One is never the same person twice.

I acknowledge that the Con is correct: technically speaking, there is an extremely low probability of being physically the same person twice. However, this probability is so negligible that it can hardly be practically applied. No, I have not calculated the exact probability, and you're welcome to do so, if you so desire. But I think we can agree that the chances are slim.Syllogism 1It's good we can agree on the first one. I somehow expected contest on the second one.To clear up any possible confusion about what a 'mind' is, I will quote a dictionary [2]:Mind (noun)--1. (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.: the processes of the human mind.2. Psychology . the totality of conscious and unconscious mental processes and activities.3. intellect or understanding, as distinguished from the faculties of feeling and willing; intelligence.4. a particular instance of the intellect or intelligence, as in a person.5. a person considered with reference to intellectual power: the greatest minds of the twentieth century.In this case, I believe definitions 1-3 can apply.I have now answered what the 'mind' is. I think you will find that 'creativity' can be generated by an elaborate set of computer algorithms. Questioning the ability of complex organic reactions to generate curiosity and insight, or creativity, is questioning your own ability to think, for, whatever ancient mythology may speculate, all evidence undisputedly suggests that it is the brain that does one's thinking [1] (this can, in fact, be measured, by such devices as EEGs, CT scans, and MRIs [3],[4]). I would say that, while the burden of proof for the debate topic may be on me, if my opponent wishes to contest that thought is not a product of the body, the burden of proof would be on him.Syllogism 2I apologize for using such an ambiguous term as "essence" to describe a 'person,' though 'person' is also an ambiguous term (and has been the subject of philosophical musings since the dawn of philosophy). When I say "essence" of a person, I mean 'component,' or 'what makes up a person.' Since the two constituent items associated with a 'person' are mind and body, I described them as a person's 'essence.'Underlying AssumptionWell, biologically speaking, if I understand cellular metabolism properly, which I should, from the start of life, cells are constantly dividing, then dying. So one may be made of the exact same molecules at some point, however unlikely, but not the same cells. Chemically speaking, it is impossible to isolate a stationary electron, both because of quantum mechanics and because an electron is never stationary [5]. Because electrons are always moving (and indeed, technically everywhere, within a certain confine, at once), molecules and atoms are always slightly different. One therefore is always changing, at a cellular level, and even at an atomic level. My knowledge of particle physics is not enough to know whether or not baryons are in a constant state of change as well, so I cannot say anything about changes in an atom except its electron(s). As far as I know, an atom is never exactly the same twice, and, therefore, anything built of atoms is never exactly the same twice.Sources:[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://www.macalester.edu...[4] Physics of the Impossible, Michio Kaku[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...