Objective Truth = Subjective Truth and Vice-Versa

IntroductionI certainly am not trying to make this debate about semantics, in fact I'm not sure how my expressed acceptance of the given definitions indicates that was my intent. I defined what the equal sign typically represents as a matter of informing my opponent as to how I understand his resolution.Now if there is a better definition that the readers find compelling and better frames the intention of this debate, I am more than willing to change my angle. So far as I can see, however, my opponent, in an effort for clarity has only embraced obscurantism. In my own effort to understand my opponent's intentions, I will list some of the possibilities that I see in both the resolution as stated and my opponent's statements:(1) Interdependent As The Yinyang--> Objective Truth and Subjective Truth are "one", as in the yin and the yang, as in 2 parts connecting to make "one". It seems then, that my opponent is arguing that Objective and subjective truth are interdependent and incapable of being separated - inasmuch as the yinyang ceases to be a yinyang if it is missing either the yin or the yang. If this is the case, I think it is demonstrably wrong, insofar as objective truth can exist independent of human apprehension and is thus in no way contingent upon subjective truth or verisimilitude. But of course, it's hard to imagine how my opponent's use of the equal sign (=) appropriately reflects such a relationship. Because it is not true that yin = yang either semantically OR ontologically. Yin and Yang are diametrically opposing YET interdependent. Meaning that only together do they equal the yinyang. In which case, the only legitimate formulation would be yin + yang = yinyang. So I hope one can forgive me for not immediately assuming this as the intent of my opponent's argument.(2) Of Equal Value--> In this way they are equal to one another in value Within its context, I believe my opponent is suggesting with the aforementioned that because subjective and objective truth exist relationally and interdependently (like the yinyang) that they are of equal value. This would accord well with the traditional understanding of what it is for something to equal (=) another thing. For instance, 2+5 is the exact same as 7, forsomuch as the values are identical. This means that in any mathematical formulation with which 2+5 replaces 7, the formula will yield the same results because the value has not changed. Does this mean that the concepts are identical because their use are virtually interchangeable (see 3)?Of course, it is unclear as to how this system of value is to be applied to concepts and the definitions thereof. Moreover, the example of the yinyang is a poor one, namely because there is no good reason to assume that the value of yin is equivalent to yang. If anything, given that the yin represents the polar opposite of yang, the values of yin and yang represent harmony whereby when their values are added they equal 0. This means that there value is far from the same, in fact the yin must have the same amount of negative value that the yang has in positive value (or vice versa).If my opponent wished for this route, my misunderstanding cannot be considered misplaced, as it is unclear as to how one is to apply value to concepts that are not inherently valuable.(3) They are identical"because they are one in the same."My initial reaction was that my opponent was arguing that the terms were identical, inasmuch as the terms are interchangeable and without relevant distinction. I believe this to be both semantically and ontologically inaccurate - failing all together the well established philosophical law of identity. But with my opponent's assertion that objective and subjective truth are "[s]eparate, but the same. One, but two." It is hard to determine precisely what he is referring to. Either way, since I believe all 3 listed categories fail, I am willing to debate whichever avenue my opponent wishes to take.