The Instigator
Zeratul
Pro (for)
Losing
39 Points
The Contender
Alexby1
Con (against)
Winning
54 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/30/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,118 times Debate No: 9881
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (15)

 

Zeratul

Pro

Considering the fact that a woodchip is manufactured once in has been broken in two the original manufactured woodchip can no longer be a woodchip, but two pieces of the original manufactured woodchip.
Alexby1

Con

First off, thank you to my opponent for this most interesting debate opportunity.

Before I delve into arguments, I offer the following definitions and observations, seeing as none have been established.

--OBSERVATION--

My opponent must prove that, in all real circumstances and without any exceptions, the resolution is true. I, on the other hand, must only find one situation that disproves the resolution. This is because the resolution is an absolute, overarching statement.

If I can show one real instance in which the resolution becomes false, then I have won. If my opponent can show that the resolution remains true in all real situations, then my opponent has won.

--DEFINITION--

A wood chip, as made clear by dictionary.com, is "a small chip of wood, esp. one that flakes off when felling a tree or splitting a log." [1] Therefore, I must challenge my opponents original assumption that wood chips are always manufactured. They are, and originally were, naturally occurring as the by-product of cutting down trees.

--ARGUMENTS--

ONE: A supposedly "whole" wood chip is indistinguishable from a supposedly "broken" wood chip.

As I have made clear, wood chips are largely naturally occurring. Let us take the analogy of an unspecified quantity of water: when this liquid is divided into two separate amounts, they are both still unspecified quantities of water -- and not pieces of a larger unspecified quantity of water.

Similarly, a wood chip is of no standardized size. There is no "normal" or "abnormal" wood chip. A wood chip that weighs 50 grams (about 1.7 oz) is no less a whole wood chip than one that weighs 100 grams (about 3.5 oz). Should this 100 gram wood chip be broken into two equal pieces of 50 grams each, both pieces would remain wood chips.

This is because a wood chip has no standard specifications. It is simply a splintered piece of wood.

---

TWO: My opponent's logic is self-contradictory.

By my opponent's logic, there is no such thing as a complete wood chip. This is true in two ways.

(A) Let us look at the issue from his perspective: a wood chip of 100 grams becomes two 50 gram pieces of a wood chip when broken in half. But -- here is the paradox -- because a wood chip is a splintered piece of wood to begin with, the original 100 gram wood chip must be viewed as a broken piece of a larger (say, 200 gram) wood chip, which itself must be considered to be a broken part of an even larger wood chip. This could go on and on until we have imagined that a tree, or even a whole forest, is just one large wood chip. This unreasonable conclusion contradicts both common sense and the definition I offered, that a wood chip is "a small chip of wood." [1].

Therefore, our starting premise in this logical progression must be incorrect.

(B) Even if we do choose to accept my opponent's idea that a wood chip is a manufactured item of a set size with certain specifications, his view is still unfortunately false. During the production of a wood chip in a factory, wood chips are cut down to a certain size: in other words, pieces of wood are broken until they are of a desirable weight and length. This means that, using my opponent's reasoning, all known wood chips are really pieces of wood chips. This precludes the idea that wood chips begin as whole, individual amounts.

[ For a look at wood chip manufacturing, see: http://roymfg.com... ]

---

For the above reasons, please join me in voting for the negative side in this round.
Good luck to my opponent. I look forward to the following rounds.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Zeratul

Pro

Against my opponents definition I have an opposing definition as made clear by http://en.wiktionary.org...

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.

So as it says it is a mechanically produced piece of wood. My subject may not have been specific enough, which is at my own dismay, but I meant a mechanically produced wood chip, such as those used as protective playground flooring.

With that argument against my opponents quote, "Let us take the analogy of an unspecified quantity of water: when this liquid is divided into two separate amounts, they are both still unspecified quantities of water -- and not pieces of a larger unspecified quantity of water." It is obvious that the water, the liquid itself, is not manufactured and is not an applicable analogy to a solid considering it is in fact a liquid.

My opponent also states, "By my opponent's logic, there is no such thing as a complete wood chip. This is true in two ways.", which is nowhere in my argument in fact I am saying nothing contradicting the fact that a complete wood chip exists, but 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.

Also another definition from http://www.lenzing.com... states,

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.

So the wood chip is actually produced from round wood or wood in its norm, which means 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.
Alexby1

Con

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...
Debate Round No. 2
Zeratul

Pro

First off, the definition from Wiktionary stands by the argument in saying wood chips are all mechanically produced.

My opponent definition of wood chip may mean they are sometimes manufactured but what I am trying to argue is that a non natural, but mechanically produced wood chip is manufactured and once it is broken in half it is no longer the whole manufactured wood chip, and my opponent keeps using the general wood chip. So the water analogy does not work because you cannot accurately compare something non solid to a solid, or anything non manufactured to a manufactured source.

I do agree with the fact that a wood chip that weighs 50 grams is no less a whole wood chip that one that weighs 100 grams, however this does not go against my argument either because a manufactured wood chip can vary in size, and shape, but doesn't change the fact that it is a whole manufactured wood chip just based on the fact one is bigger than the other. So this argument has nothing against my argument.

In response to what my opponent says about my logic being self-contradicting makes no sense at all, because in the situation I state that my opponent stating, "By my opponent's logic, there is no such thing as a complete wood chip. This is true in two ways.", is not supported because of the fact that I state in my argument the fact that my logic agrees with the existence of a "whole" wood chip.

If my original definitions are not enough here is the definition of Manufactured via http://www.merriam-webster.com...

1 : to make into a product suitable for use
2 a : to make from raw materials by hand or by machinery b : to produce according to an organized plan and with division of labor c : prefabricate
3 : invent, fabricate
4 : to produce as if by manufacturing : create

and the definition of Wood Chip is as it stands from http://en.wiktionary.org...

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.

So when you put the two together, as I am trying to argue about a Manufactured Wood Chip and not a natural one, it is these are Chips of wood that are taken from their natural state, and used to create an organized plan.
So once that manufactured wood chip used for an organized plan is broken in half it is no longer a manufactured wood chip that can be used for what is intended.

My opponent keeps stating a wood chip is not always manufactured, but my argument is intended to be about manufactured wood chips themselves, but as I said before not mentioning that in the title is at my dismay.
Nonetheless I have made it clear that this is what I intended since the second argument when my opponent argues about natural wood chips. So because of my opponents failure to argue what I am directly trying to argue I urge the audience to vote pro.
Alexby1

Con

This debate has gotten far too bogged down in definitions. I will therefore review the key points about what constitutes a wood chip only briefly, and then move into the arguments.

--DEFINITIONS--

My opponent conceded that the Lenzing definition is unreasonable by dropping the evidence, so this definition should not be use in evaluating the round.

He still attempts to support the Wiktionary definition. This is an unreasonable definition, unsuitable for debate because wood chips were originally naturally-occurring splinters of wood, not manufactured. This "general old wood chip" is the more common and accepted definition.

In debate, we should attempt to find the truth about what is most relevant to the real world. This can be accomplished only if we accept the most general and reasonable definitions: common sense tells us to accept the dictionary.com definition, that a wood chip is, "a small chip of wood, esp. one that flakes off when felling a tree or splitting a log." [1]

Even if the Wiktionary definition does somehow stand, it only refutes some of my arguments, which is not enough for my opponent to win the round (see my observation in Round 1).

I agree with my opponent's definition of "manufacture."

--ARGUMENTS--

ONE: A supposedly "whole" wood chip is indistinguishable from a supposedly "broken" wood chip.

The water analogy still stands, as my opponent did not introduce any new arguments about it in this round, only repeating his words from the previous round. But even if there are still some readers who are unsure of whether or not we can effectively compare liquids to solids, substitute an unspecified quantity of dirt for the water. Thus, I compare a solid to a solid, satisfying my opponent's wishes.

My opponent is trying to argue that a wood chip is whole because that is the way it was intended to be, but a wood chip is no less whole at 50 grams than it is at 100 grams; my opponent conceded this, and agrees that there is variety even among manufactured wood chips.

Let us assume that one specific wood chip begins in a factory at a mass of 100 grams. If it is then split in two pieces, each with a mass of 50 grams, in the factory, my opponent asserts that these two pieces are complete wood chips because they were intended to be 50 grams. On the other hand, he asserts that, if the wood chip is broken in two outside the factory, it becomes two broken pieces, not two wood chips. This does not make logical sense: it should not matter WHERE the wood chip is broken.

The fact that the outcome is the same no matter where it is broken refutes this point.

TWO: My opponent's logic is self-contradictory.

Stating that your logic "agrees with the existence of a 'whole' wood chip" does not make it true. Throughout the debate, my opponent has not offered any logical refutations to the argument I made in Round 1. He has simply told me that I am wrong. I did support this argument, and I showed the two ways in which his ideas make the existence of a 'whole' wood chip impossible.

--CONCLUSION--

Whether or not my opponent wanted to debate about a manufactured wood chip or not, the truth is that not all wood chips are manufactured; indeed, the first wood chips were naturally occurring. This is why we should accept my more reasonable definition from dictionary.com.

Even if we do accept my opponent's restrictive idea that wood chips are always and only manufactured by humans, I have still shown that a 'whole' manufactured wood chip is impossible. Remember my argument in round 1, where I stated, "During the production of a wood chip in a factory, wood chips are cut down to a certain size: in other words, pieces of wood are broken until they are of a desirable weight and length. This means that, using my opponent's reasoning, all known wood chips are really pieces of wood chips. This precludes the idea that wood chips begin as whole, individual amounts."

Because my observation about the burden of proof went unchallenged throughout the debate, it still stands and should be used when voting. Therefore, if I have won either of these two arguments or any of the subpoints of my two arguments:

(1) A supposedly "whole" wood chip is indistinguishable from a supposedly "broken" wood chip

(2a) My opponent's logic is self-contradictory because it shows that there is no such thing as a 'whole' wood chip

…then I have won the round. Please join me in voting for the negative in this debate.

Good luck to my opponent in this and all future debates.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Alexby1 7 years ago
Alexby1
This was interesting, and more thought-provoking than I would have thought.
Posted by Zeratul 7 years ago
Zeratul
How distinguishable doesn't matter they can be completely different for all i care, but as long as its manufactured.

Good luck to my opponent he did great, and the debate went a lot better than i thought it would be.
:)
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Atonement 7 years ago
Atonement
ZeratulAlexby1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by zlharris 7 years ago
zlharris
ZeratulAlexby1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by threelittlebirds 7 years ago
threelittlebirds
ZeratulAlexby1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by The_Booner 7 years ago
The_Booner
ZeratulAlexby1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Pogosama 7 years ago
Pogosama
ZeratulAlexby1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by rayedawg2013 7 years ago
rayedawg2013
ZeratulAlexby1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
ZeratulAlexby1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mathwiz25 7 years ago
Mathwiz25
ZeratulAlexby1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by Alexby1 7 years ago
Alexby1
ZeratulAlexby1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by MightyMo 7 years ago
MightyMo
ZeratulAlexby1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04