The Premise of Duality is flawed

Hot and even warm are measurable quantities. My opponent is simply ignoring the other side of the tale. If he aligns himself like this, how is he going to see the proof of duality? It's like Pro is postulating that there are only numbers greater than zero, and that negative numbers don't exist. Consider a datum, for which the temperature is zero degrees Celsius. Agreed that hot is measurable; "hot" would be any temperature greater than 0 C. But then, so is cold. Cold would be under 0 C. Let us use winter and summer as an example. Once again, my opponent has inadvertently validated the premise of duality! It is because we have winter, that we recognize summer. I don't know how Pro can fail to see something as simple as that. Let us again consider a datum angle somewhere between the steep angle of summer and the shallow angle of winter. The angle of incidence in the summer is positive, whereas it is negative in the winter. DUALITY. Nopers. Is that even a word? Spelling and grammar, anyone? When you touch a piece of ice with your bare hand, the sensation that you feel is not the presence of "cold", it is the subtraction of heat. I will tell you what Mr. Thermodynamics says. Ever heard of that? http://en.wikipedia.org... It clearly states that hot and cold bodies exist. We don't say "a body with less heat content". We say "a cold body". http://www.achrnews.com... Cold is not a substance, just as heat is not a substance. Cold is as unreal as heat i.e. cold is as real as heat. Your brain detects this and calls it "cold"but in reality it is simply the profound lack of heat. Pray tell me, does the brain get a computer-generated image when sensing "hot"? No. It simply detects an elevation from whatever datum value it prefers, and calls it "hot". My opponent is stating nothing more than incomplete statements. But nowhere on that temperature scale does "cold" exist, even at absolute zero. Absolute zero isn't really cold, it is simply zero heat. http://www.sciencedaily.com... Absolute zero is where nothing could be "colder". Absolute zero is defined as "sheer cold". It isn't really cold? Let's see you climb into a freezer and deny that. Listen to me carefully: Cold is what you would feel when the ambient temperature is less than what you are accustomed to i.e. your datum/reference temperature. Hot/heat is what you feel when it is higher than your datum temperature. They are both references to decreasing and increasing heat energy. Period. From a reference point set arbitrarily for measuring purposes, hot falls on the positive side, and cold falls on the negative side. Take whatever datum you want. You WILL see both sides to it. That is duality, Mr. Pro, and it is completely sound. God did not create light to complement darkness. It was simply the absence of the presence of light. So, he decided to do so. But what is the absence of the presence of light? DARKNESS. That is all i would like to say regarding this. How exactly does darkness validate light? Did you not read my presentation of the RGB hexadecimal colour code? Either you didn't or you're choosing to ignore it. #000000 is black. #FFFFFF is white. Every other colour falls in between. You cannot have red(#FF0000), blue(#0000FF), green#(00FF00), or any other colour if you don't have black. You cannot have any of these colours if you don't have white either! This is because every colour is a mixture of some amount of white and some amount of black. The existence of black(darkness) is fundamental for the existence of each and every other colour. Same goes for white. DUALITY. How can you just say black doesn't exist because it isn't measurable? It is very much measurable, and web colours are living, man-made proof of that. I repeat myself: without darkness, all we would see is white. Without light, all we would see is black. They're both essential for the existence of each other as well as every other colour. How can you ignore this? Incorrect. Either light is present, or absent. If light is only present, we see WHITE. If light is totally absent, we see BLACK. That is axiomatic. But we see millions of colours. WHY? Because light is present in different areas to different extents, and the rest is darkness. False. In fact, I have derived this argument from:....(Source) Well, you seem to totally disregard the fact that in those photos, the photographer only removed the sources of light with photoshop. For each source of light removed, he did not make the picture darker. He only removed the sources, and not their illuminative effect. Meaning, the illumination which you thought was provided by the light from ONE window, was in fact from many windows. The photographer just took them out. Also, the expanse of a single photo cannot be taken as, in Pro's words, a world of darkness. A simple ray of light present in ONE area can illuminate it. Wrong. Light waves contain specific amount of energy, and can only illuminate a finite area, and not an entire world, as you stated earlier. It's simple physics. Even in the source that you provided, do you think the light from those single windows would be seen far and wide, in, say, another city(forget the entire world)? Not a chance. And that was definitely more than a simple ray of light. "The statement is incomplete. One cannot measure darkness in the absence of light. Can you measure light if there is no darkness? Nope." This argument presented above is not substantiated. Oh, it was very well substantiated right above in the thought experiment; you just failed to get it. My stand was that before any area is illuminated, it is shrouded in darkness. To find whatever area was illuminated by the source of light, you have to know the initial area which was dark. You use the Big Bang theory to defend your position. The Big Bang theory is not true.... I would like to see some reliable sources. No offense , but I would not depend on a 14-year-old's "calculations" on stellar nucleosynthesis. You've most likely never even heard of it. Even so, here's my contradiction to whatever calculation you obtained for Carbon synthesis: http://en.wikipedia.org... The carbon is not coming out of the stars, Mr. Pro. It is a by-product of the CNO-cycle. Anyways, it isn't the validity of the big bang theory we're debating; it's the existence of darkness. And for that, your statement has been: Also, that was the absence of light. Which is, in your own words, DARKNESS. The mere fact that such a state exists, attests to the soundness of duality. So, like said, darkness is very much measurable in each and every colour. Obviously, so is light. If Pro still thinks otherwise, he'd better disprove the concept of RGB colour code rather than straying off-topic by trying to disprove the big bang theory(and giving only one, flawed, sentence to counter my argument). My datum argument has also disproved Pro's postulation of the non-existence of cold. If Pro wishes to re-postulate, he'd better find a valid datum, a reference point from which there is only heat and no cold. I eagerly await my opponent's final arguments and closing statements in the final round.