The square of any even integer is always even

IntroI would like to start off by saying a couple of things about the nature of debate and the nature of truisms. What my opponent has put forth to debate is something that most in the rational world today consider to be a mathematical law. Such a thing is considered to be undeniably true beyond any doubt and can thus be trusted to hold as such during any type of discussion. Laws are the basis of our rational way of thinking. We must hold things to be undeniably true in order to build upon said foundation to understand the world around us. The definition of debate is as follows:a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward Note the final part of the sentence. If something is undeniably true, there cannot be opposing arguments, at least no valid ones. Then why bring up such a thing as a topic for debate? What my opponent has inexplicably done, either in hopes of an easy victory or some other mundane motivation, in opening this topic for debate is just that... he has opened it. What was once considered something to be undeniably true has now been called into question, willingly so.My opponent and I ask you, dear reader to open your minds while reading this debate and consider the possibility that my opponent has put out that this statement could in fact not be true. And I will explain why. The Nature of Alwaysalways: at all times; on all occasionsMy opponent has stated that at all times and in all occasions the square of any even integer is always even. While that sounds fine and dandy to our ears today I wish to put forth that my opponent has taken a very narrow view and has perhaps overlooked this very important word: always.By its very definition always means that no matter what, from now until the end of time, in all occasions this thing is true. Yet my opponent has no way of a) judging the full extent of possible time and the full future of the universe and b) cannot know all occasions this universe could face during this potentially infinite timespan. Therefore, my opponent has assumed that what we experience today and know to be true in our limited experience (~10,000 years) must be and will always be true. Forever. That is an extremely bold assumption for anyone to make, no matter what sort of rational foundation they think they might be standing on. Possible Disqualifiers Next I would like to lay out, in conjunction with the assumption that my opponent has made regarding the word always, some possibilities that could disqualify his law to be always true. 1. Eradication of All SentienceImagine for a moment an event that eradicates all sentient life in the whole universe, forever. For example, the heat death of the universe. With no sentience left in the universe we would be left with mere matter and no energy. This universe is devoid of life, devoid of light, devoid of motion. It is simply matter sitting in a void. Is the statement put forth still true? With no one to perceive it, think about it or believe it can it be true? In this universe there is no language, no math, no higher thinking, no concepts beyond what exists because there is nothing to bring those things into being through thought. The idea of an integer would not exist because there is nothing to conceptualise it into being. With no rational actors to conceptualise non-physical ideas do such things exist? I would argue no. Just as there are no pink flying dragons that live on the surface of the sun because no being has created them and made them so. Without sentience I argue there cannot be non-physical conceptions. They cannot be created and with nothing to remember or reconceptualize a past creation for all intents and purposes they do not exist. Without the ideas of numbers, integers and squaring this statement cannot be true because it is simply gibberish in the heat dead universe. 2. The Complete Destruction of the Universe Take the previous idea one step further. Instead of the heat death of the universe the universe ceases to exist all together. Still a possibility in the time span of infinity. Perhaps the Big Crunch happens and everything collapses back into a spec and disappears in reverse of what it did when we suddenly appeared 14 billion years ago. Again, these are possibilities in the timeframe of always. Now there is nothing. Nothing exists. It is complete and utter emptiness. Is this still true? I would again argue no. With nothing in existence there is nothing even to begin to build a foundation for the idea of numbers on. In fact, we have come up with these laws and ideas through observation of our universe. With nothing to observe there can be no observations and following conclusions about them. What is a mathematical law but an observation of the universe repeated to the point where we agree it will always be so if the observation is repeated forever? But with nothing to observe we cannot make such a claim. With nothing to count, nothing to do the counting, nothing to conceptualize numerical categories for objects that you have counted then there is no law and thus it is no longer true. Conclusion While my opponent's statement is true NOW in this moment and the moments leading up to this one since humans came up with the idea of integers there is no guarantee that such a thing will stay true ad infinitum due to a whole host of unknown circumstances that could happen in the course of eternity. If my opponents argument was that "The square of any even integer is even if done right now" it would have been unarguable. However, my opponent put this topic up for debate knowing there must be some sort of argument against it and I have presented it.There are more situations which could render this statement untrue in the future, again hinging on that powerful word of always, that I will withold for future rounds. Cheers!