The Instigator
000ike
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
darkkermit
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

If Anti-X = Anti-Y, then X=Y

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
darkkermit
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/2/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,546 times Debate No: 18585
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (54)
Votes (6)

 

000ike

Pro

If anti-X = anti-Y, then X=Y

This is true because there is an "=" in between. Being Anti-X MEANS that we are also Anti-Y, so X must be equal to Y.


Lets say X = 16

-16 = -Y

negatives cancel out

16 = Y

X = Y



Lets use words.

X = Obama, Y= stupidity

Anti-Obama = Anti-Stupidity

cancel out the negatives

Obama = Stupidity



My opponent must prove this false.



darkkermit

Con

I thank my opponent for the debate:

1) Anti does not mean negative

My opponen seems to believe that "anti" means negative. So anti-X does not mean negative X. To prove this all on has to do is look at a dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

anti- one that is opposed.

It does not state that anti is negative.

2) Words are not quanitative.

Words do not have a value system to it. For example, Obama does not have a certain "value" to him. Nor does "Anti-Obama" have any value to him.
To use this analogy:
If Y = -16
then Y - (-16) = 0

It would be nonsensical to state "If you add the Obama to the Anti-Obama you get zero". Clearly this is invalid.

The symbol equal, means the logical equivalent. So one can state, Anti-Obama is logically equivalent to anti-stupidity
:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

One can derive logical cocnlusion through this, but one can not add, subtract or multiple words and expect to get an answer.
The statement:
Obama*pudding = cake
Is nonsensical.

I await for his reply.
Debate Round No. 1
000ike

Pro

The certainty of the EQUAL symbol

Equal: "Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

If something is equal, then it means that it is same and identical.

The 1st premise tells us that Anti-X is the same thing as Anti-Y. Because of the CERTAINTY of the equal sign we know that being against Y is EXACTLY THE SAME as being against X. The corrolation between X and Y is hence that X is the same as Y.


My opponent's semantics on the Negative

My opponent brought up a dictionary definition to show that I could not use a negative symbol to represent Anti. This is false. The english language AND mathematics BOTH follow the same rules on negatives.

English

"In Standard English, two negatives are understood to resolve to a positive..." (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Math

negative times negative is positive. The fact that this is a multiplicative principle does not invalidate it, like my opponent asserts. He is trying to use math symbols for english words, and then attack that as not making sense (classic strawman). One does not need to "multiply words" to see that the rule of double negatives is the same in both math and english.


It is therefore valid that Anti-x = Anti-y is the same as -x=-y

Being able to apply math to this question, we find that the resolution is correct.

X = 16

-16 = -Y

16 = Y

X = Y


Rebuttal

"The symbol equal, means the logical equivalent. So one can state, Anti-Obama is logically equivalent to anti-stupidity"

Equal and equivalent are different terms. Equal is direct, exact, and CAUSATIVE. Equivalent is proportional and CORRELATIVE.

This goes back to the certainty of the equal symbol. If Anti-Obama is definitely and directly Anti-Stupidity, then there is a definite and direct connection between Obama and stupidity. That lends us the conclusion that Obama = stupidity.

darkkermit

Con


EQUAL symbol


PRO states that the equal sign means "Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another". However, how can one measure, have a quantity or value of Obama? To use a quantitative definition (value) to define one that is qualitative (characteristics) is nonsense.

Semantics of the negative:


PRO states that because two negatives result in a positive, then anti must be equivalent to a negative. To demonstrate why this is a non-sequiter , a counter-example is needed.

Words such as “non” denote a negative. However “non-jewish” does not mean “anti-jewish”. If I am anti-(anti-white) that does not make me white, but against those who are against white people.

PRO says that I use a strawman, however I am using Reductio ad absurdum.

PRO is using mathematical principles to conclude that the same can be applied to words. I demonstrate why this is illogical.

PRO believes that the rules of double negative apply both to math and English. However, just because there are similarities, does not mean that the principles are transferable or the same. The rule of double negative certainly does not apply in mathematics, only in cases in which where multiplication occurs. For example -2 + -5 does not create a positive.

English grammar rules are man-made and english grammar changes throughout the years. If, for example, people become accustomed to stating “I didn’t do nothing”, instead of “I didn’t do anything”,this can become gramatticaly correct. Therefore, based on Pro’s own logic “Anti-Obama = Obama” because the rules of grammar changed. This is a contradiction.

PRO bases definitions of logical equivalance that do not make sense:http://tinyurl.com... Logical equivalnce to denote "=" make sense since words can have a logical equivalent, but words can't have a value. PRO would've to demonstrate that using deductive logic, that If Anti-X = Ant-Y then X = Y. However, Pro did not. He failed to use deductive reasoning. Not once did he follow a logical syllogism. VOTE CON.

Debate Round No. 2
54 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Leftii 5 years ago
Leftii
If "If anti-X = anti-Y" is correct, then "If something is equal, then it means that it is same and identical." is incorrect.

If someone is opposing Obama, does this mean they must oppose stupidity, as opposing Obama is "identical" to opposing stupidity.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 6 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
That's a bad example because the antichrist is an actual figure with properties we can describe... how would you describe antiGoat? An anticreature that eats antigrass and is antistubborn?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 6 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Think antiChrist.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 6 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
I think you may be on to something, but I still disagree... linguistically, what is an antiBob? What is an antiGoat? So I'm curious in what sense "anti" can be adapted to language in a manner incongruent with "non."

Consider - if a Goat qualifies as an antiBob, then the proposition cannot be true, because then the first premise would be that a Goat is an antiGoat. But if you don't like this formulation, I expect you to be able to provide a singular idea of what an antiGoat is =P

So we are back at the same root problem - Pro's statement is either wrong if interpreted broadly, or meaningless because it only applies to math if interpreted narrowly.

I suppose it could apply to other nouns/adjectives that actually have defined opposites - things like black/white or floor/ceiling... but even then, we still run into the same question of "anti" meaning "non" or "polar opposite."
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 6 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
This doesn't mean his argument is any good mind, and if he intends the = sign to work both ways then yes, it's definitely bad, but...
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 6 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
That translation might make sense in certain formalizations of logic, but linguistically it does not. "Anti-X is Anti Y" is a complete sentence, not a noun. "If antiBob is a antigoat, then Bob is a goat" cannot be translated into "All antiBob is an antigoat are Bob is a goat."

Anti I presume means opposite, not non. I'd presume it not to be mathematical but praxeological.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 6 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Sure it does... Pro's claim is an if-then: A -> B. We can also rewrite 'All S are P' as 'If S -> P.' I'm not suggesting that his proposition is that All ~X/~Y are X/Y. I'm suggesting that it is All sets where ~X and ~Y are the same are sets where X and Y are the same. Assuming he means that = to work both ways, his argument is:

[(~X -> ~Y) & (~Y -> ~X)] -> [(X -> Y) & (Y -> X)]

So again, if X = apples and Y = oranges, a banana is neither an X or a Y, but does not mean the two are equal. The categorical proposition concerns the sets - not the actual variables themselves. By this I mean that obviously Pro cannot be claiming that All ~X are X and All ~Y are Y... he is claiming that All S-sets are P-sets.

Pro's proposition works ONLY with math, because he assumes a very narrow interpretation of 'anti' - he interprets it to mean 'negative.' But Pro's argument is not applicable to language or any other abstraction. In the end, it comes down to interpretation of 'anti' - does it mean 'negative,' rendering the large majority of pro's argument meaningless for lack of applicability? Or does it mean 'non,' in which case Pro is simply wrong?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 6 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
I don't think that's the proposition Pro is making. He doesn't mean "all Anti X/Y are X/Y", like your S and P, rather, he merely means "If all anti x are anti y, then all x are y," distinctly different propositions. "Are" is the descriptor within the two small propositions, it doesn't make sense as one in the large proposition.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 6 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
@ ike - lol fair enough, I suppose either would work...

@ R_R...

So the proposition Pro makes is categorical - All S are P - where S = the set of anti-X/Y and P = the set of X/Y. Thus, to negate the proposition, we need to show that at least one S is a non-P. Here, we would need to demonstrate that there is at least one object that fulfills S, but not P. To do this, we need a non-X that is also a non-Y. A banana is neither an apple nor an orange, so it is an S that is a non-P... which brings us back to the negation of the original statement.

The only real weakness here is the objection that "anti" means "polar opposite" not just "non."
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
"don't know what to say to the fact that a simple remark of mine on the forums set off this whole feud...unless it has existed for a while and this ended up being the final straw. However, I think this whole premise works in some situations and doesn't work in others..."

Well, 000ike's and Darkkermit's feud has existed longer than their playful banter in your thread....
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
000ikedarkkermitTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: winning
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
000ikedarkkermitTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Words =! Numbers... Good argument by Con left untouched by Pro.
Vote Placed by dappleshade 6 years ago
dappleshade
000ikedarkkermitTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Using maths to play word games is refuted by Con.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
000ikedarkkermitTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's accusation of strawmanning was unfounded, since it was obvious that Con was using numbers and counter examples to prove the absurdness of his arguments.... And note that Con proved that Pro's arguments were based on a false presumption that anti=not (which, if true, would warrant Pro's use of the law of double negatives in both math and English).
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
000ikedarkkermitTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: "If I am anti-(anti-white) that does not make me white, but against those who are against white people." Con wins. Con proved that mathematical terms being translated to the written word is far more complicated than Pro asserted.
Vote Placed by Steelerman6794 6 years ago
Steelerman6794
000ikedarkkermitTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con appropriately refuted Pro's premise by pointing out the subjective nature of the English language and that equivalency can not inherently be determined between two value statements.