The Great Wall of China is in China. (The one that seperated them from Mongolians.)

Furthermore, I would like to formost agree with my opponents definitions set. I stand in negation of the resolution, and will rebutt my opponents point with my contentions subsequently following. =REBUTTALS= 1) a. "I contend that if the Great Wall of China has at least one point included within the boundaries of China, it is therefore "in" China. " First of all, with all due respect, I would like to point out that this is an impossibility, due to the fact that an item that is (roughly, at least) circular does not have any points. b. " For example, if I have an abnormally calculator, the TI-89 titanium (which I do) and I put it into the pocket of my jeans pocket, more than half of it remain outside the pocket. But, at the same time, it would still be considered "in" my pocket. " On this analogy, I would like to point out the difference in demensions. In the sense of geography (which you defined in your own case as a 2D plane via. a "bird's eye view") the demensions are on two different realities. c. "Another example would be the bottle of listerine that is sitting on the sink to my left. If I spilt 4/5ths of the contents out, there would still be listerine "in" the bottle. Basically, all that I am arguing is that I don't need the whole, but rather only a part, to be "included" within some given domain. " In this analogy, the listerine (as a collective unit) would not be entirely in the bottle. As a whole item (such as the Great Wall), if there is even some outside the confines of it, the entire item is not within the boundaries. Therefore, the item can not, in full truth, be in the listorine. In relation to usable listerine, you wouldn't even consider the spilt listerine a part of it, so you would be correct. However, this is not the case. 2) [Will address in contentions] 3) This entire contention is irrelevant. The resolution only pertains to geography, not question the ownership. The statement "it is within their domain" is a repetative statement of his standing, and not a point. =CONTENTIONS= 1) The boardered part of an item is not within the item, for it is what contains it. a. The Chinese built the wall as a seperation to have so that it separates their country from invaders and protects it. Anything beyond the wall is out of thier control. The Great Wall is not in China (for that would defeat the purpose built, which is to stop Mongolians from getting IN China), but I propose that it is an outer layer to protects the inside. For example, the membrane on a cell is what contains and protects it. It is not in the cell, because it must remain outside to contain it. It is not a part of it's structure a holding at all, for that is the inside. Another example is the human skin. You wouldn't classify that as the inside part of you. That is actually the first barrier to keep harmful pathogens out of your body, just like the Great Wall of China. The Wall protects the inner part of China, which gives it structure and keeps it's vitality. 2) In your very definition of the Great Wall, it was built to protect them from "Barbarian attacks". If the wall is inside of China, it can not protect China as a whole, and the definition of the Great Wall would falter, so this debate would not exist. However, it does, because the Wall of China (which you agree and set the definition for) protects China by being the OUTER layer. Therefore, if it's on the outside, it can't be on the inside. Thank you very much for this debate, and I'm glad you are articulate enough to sponsor it and endorse such articulate contentions.