A duplicate of you is not you.

"It seems my opponent does not wish to clarify/further explain his position. There are many cases where, rather than demonstrate WHY his claims are correct and mine are faulty, he rather just 'states'. The assumption is that we should agree without further elaboration. I think not." Typing my argument out in the entirety in a distinct manner from prior, just for your preference, is absurd. I addressed what specific instances you noted. "My opponent claims that separateness and alternate location are irrelevant to whether the clone is me. He claims nothing prohibits two instances of self, via the technology which I specifically stated are not up for debate. He is correct - the technology is not up for debate; it is assumed to be possible and exists. Duplication is possible. I've never denied this." Great, thanks for conceding. We can now discard all your relative properties arguments, and go back to discussing what actually differentiates the two entities. At copy they are exact; at different locations they are exact duplicates. They do not distinguish. "He addresses my relative list of properties yet takes them out of context. Two separate though identical persons will experience a distinctly different and separate set of experiences because of those separate properties, both externally and internally." If there are separate properties internally, they are not copies, not duplicates, and the resolution is moot. If you wish to argue, is a duplicate possible in X scenario then you should of made that the debate. All you are stating is, the duplicate is not a duplicate and therefore it's not a duplicate. "If I place person x on the right side of person y, he will breath different air, see different light, and, if person x turns to look at person y, he will have to turn his head left, but person y will then have to turn his head right... which is not possible if each is the "same person" acting "the same way"." Straw man. Obviously you don't occupy the same space at t. Entity A will act in the same manner when presented with a specific set of stimuli as would entity B if presented with the identical stimuli, because they are exact copies, exact in all manner of constituent parts, including thought. "They may appear identical externally to anyone watching, yet upon deeper examination, they are actually quite distinct and must of necessity be considered different people." Fallacy, No true Scotsman - attempting to define a duplicate as not being exact is poor. "A to B beside a chair were comparable to an original and duplicate person opposite one another." No; comparable to relative positions making both entities distinct. "each person would experience uniquely their respective set of variables externally and internally, differently. Also, that a duplicate set of neurons were created doesn't change the fact that they were just created at that instant and were never involved in the history of actually forming via biological growth and phenotypic experience - indeed, every atom, the entire set making up the duplicate, did not participate in the development and growth of the original body, in the way the authentic person's atoms and molecules did. I will address this point again later." Again fallacy, No true Scotsman. An exact duplicate, not restricted by technology, if being exact, even if not using the same material of entity A to entity B, would by necessity require those same constituent components of A to be present in B to constitute as a duplicate. This is what I addressed in R1 with the film vs. splice analogy, which you agreed to with the technology not being an issue stance. As a philosophical puzzle, this is not unique and the scenario not limited by current science. "Regardless, I have sufficiently refuted my opponents claim that each entity would act the same, simply because if placed side by side they demonstrably must act and behave differently - it would be physically impossible not to." Again, irrelevant, if entity A was asked to do X, then removed, entity B placed there then asked to do X, the outcomes would not differ. Their identity is the same, regardless of their positions at t. "He claims I am begging the question by claiming my clone is not me because it is a clone..." Your argument leads exactly to that statement, not in place of. The error you refer to relates to relative properties in relation to other objects and does not in the slightest address the entities' identity being distinct. "The equation is either inadequate itself, or has been inadequately and insufficiently applied by him to this problem." You misread it and extract incorrectly. The error is elsewhere. "He takes something else I said out of context when accusing me of holding up a strawman just for explaining how the word "same" is overused and mistakenly assumed to mean "absolutely the same" as opposed to "quite similar"." No; you argued what my usage of same was. "He further claims there is only one relevant usage of the word same his. I beg to differ." Attempting to change my argument, by defining the words I use differently to how I use them, is a straw man argument. My usage, the definition I use in my sentences, is the only relevant usage in my arguments. "Identical twins are not the same person." Great; that wasn't up for debate though and twins are not analogous to this scenario. "How is it that because duplicates are made of me that I should have to go anywhere?" What? I never stated you should. ""Sameness" is either absolute, or it is not." Same is a synonym for identical. "If it is not, then my duplicate need not be me no matter how perfect the number, type, and arrangement of atoms... he remains a copy." But not a duplicate. A poor copy is not a duplicate. An almost copy is not a duplicate. A 'we almost got it this time, boss,' is not a duplicate. "If both I and my duplicate are "the same", causality must logically carry between both persons though they APPEAR separate." No. If you were occupying the same space at t, then it would occur. Identical position is not needed for both entities to be exact. Causality will address whichever one the knife stabbed - it has nothing to do whether entity A or B differentiate. "My opponent next advances I have agreed with him that the nature of the clone is exact - I have not used those words at all that I recall, but please do point them out to me if I have." duplicate -noun 1.a copy exactly like an original. Resolution: "A duplicate of you is not you." The fact this as a thought experiment and not a scientific "is this possible" makes it exact. "then they are imposters - as is the duplicate if he believes he has had the same history as the original." Irrelevant as both entities are exact. Who is the original does not matter in determining if they have a distinct identity. "I cannot understand my opponent's analogue with the child and t~ or t" Guess there's nothing to address then. Since you never argued the child and adult are separate people, different experiences at a point in time do not sufficiently constitute differentiation. "My opponent says he never stated the photo was a perfect copy - neither did I. I wish he wouldn't take my points out of context." I never inferred you had; you specifically made an argument regarding the photo as if I had however. ==