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

INTRODUCTION: It is quite alright that my opponent missed a round; I have been guilty of doing the same from time to time -- DDO isn't exactly a priority. Moreover, I'd like to remind the audience that even though I have presented three arguments in defense of the Con position, I only need ONE argument to be valid in order to win this debate. If I can prove that the statement described in the resolution is not illogical in any way, then I have negated Pro's position and thus you should vote Con. My first contention proves why the statement itself is not illogical and why the rest of my arguments are therefore correct. That said, I appreciate his final round response and wish him the best of luck. CONTENTIONS: 1) Pro argues that half full and half empty does not mean half way to full or half way to empty. He says that these phrases mean completely different things. Fortunately for my opponent, he noted that this may be a semantics argument (the very thing he wished to avoid); if he hadn't, I might have been forced to question his intelligence. After all, if something being "half full" doesn't mean HALF WAY TO BEING FULL, then what *does* it mean?! Obviously something being half full means that it's not full; it's only half way to being full. As far as debating goes, my opponent did not say what the differences between half full and half way to being full were. He simply noted they were different. I personally think it's very obvious that they are NOT different, and since my opponent offered no rebuttal as to explaining why he thinks they are, then clearly my argument should stand. My point was that noting the meaning of the expression, it is not illogical at all. This is the most important argument in this entire debate, as it sets the tone as for why the phrase CANNOT be illogical, even mathematically (even though the phrase is used as a metaphor). Once you accept that my position is valid... and even if you disagree, my opponent hasn't argued a proper rebuttal for me to debate... then the rest of my contentions will all be clear. 2) Let's look at Pro's exact words: "My mathematical explanation read 'Because 0 cups is an empty glass, so 1/2 of a glass = 0 cups in the glass.'" Okay, if an empty glass is represented by 0, then half of an empty class can not also be represented by 0. That's because if there is some liquid in the glass, it is not empty. Thus while a half full glass may not equal 1 cup, it also wouldn't be empty (0 divided by 0); instead it would be full divided by 2. In other words, .5 of a glass. 3) My opponent has completely missed the point of my final argument, which was not supposed to be about mathematics at all. Instead, it was looking at the actual phrase and what it implies: optimism vs. pessimism. It doesn't have to do with "0" meaning empty and I certainly never said that empty necessarily meant half of full. Instead, my point was about the phrase itself and how it is used/meant, and why such a phrase is therefore not illogical. For example, say I had $100 to gamble with at a casino that only dealt in single dollar bills. My wallet allowed for a maximum of 100 bills, so in other words, my wallet was FULL when I went into the casino. This full wallet can be represented by the phrase "full glass." In other words, the number 100 doesn't have anything to do with the phrase; it just represents what made the wallet full the same way my opponent used "1 cup" in a previous example as to what made the glass full, where he could have used 2 cups or 3, 4, etc. as there are all different sized glasses. Anyway, suppose after gambling I wound up losing $50 which is actually better then I usually do. Upon my departure, my friend asks me, "How'd you make out?" I reply with, "Okay - I only lost $50 this time. I am going home with $50." My friend then says, "Hmm. I don't know if that's good or bad; I guess it depends on how you look at it. Do you consider the glass half-full or half-empty?" Now keep in mind that the glass in this example is represented by the wallet. As I've said, the glass can be represented by really anything, as the phrase isn't about a GLASS but about a scenario. In other words, I can view the $50 in my wallet as making my wallet half full, or half empty. If I was an optimist, I'd say half full, and as a pessimist I'd say half empty. This works even if you use $0 as being empty, because while half OF zero is zero, half TO zero is 50. The phrase is not specific on whether OF or TO should be used; however, seeing as though it's just an EXPRESSION meant to imply pessimism, the part about it being illogical only occurs if you take it to mean half OF empty (which doesn't make sense) or half TO empty (which does). We should accept the latter as the inherent meaning because it's an equally valid meaning that DOES make sense. REBUTTAL: My opponent's proposed example is by his own admission absurd. He says that the measurements of universes and zorgs are not usable on a litmus test because the standards and indicators are completely different. Thus he has tapped into a semantics argument here; in my examples, I have used consistent variables (numbers). I get what Pro's point was supposed to be -- that if I want to define "empty" as using a number other than 0, then he could define "empty" using anything he pleases. This is true. But it does not in any way, shape or form win him the debate, as I've proven even using consistent numbers with 0 as being equivalent to "empty" why the phrase in question is not illogical. CONCLUSION: The only illogical thing about this argument is Pro's insistence that half empty (0) means half OF empty. When someone is using the phrases half empty or half full to describe a scenario, it's in a situation where something - anything - only fills another thing half way. Thus if it's liquid in a glass, there being 4 oz (in an 8 oz glass) would make the glass half full, or half way to full. If there were 4 oz in an 8 oz glass, it's also half empty - half way to being empty. This is a simple fact which my opponent is trying to distort by changing the meaning of what the phrases imply or represent. This is a bad argument; that's like saying we can't argue ANYTHING because words are just representations of things and ideas. Of course if you want to get specific, you can say that words themselves are not valid in the sense that they are inherently meaningless. But for the purpose of discussion, debate and functional society in general, we accept the implications with meanings... especially when the elaboration of or explanation explains why they can be accepted as logical (via my to/of argument) to begin with.