arguing specifically about specifics. However, then my opponent's second round came. He decided that since he could not win the general debate due to overwhelming arguments, he would instead arbitrarily decide at this point what the topic meant. TOO LATE, my friend. The groundwork for this debate had already been set, you cannot suddenly change it into some specific variant. Seeing this, I argued not only against his specific claims, but also against his sudden re-interpretation of the topic. I argued that the topic was stated generally, and that it makes no sense to bind it to one or two specific scenarios, especially scenarios that WEREN'T EVEN HINTED AT in round 1. Then my opponent goes and claims that I can't just go redefining the topic at whim. However, it was not I that started arguing generally. My opponent's very first round was a GENERAL synopsis of the 'effects' of water. HE decided that the debate would be not about a specific scenario, but about the big picture. I have changed nothing. IT is my opponent who has suddenly changed it all up, claiming that one remote scenario proves his case. I will say this the best way I know how: The lack of a quantifier does not allow my opponent to simply pick and choose whichever he so desires. Further, the lack of a quantifier leads to the implication that this is a GENERAL topic. Coupled with the general-ness of my opponent's opening arguments, this becomes more than an implication, it becomes quite apparently the actual intent of the debate. Strapping a SPECIFIC quantifier onto the topic is what my opponent is doing - seems pretty hypocritical. I have already shown why DHMO, water, should NOT be banned in almost every case. Still, I feel the need to respond to the three scenarios my opponent reaffirms in his final round. 1. "DHMO should be banned from mogwai" Like I said last round, Mogwai are FICTIONAL. Therefore, ACTUALLY 'banning' DHMO from them would be pointless, since the only effect would be wasted time and additional pointlessness. Also, consider that 'banning' is not the word that would generally be used here anyway. 2. "DHMO should be banned from witches" Once again, witches do not actually exist. To the extent that they do exist (which is as ordinary, non-magical people), they still require water, like all humans. 3. "DHMO should be banned from torture (specifically, from chinese water torture)" This is completely nonsensical. First off, water does not make torture any worse. Second off, it makes no sense to ban water from being used in chinese water torture, since it's an impossibility to have one without the other. I provide a much more sensible counterplan - simply ban chinese water torture. Even if water was banned from torture (as if torturers care what's banned and what's not), other liquids would be used instead, so no real effect would be had. Though once again, torture involving water is not inherently worse than torture not involving water. These are the three scenarios my opponent affirms in is third round. Here is a transcript of what my opponent said: "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." It's clear that this is not simply a list of NEW points, it is a combined list of new points AND points my opponent wishes to continue supporting. Thus, it is the full list of my opponent's scenarios as of this final round, and I've just destroyed them, so even by his interpretation of the topic, I have now won (unless one of my rebuttals to the above three points was not good enough). Thank you.