1=1 always

My opponent is right at one thing, I agreed that when you split an object you now have two objects. However, he wrongly presumed I do not know this, and that I do not understand. Perhaps I should have use "half of and object" in quotations, for a better way to understand my view. Since I failed to do so, I'll explain why this does not change anything. Hopefully my opponent will be able to see that, by spotting my "error" and not acknowledging any other possibility, but the one he deduce, he made an error of his own. By only working around that "error", he really did not advance to anything to disprove what I said. I'll demonstrate. A "half of an object" is truly an object, but, is a "half of an object" the same as the whole object that got cut in half? If this is true, 1/2=1. Let me explain farther. My last opponent* substitute the word object with an apple, there was no problems in that, and my opponent didn't have a problem since he praised my last opponent's* argument. So let's imagine an apple. If I split this apple in half, can I possibly say that the two halves of the apple are each an apple? So really, when I used "half of an object" I was simply stating that the object was an object that was acquire by a previously "whole" object. Even know my opponent did not complain about my use of the word "whole", I guess to make more clear to everyone, I should use "whole" in quotation as well, from now on. So far my opponent has been able to spot one "mistake" in my presentation, that mistake is in language, and not in the resolution, which this debate is about. However, by pointing my mistake in language, he pretty much help me make my argument more clear. Since by fixing such of mistake, it gives the viewers a better opportunity to see my argument. So I thank my opponent for that. This also makes for a better way for him to target my argument, which is what I have been awaiting. So even know my opponent failed to penetrate my argument and really find any flaws, he gained a clearer view of what he is going up against. So despise everything, I feel he had a very good open statement. I like to end by going through something he said, and hopefully I can help clear things up. My opponent's words; "If you mean to say you have split a original object into two and filling one half then I still think if you added the halves they would make one" I like that my opponent use the word "think", which means he is not sure, I could use this to my advantage, but I do not care to win, I care to explore my ways of thinking, and maybe expand or learn something. By using the word "think", he demonstrates to be open to other views, which I always appreciate seeing. Is negative the assumption that I meant to say; "if I had an original object and split it into two" since I did not start from the original object, but a part of it. In the second part, my opponent demonstrates the same mistake as my last opponent* did, he thinks adding objects is a plausible way to show my statement false, but we all know that adding and dividing are two different things (but I would be open to see him trying to demonstrate otherwise), I showed that error to my last opponent*, using his* own argument. Sources: * http://www.debate.org...