1=1 always

I'm sorry PRO, but I feel you are really not engaging in this conversation. What makes me think this, is that you reply really quickly, and seem to make a lot of mistakes in your reason, and again have yet to advance at anything that the true resolution is about. PRO wrote; "If I cut you in half, I do not have half of you anymore. I have two separate arrangements of atoms." This seems very rushed put together. Notice the word "anymore". By using the word "anymore" in the sentence, you are implying that you once had "half of me". That contradicts with the statement that follows, and contradict with your premise that you had on the previous round. If you cut me in half, you have two halves of what I once were (me). You are focusing to much in my use of "object" and therefore you are making this debate about such. If we go by what you are saying, is like saying there is no such of thing as a fraction. Since every time you cut an object, you now have two objects or more, therefore 1/2 cannot possibly exist. That could be a good debate. However, this is not the debate. PRO wrote; "It is like saying [b]if you fill half of a hole you have half a hole[b]. It is a whole hole xD because there is no set form of a hole. I the same way there is not one 'object' in the universe. Everything is an object. The entire universe is an object. I don't at all understand how one can ever have half of an object." Did you see what happened there? That analogy accepts that a half of a hole exists, but yet your following argument denies such from existing. Plus that analogy can't possibly work. If I have a hole and I fill the hole, a hole does not longer exists because the hole have been filled. Another demonstration that rushing into conclusion is not a good thing. PRO wrote; "You say a whole object exists. The universe is a whole object, so technically anything is just a millionth (far less than a half) of the object that is the universe. I don't need such ridiculous proof that 1 =/= 1 as the theory that there is half an object." This demonstrates that not only did you rush to reply, but you did not really read what I wrote. As I cover this in my previous round. My quote; "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."* As you can see, I had already foreseeing your complaining about the use of "whole". :) PRO wrote; "Thank you, good bye" "1=1" I hope this doesn't mean you will forfeit the rest of the rounds. Also, as our agreement stands, the resolution was changed, so you are not here to prove that 1=1, but 1 always equal 1. Either that, or to find a flaw that disproves my argument. I have yet to see you do either so far. I would like to ask you to revise what you present in the next round. I like to believe you are still up for the debate, and there are other reasons you rushed to reply. Your second round was a good start, but in your third round it seems you gave up, and didn't even try. Source: * Second round of this very page.