The Is the glass half empty or half full? expression is illogical

Very sorry I forfeited that round. A mixture of misunderstanding and the lack of time to give a proper response rendered me unable to post a real argument. Anyway, on to my argument. Rebuttals: 1) My opponent states that half empty means half way to empty. This is not what the expression asks, however. If that is what the question was asking, the question would read "Is the glass halfway to full or halfway to empty? " The expression actually asks if the glass is half full or half empty, two completely different things. This could perhaps be considered arguing semantics, however I don't view it as that because the expression encompasses both the underlying meaning AND the actual expression. 2) "However, this is incorrect -- If a glass is represented by 1, then 1/2 of a glass wouldn't equal 0; it would equal half of one (.5). So, the phrase mathematically makes sense by my opponent's own standards. " My opponent has made an error. A glass is not represented by 1. A glass is not represented by anything in my example. A FULL glass is represented by one, and an EMPTY glass is represented by zero. My mathematical explanation read "because 0 cups is an empty glass, so 1/2 of a glass = 0 cups in the glass. " In this example, the 2nd "glass" refers to the empty glass defined at the beginning of the example. Because of this, my opponent's argument is void. 3) "On a completely different note, if my opponent wishes to eliminate semantics all together, then surely he wishes to simply address the MEANINGS behind the phrases and not the actual phrases itself. In that case, we can use common knowledge to imply that the phrases half empty vs. half full when used in this context (as it appears in the resolution) references the choice of being optimistic (glass half full) vs. pessimistic (glass half empty). In that case, we don't have to define "empty" literally in mathematical terms using the number 0. We can use the number 4, for example. And full can be represented by the number 8. This works, as half of 8 is 4. So, if the glass were half full, i. e. half of 8, then the glass would be 4 a. k. a. empty. If the glass were half empty, it would be 4 x 2 (also 8). It would not be 4 divided by 2, because then it would be half OF empty. Again, I have proven therefore that the expression is not illogical. " Like I said above, I don't believe that arguing the phrase itself is arguing semantics. But I will go along with your example. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by saying "This works, as half of 8 is 4. " Empty is not defined as half of full, however that's how you stated it. In your mathematical proof you gave, your argument actually works in my favor to show that the statement IS illogical. Your argument states two mathematical expressions which are not true, HOWEVER, the statements do fall in line with the expression. You first argue that if the glass was half full, then it would be empty. Common knowledge tells us that half full and empty are not the same thing, so your mathematical expression is incorrect. Second, if the glass were half empty, it would be 4 * 1/2, NOT 2. I am not sure why you used 2 in expressing half of empty whereas you used 1/2 when expressing half of full. Either way, your logic is flawed. My arguments: Because we are not arguing semantics, I would like to express "empty" as 58 zorgs, and "full" as 18 universes. Both of these are valid because my opponent and I both agree that empty does not have to be literally defined as 0. So, in this syntax, a glass that is half full would have 9 universes in it, because ï¿½ of 18 universes is 9 universes. Therefore, a glass half full = 9 universes. Now, a glass half empty on the other hand, equals 29 zorgs, because ï¿½ of an empty glass that contains 58 zorgs now holds 29 zorgs therefore, a glass half empty = 29 zorgs. Now, in a valid litmus test, the social indicator is something that is perceived differently by different people, but in reality is the same thing. In the example I have just given, the social indicator (a half full glass, being 9 universes, or a half empty glass, being 29 zorgs) is completely different. Valid test results cannot be gathered because the social indicator is completely different. Therefore, the expression is an illogical litmus test. Conclusion: The following three points have undoubtedly shown that the expression is illogical: 1) The actual expression asks for a comparison of two different things, therefore it is illogical as a litmus test. 2) I have rebuked all of CON's arguments and even used her logic to show that the expression is in fact invalid. 3) I have proved how the expression asks for two completely unrelated things for a comparison Because of these three points I have proved my point fully.