The Premise of Duality is flawed

I graciously accept Pro's challenge. I shall be arguing that the premise of duality is NOT flawed. Definitions: Pro's opening statement can be split into two separate definitions as follows: 1. We define cold as the opposite of heat. 2. We define darkness as the opposite of light. I would like to point out that definition no. 1 provided by Pro is incomplete. 1(a)Cold as a noun is defined as "a low temperature", and hence as "the opposite of heat/warmth". This provides one definition of cold. 1(b) Cold as an adjective has an additional definition - "of or at a relatively low temperature". This provides a second definition of cold as "the opposite of HOT/warm". Source: http://thesaurus.com... Concurrences: 1) In the words of Pro, "Cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat." The argument is fallacious. Pro has either chosen to ignore, or simply forgotten to provide an explanation for "heat". Heat can either be defined as: The state or quality of being at a high temperature, or A quantity whose addition causes rise in temperature. A rise in temperature is caused only by heat energy. This means that heat is responsible for a relative increase in heat energy i.e. heat is responsible for a body to become HOT Therefore, by definition, the opposite of heat must cause a body to become COLD(which is the opposite of hot). Referring to definitions 1(a) and 1(b), what causes a body to become cold(the verb) is cold(the noun). Hence, cold is a quantity that is as real as heat itself. It's not that cold exists because heat exists; it's that heat and cold are co-existent and co-eternal, thus validating the premise of duality. Pro says that cold is just a word created to "describe how we feel if we have no heat". Mr. Pro, isn't heat ALSO just a word created to describe how we feel if we have no cold? This is all i have to say about duality pertaining to heat and cold. 2) Once again, my opponent looks only at one side of the coin. Darkness does not exist either. You couldn't be more ignorant, Mr. Pro. Darkness was the first thing to exist. Science: http://en.wikipedia.org... Everything was condensed into a dense state. Light was absent. But since this cannot be allowed to continue, the matter exploded, and there was light. The big bang theory is concurrent with light-darkness duality. Christianity: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org... God created light to complement darkness. Greek mythology: http://www.theoi.com... The entire space surrounding us. Gaia(earth) and Ouranos(sky) later emerged and gave birth to Hyperion(light). Egyptian mythology: http://www.egyptianmyths.net... A limitless expanse of motionless water. Ra emerged later to bring light. Not only science, just about every religion says that darkness existed in the beginning, but for an equilibrium to be achieved, light was brought into existence. Duality is fulfilled. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. It's like you're trying to say that the ocean is full of salt and there is no such thing as water, and that it is simply liquid containing no salt. There would be no oceans if there was no water. Also, we would call it freshwater body if there was no salt. Both must exist for the word "ocean" to be valid. Likewise, both light as well as darkness must exist for the validity of either. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. The question we need to ask is: how are these colours different from each other? The hexadecimal colour code system is a simplified way of understanding this: http://www.w3schools.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... The extremes are BLACK and WHITE. By varying the degree of black in white, we get different colours. The statement is also true the other way round. My point is, one cannot study different colours if there is no darkness to dilute its degree in white light. Under such circumstances, it is completely absurd for Pro to state something like darkness does not exist. http://en.wikipedia.org... If either light or darkness is allowed to predominate, then perception of colour becomes flawed. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. Not true at all. It can only illuminate the area which it is incident upon. The rest of the world is still dark. This statement has no value whatsoever. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? It is incomplete, is what i can tell you. Here's my proposal to make it a complete argument: Consider a space of area "A", which is initially dark. Let light illuminate an area "B". The area which remains dark is "C". By simple mathematics, C = A - B. Pro' statement means that area C can be measured because area B is present. However, what he seems to forget is that area A is required for this which was initially dark. You cannot measure C only with B. Now, to prove the duality in this: Consider area "A1", which is fully illuminated, and suddenly, an area "B1" is darkened. The area "C1" which is still illuminated is given by C1 = A1 - B1. To measure the area which is illuminated, you have to know the area which was darkened. Hence, both sides are valid, and duality is proved. You cannot measure darkness. The statement is incomplete. One cannot measure darkness in the absence of light. Can you measure light if there is no darkness? Nope. My opponent is trying to say that it is possible for darkness to not exist at all. Well, let me tell you, Mr. Pro, that if this were the case, all we would ever see is WHITE. The same is the case if there was only darkness. All we would see is black. This is the essence of DUALITY. Pro only states that darkness is the absence of light. But has he stated that darkness is the basis, the datum plane which is the platform for light to fulfil its purpose? NO. Classic ignorance. Darkness is as real as light. It is the embodiment of all we DON'T see. We can study light BECAUSE there is darkness to complement it. Once again, DUALITY is prevalent. I still fail to see how duality is flawed, except of course by believing incomplete arguments such as the ones provided by Pro. I eagerly await my opponent's next set of arguments.