The Instigator
MathandScienceprodigy
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Jay-D
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

The Premise of Duality is flawed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Jay-D
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,041 times Debate No: 41756
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (2)

 

MathandScienceprodigy

Pro

Definition(s):

We define cold and darkness as the opposite of heat and light.

Dualism (from the Latin word duo meaning "two")[1] denotes a state of two parts. The term 'dualism' was originally coined to denote co-eternal binary opposition, a meaning that is preserved in metaphysical and philosophical duality discourse but has been diluted in other usages to indicate a system which contains two essential parts.


Contention(s):

Cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat.

Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. 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. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present.

Source(s):

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Jay-D

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 1
MathandScienceprodigy

Pro

Concurrences:

1)

"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."

We define a fallacy as a mistaken belief, esp. one based on unsound argument.

Failing to provide an explanation does NOT lead to that.

"what causes a body to become cold(the verb" is cold(the noun)."

Let us use winter and summer as an example.

It is all about the tilt of the Earth's axis. Many people believe that the temperature changes because the Earth is closer to the sun in summer and farther from the sun in winter. In fact, the Earth is farthest from the sun in July and is closest to the sun in January!

During the summer, the sun's rays hit the Earth at a steep angle. The light does not spread out as much, thus increasing the amount of energy hitting any given spot. Also, the long daylight hours allow the Earth plenty of time to reach warm temperatures.

During the winter, the sun's rays hit the Earth at a shallow angle. These rays are more spread out, which minimizes the amount of energy that hits any given spot. Also, the long nights and short days prevent the Earth from warming up. Thus, we have winter!

"it's that heat and cold are co-existent and co-eternal, thus validating the premise of duality."

No. Cold is in reality the absence of heat.

"Mr. Pro, isn't heat ALSO just a word created to describe how we feel if we have no cold?"

Nopers.

Mr. Science says that the temperature of an object is the measure of the heat energy that it contains. More energy equals a higher temperature; less energy equals a lower one. When heat is added or subtracted it causes changes in the physical properties of objects like thermometers, asphalt, bread baking in the oven, or the tip of your tongue. �€""Hot�€� and even�€""warm�€� are real and measurable quantities.

Cold, on the other hand, does not exist. There is no such thing as �€""cold�€�. When you touch a piece of ice with your bare hand, the sensation that you feel is not the presence of �€""cold�€�, it is the subtraction of heat. The more rapidly you withdraw heat the more �€""cold�€� it feels. The ice has such little heat compared to your body that the heat rushes from your hand to balance things out. Your hand continues to lose heat rapidly until the ice is melted, then and only then can your hand warm back up. The sensation that you feel in your hand, through your brain, is that of heat being sucked from your body. Your brain detects this and calls it �€""cold�€�but in reality it is simply the profound lack of heat.

Matter is composed of atoms, and atoms are aquiver with energy. There is a broad spectrum of temperatures that range from absolute zero (where all restless movement in the atom ceases) to a gazillion bazillion degrees where even atoms fly apart into their constituent pieces. But nowhere on that temperature scale does �€""cold�€� exist, even at absolute zero. Absolute zero isn�€™t really cold, it is simply zero heat.

So next time the ol�€™ north wind blows through the crack under your door and causes your candle to flicker, don�€™t shiver and say �€""whoa, it�€™s getting cold�€�. Instead, say �€""wow, it�€™s really getting unwarm quickly�€�, and grab yourself another sweater to trap the heat.

2)

ScienceYou use the Big Bang theory to defend your position.

The Big Bang theory is not true.

There are two different types of when stars end. When the little stars die, it"s just like a small poof. They just turn into a planetary nebula. But the big ones, above 1.4 solar masses, blow up in one giant explosion, a supernova. What it does, is, in larger stars there is a larger mass, and it can fuse higher elements because it"s more dense.

So you get all the elements, all the different materials, from those bigger stars. The little stars, they just make hydrogen and helium, and when they blow up, all the carbon that remains in them is just in the white dwarf; it never really comes off.

So in the big-bang theory, what they do is, there is this big explosion and there is all this temperature going off and the temperature decreases really rapidly because it"s really big. The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, I don"t care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn"t there have to be some sort of carbon?

Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn"t be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn"t gonna happen.

Because of that, that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We"d have to be 21 billion years old . . . and that would just screw everything up.

Also, that was the absence of light.

Christianity:God did not create light to complement darkness. It was simply the absence of the presence of light. So, he decided to do so.

The rest are traditional stories, esp. them concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. However, both fail to explain your notion of "darkness" and light and how both are co-existent.

" both light as well as darkness must exist for the validity of either."

How exactly does darkness validate light?

There is only light. No darkness. Either light is present, or absent.

"one cannot study different colours if there is no darkness to dilute its degree in white light.

False.

Let us use Newton's prism again to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. Each is measurable except for black. For measurements of various colors, more light is transmitted. And for some, it is not. Oh, and for some, it is subtracted.

"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."

False. In fact, I have derived this argument from:

http://petapixel.com...

"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."

If all areas are seperated, how would other areas be illuminated?

Not at all relevant to my statement. A simple ray of light present in ONE area can illuminate it.

Also, the absence of light can not subtract light from an illuminated area.

"The statement is incomplete. One cannot measure darkness in the absence of light. Can you measure light if there is no darkness? Nope."

This argument presented above is not substantiated. Therefore, it will remain uncontested except for the fact that there is no sufficient justification.

"Mr. Pro, that if this were the case, all we would ever see is WHITE."

Incorrect. Either light is present, or absent.

"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."

No. Like said, it is not measurable. Darkness does not complement light. Either light is transmitted or the presence of light is absent. That is, why it is measurable. As opposed to "darkness", it remains one color. We can not make dark any darker. And if it were brighter, it would no longer be black.
Jay-D

Con

Hot and even warm are measurable quantities.
My opponent is simply ignoring the other side of the tale. If he aligns himself like this, how is he going to see the proof of duality? It's like Pro is postulating that there are only numbers greater than zero, and that negative numbers don't exist.

Consider a datum, for which the temperature is zero degrees Celsius. Agreed that hot is measurable; "hot" would be any temperature greater than 0 C. But then, so is cold. Cold would be under 0 C.

Let us use winter and summer as an example.
Once again, my opponent has inadvertently validated the premise of duality! It is because we have winter, that we recognize summer. I don't know how Pro can fail to see something as simple as that.
Let us again consider a datum angle somewhere between the steep angle of summer and the shallow angle of winter. The angle of incidence in the summer is positive, whereas it is negative in the winter. DUALITY.

Nopers.
Is that even a word? Spelling and grammar, anyone?

When you touch a piece of ice with your bare hand, the sensation that you feel is not the presence of "cold", it is the subtraction of heat.
I will tell you what Mr. Thermodynamics says. Ever heard of that?
http://en.wikipedia.org...
It clearly states that hot and cold bodies exist. We don't say "a body with less heat content". We say "a cold body".
http://www.achrnews.com...
Cold is not a substance, just as heat is not a substance. Cold is as unreal as heat i.e. cold is as real as heat.

Your brain detects this and calls it "cold"but in reality it is simply the profound lack of heat.
Pray tell me, does the brain get a computer-generated image when sensing "hot"? No. It simply detects an elevation from whatever datum value it prefers, and calls it "hot". My opponent is stating nothing more than incomplete statements.

But nowhere on that temperature scale does "cold" exist, even at absolute zero. Absolute zero isn't really cold, it is simply zero heat.
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Absolute zero is where nothing could be "colder". Absolute zero is defined as "sheer cold". It isn't really cold? Let's see you climb into a freezer and deny that. Listen to me carefully:
Cold is what you would feel when the ambient temperature is less than what you are accustomed to i.e. your datum/reference temperature.
Hot/heat is what you feel when it is higher than your datum temperature.

They are both references to decreasing and increasing heat energy. Period.
From a reference point set arbitrarily for measuring purposes, hot falls on the positive side, and cold falls on the negative side. Take whatever datum you want. You WILL see both sides to it. That is duality, Mr. Pro, and it is completely sound.

God did not create light to complement darkness. It was simply the absence of the presence of light. So, he decided to do so.
But what is the absence of the presence of light? DARKNESS. That is all i would like to say regarding this.

How exactly does darkness validate light?
Did you not read my presentation of the RGB hexadecimal colour code? Either you didn't or you're choosing to ignore it.
#000000 is black. #FFFFFF is white. Every other colour falls in between.
You cannot have red(#FF0000), blue(#0000FF), green#(00FF00), or any other colour if you don't have black.
You cannot have any of these colours if you don't have white either!
This is because every colour is a mixture of some amount of white and some amount of black.
The existence of black(darkness) is fundamental for the existence of each and every other colour.
Same goes for white.
DUALITY.
How can you just say black doesn't exist because it isn't measurable? It is very much measurable, and web colours are living, man-made proof of that.
I repeat myself: without darkness, all we would see is white. Without light, all we would see is black. They're both essential for the existence of each other as well as every other colour. How can you ignore this?

Incorrect. Either light is present, or absent.
If light is only present, we see WHITE. If light is totally absent, we see BLACK. That is axiomatic. But we see millions of colours. WHY?
Because light is present in different areas to different extents, and the rest is darkness.

False. In fact, I have derived this argument from:....(Source)
Well, you seem to totally disregard the fact that in those photos, the photographer only removed the sources of light with photoshop. For each source of light removed, he did not make the picture darker. He only removed the sources, and not their illuminative effect. Meaning, the illumination which you thought was provided by the light from ONE window, was in fact from many windows. The photographer just took them out.
Also, the expanse of a single photo cannot be taken as, in Pro's words, a world of darkness.
A simple ray of light present in ONE area can illuminate it.
Wrong. Light waves contain specific amount of energy, and can only illuminate a finite area, and not an entire world, as you stated earlier. It's simple physics. Even in the source that you provided, do you think the light from those single windows would be seen far and wide, in, say, another city(forget the entire world)?
Not a chance. And that was definitely more than a simple ray of light.

"The statement is incomplete. One cannot measure darkness in the absence of light. Can you measure light if there is no darkness? Nope."

This argument presented above is not substantiated.

Oh, it was very well substantiated right above in the thought experiment; you just failed to get it.
My stand was that before any area is illuminated, it is shrouded in darkness. To find whatever area was illuminated by the source of light, you have to know the initial area which was dark.

You use the Big Bang theory to defend your position.

The Big Bang theory is not true....

I would like to see some reliable sources. No offense , but I would not depend on a 14-year-old's "calculations" on stellar nucleosynthesis. You've most likely never even heard of it. Even so, here's my contradiction to whatever calculation you obtained for Carbon synthesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
The carbon is not coming out of the stars, Mr. Pro. It is a by-product of the CNO-cycle.
Anyways, it isn't the validity of the big bang theory we're debating; it's the existence of darkness. And for that, your statement has been:
Also, that was the absence of light. Which is, in your own words, DARKNESS. The mere fact that such a state exists, attests to the soundness of duality.

So, like said, darkness is very much measurable in each and every colour. Obviously, so is light. If Pro still thinks otherwise, he'd better disprove the concept of RGB colour code rather than straying off-topic by trying to disprove the big bang theory(and giving only one, flawed, sentence to counter my argument).
My datum argument has also disproved Pro's postulation of the non-existence of cold. If Pro wishes to re-postulate, he'd better find a valid datum, a reference point from which there is only heat and no cold.

I eagerly await my opponent's final arguments and closing statements in the final round.
Debate Round No. 2
MathandScienceprodigy

Pro

"My opponent is simply ignoring the other side of the tale. If he aligns himself like this, how is he going to see the proof of duality? It's like Pro is postulating that there are only numbers greater than zero, and that negative numbers don't exist."

Indeed, I am not "ignoring the other side of the tale". Let us take light and darkness, for instance. I have use Newton's prism or the hexadecimal color code system[1] to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. I have clearly stated that white is measurable, while black is not. You can not subtract light, neither can you brighten it up. Otherwise, it would no longer be "black".

"Consider a datum, for which the temperature is zero degrees Celsius. Agreed that hot is measurable; "hot" would be any temperature greater than 0 C. But then, so is cold. Cold would be under 0 C."

There is probably a set of questions you are wanting to ask. Like said, cold is simply the absence of the presence of heat. Let us use [2] to back it up.

"Once again, my opponent has inadvertently validated the premise of duality! It is because we have winter, that we recognize summer. I don't know how Pro can fail to see something as simple as that.
Let us again consider a datum angle somewhere between the steep angle of summer and the shallow angle of winter. The angle of incidence in the summer is positive, whereas it is negative in the winter. DUALITY."

If there are 2 particular areas, seperated from each other, then chances are, the area that is illuminated by the ray of light won't do so to the other area, in which the presence of light is absent.

Same goes for that. Our body is susceptible to the heat that is transmitted, which comes from wherever the Sun is. If our Earth has orbitted the Sun halfway, the presence of heat AND light would be absent.

Cold is a term used by man to describe how we feel if we have no heat. Definitely, you can use that phrase. But nonetheless, cold does not exist.

"Pray tell me, does the brain get a computer-generated image when sensing "hot"? No. It simply detects an elevation from whatever datum value it prefers, and calls it "hot". My opponent is stating nothing more than incomplete statements."

Read the rest. There is, though, sufficient justification[3] to prove the claim.

You do not have to over-exaggerate your defenses of your positions.

If I climb to a freezer, I will still deny that. There is the absence of the presence of heat. However, my brain corresponds and I will use the phrase "cold" to describe so.

Also, false.

-2 -1 0 1 2
<----------->

Is a misconception and misrepresentation of heat and "cold"

0 1 2 3 4
<--------->

Is more appropriate and suitable. Absolute zero is where the presence of heat is completely absent. And going up is where more hot energy is transmitted to an object and/or body.

"God did not create light to complement darkness. It was simply the absence of the presence of light. So, he decided to do so.
But what is the absence of the presence of light? DARKNESS. That is all i would like to say regarding this."

So, does that lead to us arguing the same cause? We both believe that darkness is the absence of the presence of light, while others believe that it is the opposite, which is a fallacy.

"How exactly does darkness valudate light?
Did you not read my presentation of the RGB hexadecimal colour code? Either you didn't or you're choosing to ignore it.
#000000 is black. #FFFFFF is white. Every other colour falls in between.
You cannot have red(#FF0000), blue(#0000FF), green#(00FF00), or any other colour if you don't have black.
You cannot have any of these colours if you don't have white either!
This is because every colour is a mixture of some amount of white and some amount of black.
The existence of black(darkness) is fundamental for the existence of each and every other colour. Same goes for white.
DUALITY."

Black is the complete absence of the presence of the color white. And that is how when we study the various wavelengths of each color, some are brighter.

"I repeat myself: without darkness, all we would see is white. Without light, all we would see is black. They're both essential for the existence of each other as well as every other colour. How can you ignore this?"

As some define darkness as the opposite of light, there can only be either the absence, or presence.

Also, about the:

"I derived these arguments from... (Source)"

It does not fully illuminate its surroundings, from that simple ray of light, but it makes its surroundings roughly visible, for the windows are transparent.

"My stand was that before any area is illuminated, it is shrouded in darkness. To find whatever area was illuminated by the source of light, you have to know the initial area which was dark."

No. The presence of light is totally absent.

"So, like said, darkness is very much measurable in each and every colour. Obviously, so is light. If Pro still thinks otherwise, he'd better disprove the concept of RGB colour code rather than straying off-topic by trying to disprove the big bang theory(and giving only one, flawed, sentence to counter my argument)."

No, white is emmited onto every color, either white is present, or absent. However, black itself isn't measurable.

Conclusion

I have come to the conclusion that this particular, cosmological debate was very interesting and fun. How Con conducted himself was roughly undesirable. But otherwise, I enjoyed it. I thank my opponent for accepting.

Source(s):

[1] http://www.w3schools.com...

[2] http://t.answers.com...

[3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Jay-D

Con

Like said, cold is simply the absence of the presence of heat. Let us use [2] to back it up.
Source [2] in question: http://wiki.answers.com...

The answer was given by a Matthew Darragh. What is the credibility of this Matthew Darragh? What makes him so qualified that he simply says "cold is the absence of heat" and we believe there is no cold at all?
http://wiki.answers.com...
This is a link to Mr. Matthew Darragh's profile. He has provided 2 answers and has 0 trust points. Zero trust points... I think that speaks for itself.

Definitely, you can use that phrase. But nonetheless, cold does not exist.
So are you saying that the creators of the English language and its predecessors are madmen, who simply made a phrase for something that does not exist? I hope you aren't.

my brain corresponds and I will use the phrase "cold" to describe so.
That statement alone attests that your brain subconsciously accepts that there is a state which can be definitively described by the word "cold".

-2 -1 0 1 2
<----------->

Is a misconception and misrepresentation of heat and "cold"

Is not, and I am about to comprehensively disprove it.

0 1 2 3 4
<--------->

Is more appropriate and suitable. Absolute zero is where the presence of heat is completely absent. And going up is where more hot energy is transmitted to an object and/or body.

The above number line "0 1 2 3 4" where Pro has considered 0 as a reference point is invalid. The point "0", as stated by Pro, would happen to be absolute zero temperature.

What Pro does not know, however, is that it is impossible to achieve absolute zero temperature. This statement is in conformation with the Third Law of Thermodynamics:
http://www.princeton.edu...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

According to the third law of thermodynamics, it is impossible by any procedure, no matter how idealized, to reduce the temperature of any system to zero temperature in a finite number of finite operations.
This would mean that the datum argument provided by Pro, starting from "0", is invalid.
For any valid datum point, my argument is perfectly sound: There exists both heat and cold on each side of the reference point.

I hope that would leave little doubt in the minds of readers and voters as to whether cold exists or not, because a world where cold does not exist is most certainly not this one, as it would be in violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

We both believe that darkness is the absence of the presence of light...
That we do, but Pro believes that darkness does not exist, whereas I believe otherwise. According to Pro:
1. darkness is the absence of the presence of light
2. God did not create light to complement darkness. It was simply the absence of the presence of light.
From statement 2, Pro agrees that there was a state where light was absent.
Correlating this with statement 1, Pro agrees that there was a state of darkness at some point in time.

As some define darkness as the opposite of light, there can only be either the absence, or presence.
My opponent has failed to comprehend the possibility of the mixing of darkness and light in varying proportions to create colour.
What Pro states, is that in some places there is light, and in some places there isn't. This would be the definition of a black-and-white world.
What Pro has not considered, is that If there is no start(#000000), there is no colour.
If there is no end(#FFFFFF), there is no colour.
They are both definitely there, and are completely opposite to each other.
For each and every colour, some part of black(darkness) and some part of white(light) is required.

One cannot exist without the other. Darkness is the embodiment of all that we don't see. It's not that it doesn't exist.

No, white is emmited onto every color, either white is present, or absent. However, black itself isn't measurable.
All i have to say is this: #000000. Together with white, it forms the basis of each and every colour.
Also, you spelled "emitted" wrong.

Conclusion

1. By invalidating Pro's datum of zero temperature, I have conclusively demonstrated that for any valid reference point, there is a cold side, and a hot side. This axiom is in place because of DUALITY.

2. As Pro has failed to convincingly disprove the principle of web colours, by definition, the following statement is valid: Black and white mix in varying degrees to give all other colours. Hence, the perception of all colour is based on the dispersion of light in a plane of uniform darkness. Therefore, darkness very much exists, and is the co-eternal partner of light.

3. As both of Pro's hypotheses have been disproved by me, we can conclude that
THE PREMISE OF DUALITY IS NOT FLAWED.

4. Pro should lose spelling and grammar for spelling mistakes, usage of non-existent words such as "Nopers", and faulty formatting in round 2. My own spelling and grammar has been better, if not perfect.

5. Pro should lose sources for referring to an answers.com user with absolutely no credibility whatsoever. I have myself provided 10 different sources(from which there are 15 different links), as opposed to 5 by Pro.

This has been fun, except for an overload of incomplete statements from Pro. But then again, incomplete statements are the only way to show any "flaws" in duality, and if not for any incomplete statements, my opponent would not have had any arguments to present.

I thank my opponent for instigating and spiritedly contesting this debate, and congratulations on three very exciting rounds.
It is all up to the voters now. May the better debater win.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jay-D 3 years ago
Jay-D
Hey... why'd you post it 6 times?
Oh never mind. I read your latest.
And anyways, I was only stating the obvious. My spelling and sources WERE better.
Anyways, friendly advice: never rely on ask.com or answers.com users.

"So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would....."
I need THESE calculations. Just out of interest. You can post a link or something if you wish.
Posted by MathandScienceprodigy 3 years ago
MathandScienceprodigy
I have jeopardized myself, now in danger. So, I need to address something.

I have mistakenly spammed my response to Jay-D's comment multiple times. I apologize.
Posted by MathandScienceprodigy 3 years ago
MathandScienceprodigy
Yes I have. Let me re-confirm.

So in the big-bang theory, what they do is, there is this big explosion and there is all this temperature going off and the temperature decreases really rapidly because it"s really big. The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, I don"t care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn"t there have to be some sort of carbon?

Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn"t be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn"t gonna happen.

Because of that, that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We"d have to be 21 billion years old . . . and that would just screw everything up.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fair, eh?

You have clearly stated that:

4. Pro should lose spelling and grammar for spelling mistakes, usage of non-existent words such as "Nopers", and faulty formatting in round 2. My own spelling and grammar has been better, if not perfect.

5. Pro should lose sources for referring to an answers.com user with absolutely no credibility whatsoever. I have myself provided 10 different sources(from which there are 15 different links), as opposed to 5 by Pro.

And yet, now, you say that it is fair (I deserved all points).
Posted by MathandScienceprodigy 3 years ago
MathandScienceprodigy
Yes I have. Let me re-confirm.

So in the big-bang theory, what they do is, there is this big explosion and there is all this temperature going off and the temperature decreases really rapidly because it"s really big. The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, I don"t care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn"t there have to be some sort of carbon?

Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn"t be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn"t gonna happen.

Because of that, that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We"d have to be 21 billion years old . . . and that would just screw everything up.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fair, eh?

You have clearly stated that:

4. Pro should lose spelling and grammar for spelling mistakes, usage of non-existent words such as "Nopers", and faulty formatting in round 2. My own spelling and grammar has been better, if not perfect.

5. Pro should lose sources for referring to an answers.com user with absolutely no credibility whatsoever. I have myself provided 10 different sources(from which there are 15 different links), as opposed to 5 by Pro.

And yet, now, you say that it is fair (I deserved all points).
Posted by MathandScienceprodigy 3 years ago
MathandScienceprodigy
Yes I have. Let me re-confirm.

So in the big-bang theory, what they do is, there is this big explosion and there is all this temperature going off and the temperature decreases really rapidly because it"s really big. The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, I don"t care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn"t there have to be some sort of carbon?

Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn"t be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn"t gonna happen.

Because of that, that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We"d have to be 21 billion years old . . . and that would just screw everything up.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fair, eh?

You have clearly stated that:

4. Pro should lose spelling and grammar for spelling mistakes, usage of non-existent words such as "Nopers", and faulty formatting in round 2. My own spelling and grammar has been better, if not perfect.

5. Pro should lose sources for referring to an answers.com user with absolutely no credibility whatsoever. I have myself provided 10 different sources(from which there are 15 different links), as opposed to 5 by Pro.

And yet, now, you say that it is fair (I deserved all points).
Posted by MathandScienceprodigy 3 years ago
MathandScienceprodigy
Yes I have. Let me re-confirm.

So in the big-bang theory, what they do is, there is this big explosion and there is all this temperature going off and the temperature decreases really rapidly because it"s really big. The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, I don"t care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn"t there have to be some sort of carbon?

Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn"t be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn"t gonna happen.

Because of that, that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We"d have to be 21 billion years old . . . and that would just screw everything up.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fair, eh?

You have clearly stated that:

4. Pro should lose spelling and grammar for spelling mistakes, usage of non-existent words such as "Nopers", and faulty formatting in round 2. My own spelling and grammar has been better, if not perfect.

5. Pro should lose sources for referring to an answers.com user with absolutely no credibility whatsoever. I have myself provided 10 different sources(from which there are 15 different links), as opposed to 5 by Pro.

And yet, now, you say that it is fair (I deserved all points).
Posted by MathandScienceprodigy 3 years ago
MathandScienceprodigy
Yes I have. Let me re-confirm.

So in the big-bang theory, what they do is, there is this big explosion and there is all this temperature going off and the temperature decreases really rapidly because it"s really big. The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, I don"t care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn"t there have to be some sort of carbon?

Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn"t be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn"t gonna happen.

Because of that, that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We"d have to be 21 billion years old . . . and that would just screw everything up.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fair, eh?

You have clearly stated that:

4. Pro should lose spelling and grammar for spelling mistakes, usage of non-existent words such as "Nopers", and faulty formatting in round 2. My own spelling and grammar has been better, if not perfect.

5. Pro should lose sources for referring to an answers.com user with absolutely no credibility whatsoever. I have myself provided 10 different sources(from which there are 15 different links), as opposed to 5 by Pro.

And yet, now, you say that it is fair (I deserved all points).
Posted by MathandScienceprodigy 3 years ago
MathandScienceprodigy
Yes I have. Let me re-confirm.

So in the big-bang theory, what they do is, there is this big explosion and there is all this temperature going off and the temperature decreases really rapidly because it"s really big. The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, I don"t care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn"t there have to be some sort of carbon?

Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn"t be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn"t gonna happen.

Because of that, that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We"d have to be 21 billion years old . . . and that would just screw everything up.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fair, eh?

You have clearly stated that:

4. Pro should lose spelling and grammar for spelling mistakes, usage of non-existent words such as "Nopers", and faulty formatting in round 2. My own spelling and grammar has been better, if not perfect.

5. Pro should lose sources for referring to an answers.com user with absolutely no credibility whatsoever. I have myself provided 10 different sources(from which there are 15 different links), as opposed to 5 by Pro.

And yet, now, you say that it is fair (I deserved all points).
Posted by Jay-D 3 years ago
Jay-D
But you never posted any proof or those calculations you were talking about..
Anyways, the debate is over, and congratulations on three fairly-contested rounds.
However, the votes(AmazingAtheist) look anything but fair to me...
Posted by MathandScienceprodigy 3 years ago
MathandScienceprodigy
"The carbon is not coming out of the stars, Mr. Pro. It is a by-product of the CNO-cycle."
Jay-D

Yes. In fact, I clearly stated that the carbon remains in the white dwarf.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
MathandScienceprodigyJay-DTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con adequately proved that the absence of something can itself be an entity. He also used more and slightly better sources.
Vote Placed by TheAmazingAtheist1 3 years ago
TheAmazingAtheist1
MathandScienceprodigyJay-DTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Jay-D was slightly disrespectful when pointing out mistakes. MathandScience had a lot more convincing arguments, and felt that he tried to keep it going. However, his sources were not reliable.