If a woodchip is broken in half it becomes 2 pieces of a woodchip not 2 woodchips

Before I delve into arguments, I offer the following definitions and observations, seeing as none have been established. --OBSERVATION-- My opponent must prove that, in all real circumstances and without any exceptions, the resolution is true. I, on the other hand, must only find one situation that disproves the resolution. This is because the resolution is an absolute, overarching statement. If I can show one real instance in which the resolution becomes false, then I have won. If my opponent can show that the resolution remains true in all real situations, then my opponent has won. --DEFINITION-- A wood chip, as made clear by dictionary. com, is "a small chip of wood, esp. one that flakes off when felling a tree or splitting a log. " [1] Therefore, I must challenge my opponents original assumption that wood chips are always manufactured. They are, and originally were, naturally occurring as the by-product of cutting down trees. --ARGUMENTS-- ONE: A supposedly "whole" wood chip is indistinguishable from a supposedly "broken" wood chip. As I have made clear, wood chips are largely naturally occurring. Let us take the analogy of an unspecified quantity of water: when this liquid is divided into two separate amounts, they are both still unspecified quantities of water -- and not pieces of a larger unspecified quantity of water. Similarly, a wood chip is of no standardized size. There is no "normal" or "abnormal" wood chip. A wood chip that weighs 50 grams (about 1.7 oz) is no less a whole wood chip than one that weighs 100 grams (about 3.5 oz). Should this 100 gram wood chip be broken into two equal pieces of 50 grams each, both pieces would remain wood chips. This is because a wood chip has no standard specifications. It is simply a splintered piece of wood. --- TWO: My opponent's logic is self-contradictory. By my opponent's logic, there is no such thing as a complete wood chip. This is true in two ways. (A) Let us look at the issue from his perspective: a wood chip of 100 grams becomes two 50 gram pieces of a wood chip when broken in half. But -- here is the paradox -- because a wood chip is a splintered piece of wood to begin with, the original 100 gram wood chip must be viewed as a broken piece of a larger (say, 200 gram) wood chip, which itself must be considered to be a broken part of an even larger wood chip. This could go on and on until we have imagined that a tree, or even a whole forest, is just one large wood chip. This unreasonable conclusion contradicts both common sense and the definition I offered, that a wood chip is "a small chip of wood. " [1]. Therefore, our starting premise in this logical progression must be incorrect. (B) Even if we do choose to accept my opponent's idea that a wood chip is a manufactured item of a set size with certain specifications, his view is still unfortunately false. During the production of a wood chip in a factory, wood chips are cut down to a certain size: in other words, pieces of wood are broken until they are of a desirable weight and length. This means that, using my opponent's reasoning, all known wood chips are really pieces of wood chips. This precludes the idea that wood chips begin as whole, individual amounts. [ For a look at wood chip manufacturing, see: . http://roymfg.com... ] --- For the above reasons, please join me in voting for the negative side in this round. Good luck to my opponent. I look forward to the following rounds. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...