The Premise of Duality is flawed

"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."Indeed, I am not "ignoring the other side of the tale". Let us take light and darkness, for instance. I have use Newton's prism or the hexadecimal color code system[1] to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. I have clearly stated that white is measurable, while black is not. You can not subtract light, neither can you brighten it up. Otherwise, it would no longer be "black"."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."There is probably a set of questions you are wanting to ask. Like said, cold is simply the absence of the presence of heat. Let us use [2] to back it up."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."If there are 2 particular areas, seperated from each other, then chances are, the area that is illuminated by the ray of light won't do so to the other area, in which the presence of light is absent.Same goes for that. Our body is susceptible to the heat that is transmitted, which comes from wherever the Sun is. If our Earth has orbitted the Sun halfway, the presence of heat AND light would be absent. Cold is a term used by man to describe how we feel if we have no heat. Definitely, you can use that phrase. But nonetheless, cold does not exist. "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." Read the rest. There is, though, sufficient justification[3] to prove the claim. You do not have to over-exaggerate your defenses of your positions. If I climb to a freezer, I will still deny that. There is the absence of the presence of heat. However, my brain corresponds and I will use the phrase "cold" to describe so. Also, false. -2 -1 0 1 2 <-----------> Is a misconception and misrepresentation of heat and "cold" 0 1 2 3 4 <---------> Is more appropriate and suitable. Absolute zero is where the presence of heat is completely absent. And going up is where more hot energy is transmitted to an object and/or body. "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." So, does that lead to us arguing the same cause? We both believe that darkness is the absence of the presence of light, while others believe that it is the opposite, which is a fallacy. "How exactly does darkness valudate 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." Black is the complete absence of the presence of the color white. And that is how when we study the various wavelengths of each color, some are brighter. "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?" As some define darkness as the opposite of light, there can only be either the absence, or presence. Also, about the: "I derived these arguments from... (Source)" It does not fully illuminate its surroundings, from that simple ray of light, but it makes its surroundings roughly visible, for the windows are transparent. "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." No. The presence of light is totally absent. "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)." No, white is emmited onto every color, either white is present, or absent. However, black itself isn't measurable. Conclusion I have come to the conclusion that this particular, cosmological debate was very interesting and fun. How Con conducted himself was roughly undesirable. But otherwise, I enjoyed it. I thank my opponent for accepting. Source(s):[1] http://www.w3schools.com...[2] http://t.answers.com... [3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...