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

As my opponent did not challenge my observation, it stands and should be used when evaluating the round. I will start with the definitions and then move into the arguments. --DEFINITIONS-- My opponent's Wiktionary definition states that a wood chip is: "A small mechanically produced piece (chip) of wood, generally from 0,5 to 10 cm by diameter, used primarily as raw material for pulp, paper and construction boards, as well as fuel and mulch." [1] This does not refute the idea that wood chips are of no standardized specifications. This simply says that all wood chips are mechanically produced. Therefore, this does not eliminate the possibility for variation among wood chips. --- My opponent later introduces a definition from Lenzing, stating that: "Wood chips are defined as wood reduced to small pieces according to norm. They are produced from round wood or as a by-product of saw logs." [2] Unfortunately, this definition does not refer to wood chips in general. Lenzing is a European company that sells, among other products, wood chips. In this definition, the company's web page is describing exactly the "Red Beech Wood Chips" [2] a consumer will receive if he or she purchases them from this specific company. This definition is simply too narrow. The same web page goes on to inform us that wood chips must have the following specifications as well: "Healthy, no infestation with fungi or insects Dimensions: Length: maximum 25 mm, thickness: 3 - 5 mm, width: 20 - 30 mm Without bark Varieties: beech, ash and maple tolerated as collateral" [2] A wood chip that has an insect inside it is still a wood chip. A wood chip that is longer than 25 mm is still a wood chip, as is one that is thicker than 3 mm or wider than 30 mm. A wood chip does not cease to be a wood chip if there is bark on one side of it. Wood chips can be of any kind of wood, not just beech, ash, and maple. --- The definition I offered into the round is from dictionary.com, and is "a small chip of wood, esp. one that flakes off when felling a tree or splitting a log." [3] Common sense dictates that we should accept my definition for this round, as (1) it is from a very general, common source that is useful to provide definitions for common, everyday affairs - as this debate should require, and (2) my opponent fails to tell us why we should accept his definitions, while his definitions either do not preclude my argument or are too specific for debate. --ARGUMENTS-- ONE: A supposedly "whole" wood chip is indistinguishable from a supposedly "broken" wood chip. In response to my first argument, my opponent writes that the analogy of water is flawed. This analogy is strong and stands because it is a good comparison. My opponent has two objections to the analogy: --First, that water is not manufactured. This argument rests in the idea that wood chips are always manufactured. As I have shown, however, the most reasonable definition of "wood chip" shows that they are not always manufactured, and indeed, they originally were naturally occurring. --Second, he states that liquids and solids cannot be compared. It would not matter if we were comparing a solid to a solid, a solid to a liquid, or even a solid to a gas; all that matters is that the two items are of unspecified quantities and can be divided into two smaller unspecified quantities. This is true of the wood chip, and this is true of water. Even if the analogy is flawed, my opponent failed to refute the second part of my first argument - that is, the logic about wood chips themselves. This still stands, and so I assume that my opponent accepts my idea that, "A wood chip that weighs 50 grams is no less a whole wood chip than one that weighs 100 grams." --- TWO: My opponent's logic is self-contradictory. In response to my second argument, my opponent simply states that it is false, asserting that, "I am saying nothing contradicting the fact that a complete wood chip exists." Unfortunately, if we take the time to review the logical proof I showed in Round 1, my opponent is mistaken. Nowhere does he attempt to refute this logic, but instead, he restates his original idea and the resolution: "the sheer fact that once a complete manufactured wood chip is separated the pieces left are considered pieces of the original manufactured wood chip and not two separate manufactured wood chips." Saying that the resolution is true does not make it true. --- To conclude, my opponent leaves us with the idea that, "once it is a wood chip it is no longer in its normal state so if the wood chip is broken the pieces will not be considered wood chips." Whether or not it is in its normal state has no effect on the outcome of splitting it in half. --- For these reasons, I urge you to vote negative. [1] http://en.wiktionary.org... [2] http://www.lenzing.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com...