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

The Great Wall of China: A man-made wall that was built in order to protect the Chinese from Barbarian attacks. Information is given on it here. . http://explorer.altopix.com...... is: the 3rd person, present indicative form of the verb "to be" in: –preposition used to indicate inclusion within space, a place, or limits: walking in the park. China: –noun People's Republic of, a country in E Asia. 1,221,591,778; 3,691,502 sq. mi. (9,560,990 sq. km). Capital: Beijing. . http://dictionary.reference.com...... was used to pull all definitions with the exception of The Great Wall of China, seeing as it is not a word/phrase that needs defining. It's like trying to define Abraham Lincoln. . it doesn't work. As Pro, I contend that the Great Wall of China, a man-made wall that RUNS THROUGH exactly Longitude: 117ï¿½ 5' 26" Latitude: 40ï¿½ 46' 6", is in [included within the space, place, or limits of] the country of China, defined as the country with Beijing as its capital. (1) The Great Wall of China is numerically "in" China China is located between approx. 15 degrees and 60 degrees Latitude North and about 70 and 135 degrees longitude East. The given Latitude of the Great Wall of China is, rounded up for evenness, 120 degrees, and 70 < 120 < 135 Ergo, China is located vertically within China's boundaries. The given Longitude of the Great Wall of China is, rounded as well, 40 degrees, and 15 < 40 < 60 Ergo, China is located horizontally within China's boundaries. 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. 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. 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. (2) The Great Wall of China is, therefore, grammatically "in" China. I anticipate my opponent claiming that the phrase "The Great Wall of China" is excluded from the phrase "China". Seeing my above argument, I contend that "The Great Wall of China" is partially included in "China"; thus, "The Great Wall of China" is "in" "China" (given previous logic that I fail to see flaws in). (3) The Great Wall of China is owned by the Chinese and is, therefore, "in" there possession. Seeing as China receives large sums of money from the tourist industry as per people visiting the wall, I argue that the Chinese also own the Great Wall, therefore it is in China. Ex: Lets say a Grovokian family lives in Grovok in a Chaluski, and there is a Plavikos in this Chaluski that they created that stimulates the Grovokian's endorphines. It is rightful to say that the Grovokians own that Plavikos because 1) they created it, 2) it has not been apprehended by the Grovokian government [yet], and 3) It is in their Chaluski. Now, let's say Grovokian means Smith (my hypothetical last name) and the Chaluski is our house; thus, a house in Grovok is in the Smith (Grovokian) domain. The Plavikos is our TV and we enjoy watching it because our endorphines go CRAZY when we see natural history and how rhinoceros' have sex. Now lets move out several levels to the government. Grovokian now means Chinese and Chaluski is the domain of the Chinese. The Plavikos is the Great Wall of China and it stimulates their endorphines because they are money addicts, and they just LOVE their money. Since these Chinese 1) created, 2) have not lost control of, and 3) it is within their domain, they own the Great Wall of China. Therefore, it is in their Chaluski, i. e. the Chinese domain. Sorry about the wordiness; the point the passage is trying to get across is that if I own something and use it, it is in my domain and thus it is mine. If I had just said the previous sentence you would've called non-sequitur, but I think the passage does a pretty good job of explaining. I thank the readers for their time and look forward to a very interesting debate. =Concluding Note= My opponent can not alter the definitions at will; if he wishes to change them he must give valid reasoning as to why we must do so. I. e. if I if he wanted to change the definition of China to a village that he grew up in located in modern-day Southeastern Iowa, he would have to tell you why it would've been more logical of me to assume that when he said China, he was referring to his remote, isolated village that no one had heard about with the exception of the locals. Thanks again :)