Captain Cadaver said:
@Kenshi I'd tend to just go with the more standard classification of the continents for simplicity, though I can agree with many points in the argument of making Eurasia its own continent and perhaps dividing Asia between the western, more Arab areas and the eastern, oriental side as the culture divide is greater than that between most European countries to each other. The problem with re-defining them, however, is that it opens up a can of worms as to whether or not other continents should be changed due to comparative differences in land mass and culture to the point leaving things as they are is a lot simpler.
Well, about the only argument you can make for other continents being further sub-divided would be to divide North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa into separate continents (a practice that would probably have been made if North Africans controlled most of the globe in the 18th and 19th centuries like the Europeans did), or dividing the Americas into the English-speaking portions like America and Canada and the Latino portions. Even then, you run into the problem of many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa still being Muslim and having a cultural commonality with North Africans, and the fact that English and Spanish are pretty similar languages sharing the same alphabet, and that both Latinos and the English speakers of America have European ancestry/cultural heritage.
Considering this, Eurasia is really the only large continental landmass divided into two extremely unequal portions in a pretty arbitrary way when, as I reiterate, by the logic that Europe is a continent because it's majority white-Christian, the Arab, South Asian, and Oriental parts among others would be just as distinct and deserving of continent status.