It is possible to get your virginity back after you have lost it

Thank you again to philochristos for providing the opportunity to engage in such an enthralling debate. The fortune is all mine to be debating someone with not only a good head on his shoulders, but an intelligence-bestowing hat as well! I would like to first note that in the second paragraph of round 3, my opponent attempts to redefine something he once defined for us. In the original rules post, he defines virginity as "the state of having never had sex. " However, here he redefines it as "having never joined your genitalia with that of the opposite sex. " Although subtle, these are clearly different terms, and as per the rules we must use the first definition. If virginity was something that was typically ascribed to one's sexual organ, then one could make a compelling case that over time a man's penis may regain its virginity. However, this puts the proponent in a sticky situation, since it's near impossible to know the exact amount of time it takes for an organ to "replace" itself. There is also no presented criteria for what constitutes new genitalia. Is it greater than 50% new material? 100% new material? In light of these holes in the argument, it becomes more evident why virginity is a trait assigned to a person's self and not his/her individual organs. When I mentioned that I thought my opponent's thought experiment was best carried out by each person individually, he responded: "That’s it. That is the extent of his “refutation” of my argument. I submit that this response doesn’t even rise to the level of refutation. " I should point out that I stand by my original assertion, not only due to the increased brain power each reader gets from carrying out the experiment himself, but because Pro's comparison of the human body to the chair is just that, a comparison, well crafted as it may be. I am glad my opponent points out that my balloon analogy is simply an illustration, since the same can be said about his chair analogy. However, since my opponent claims that I have not given an argument, I will attempt to remedy this problem. First of all, I did make an argument about the lack of time travel leading to the impossibility of regaining one's virginity, but I shall move on since my opponent does not seem to be debating the forward-moving nature of time. My opponent tries to change the topic of debate by using words like "different" to lead to the conclusion that if something is different in one way (such as the composition of its materials) that it loses other traits as well. However, my opponent's first sentence betrays him in such a way that I needn't talk about these definitions. He states that he will "defend the claim that a person who has lost their virginity can get it back" (emphasis mine). Note that he writes "person" and not "sexual organ". Once a person has had sex once, they have by definition lost their virginity. The particular stage of cell replacement of that person's sexual organ is irrelevant, since the act of sex is independent of the age/state/size/strength of said sexual organ. At that moment, the person has lost their virginity and is lost forever. My opponent claims that "while it is true that you cannot undo the fact that you once lost your virginity, that is not the same as to say you cannot get your virginity back. " However, in this case they are the same. It may be possible to get back a sexual organ that has never entered a sexual organ of the opposite sex, but it is impossible to revert to a state of virginity, since that person will have always had sex. I will agree that the balloon mustn't forever be in a popped state after it's been repaired, but if we were to create a state of being that starts true and becomes false the moment the balloon has been popped, it will remain false once it becomes false. Repairing the balloon may fix it's popped state, but not the state of being that became false. My opponent next attempts to discredit the [purple] balloon thought experiment because it is the same balloon as before. However, if one allows the master balloonsmith to use new balloon material in the repair, this point is nullified, and becomes the same situation as the chair thought experiment. Again, however, as I mentioned in the previous paragraph, this untimately does not affect the state of having once been popped, which is analogous to one's virginity in a way that a chair cannot even begin to imagine. Thank you for your time, both to my skilled opponent and the fortunate readers. I hope my explanations have been strong and to the point in order to clarify my positions.