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

This debate has gotten far too bogged down in definitions. I will therefore review the key points about what constitutes a wood chip only briefly, and then move into the arguments. --DEFINITIONS-- My opponent conceded that the Lenzing definition is unreasonable by dropping the evidence, so this definition should not be use in evaluating the round. He still attempts to support the Wiktionary definition. This is an unreasonable definition, unsuitable for debate because wood chips were originally naturally-occurring splinters of wood, not manufactured. This "general old wood chip" is the more common and accepted definition. In debate, we should attempt to find the truth about what is most relevant to the real world. This can be accomplished only if we accept the most general and reasonable definitions: common sense tells us to accept the dictionary.com definition, that a wood chip is, "a small chip of wood, esp. one that flakes off when felling a tree or splitting a log." [1] Even if the Wiktionary definition does somehow stand, it only refutes some of my arguments, which is not enough for my opponent to win the round (see my observation in Round 1). I agree with my opponent's definition of "manufacture." --ARGUMENTS-- ONE: A supposedly "whole" wood chip is indistinguishable from a supposedly "broken" wood chip. The water analogy still stands, as my opponent did not introduce any new arguments about it in this round, only repeating his words from the previous round. But even if there are still some readers who are unsure of whether or not we can effectively compare liquids to solids, substitute an unspecified quantity of dirt for the water. Thus, I compare a solid to a solid, satisfying my opponent's wishes. My opponent is trying to argue that a wood chip is whole because that is the way it was intended to be, but a wood chip is no less whole at 50 grams than it is at 100 grams; my opponent conceded this, and agrees that there is variety even among manufactured wood chips. Let us assume that one specific wood chip begins in a factory at a mass of 100 grams. If it is then split in two pieces, each with a mass of 50 grams, in the factory, my opponent asserts that these two pieces are complete wood chips because they were intended to be 50 grams. On the other hand, he asserts that, if the wood chip is broken in two outside the factory, it becomes two broken pieces, not two wood chips. This does not make logical sense: it should not matter WHERE the wood chip is broken. The fact that the outcome is the same no matter where it is broken refutes this point. TWO: My opponent's logic is self-contradictory. Stating that your logic "agrees with the existence of a 'whole' wood chip" does not make it true. Throughout the debate, my opponent has not offered any logical refutations to the argument I made in Round 1. He has simply told me that I am wrong. I did support this argument, and I showed the two ways in which his ideas make the existence of a 'whole' wood chip impossible. --CONCLUSION-- Whether or not my opponent wanted to debate about a manufactured wood chip or not, the truth is that not all wood chips are manufactured; indeed, the first wood chips were naturally occurring. This is why we should accept my more reasonable definition from dictionary.com. Even if we do accept my opponent's restrictive idea that wood chips are always and only manufactured by humans, I have still shown that a 'whole' manufactured wood chip is impossible. Remember my argument in round 1, where I stated, "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." Because my observation about the burden of proof went unchallenged throughout the debate, it still stands and should be used when voting. Therefore, if I have won either of these two arguments or any of the subpoints of my two arguments: (1) A supposedly "whole" wood chip is indistinguishable from a supposedly "broken" wood chip (2a) My opponent's logic is self-contradictory because it shows that there is no such thing as a 'whole' wood chip …then I have won the round. Please join me in voting for the negative in this debate. Good luck to my opponent in this and all future debates. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...