The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TBSmothers
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

is=no, for it to exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
TBSmothers
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/27/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 984 times Debate No: 79113
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (44)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

weird logic

is=no

to say there is no, is to say there is

hero=no hero=villain

nature=machine+supernature

the hero is the villain in disguise, life is death in disguise, life=no life, for me to percieve of no life

giving=taking

in order for the hero to save some one, some one must die
TBSmothers

Con

I accept this debate. Before I begin I will list a few definitions since the pro did not.

Definition(s)
Is- 3rd person singular present indicative of be.[1]
Be- to exist or live. [2]
no- not in any degree or manner; not at all. [3]

The pro stated "to say there is no, is to say there is". By looking above you will see that "be" means to exist or live, and

"no" means not to exist at all. By definitions these words are opposites, therefore "is" cannot equal "no".

I wish the pro the best of luck and await their response.

Source(s)
[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

is=no is

to say there is no, is to say there is, so in order for me to percieve of no i must percieve of is

everything that exist has an opposite for it to exist

without the perception of no, i cant percieve of the is
TBSmothers

Con

The pro has introduced a slightly new argument in which he stated "is=no is". The word equal means "like or alike in quantity,

degree, value, etc."[1] Since "is" and "no is" are opposites they do not fit the description of "equals" meaning that the pro's

argument is invalid.

Source(s)
[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

no, is, so no, is no is, because no isnt if it isnt and know is :|

everything that exist has an opposite for it to exist, how could no exist if there is no is to begin with, so is=No is, or is=no, man=superman
TBSmothers

Con

The pro stated "everything that exist has an opposite for it to exist". then followed up by saying "so is=No is". From this I

can conclude that the pro is saying that these two words are opposites. By definition this would make it impossible for "is" to

equal "is not".
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

opposite of is, is not
TBSmothers

Con

Yes they are opposites which means that they are not equal.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

everything that exist has an opposite for it to exist
TBSmothers

Con

In conclusion it is impossible for anything to equal it's opposite, therefore "is" does not equal "no".
Vote con!!!
Debate Round No. 5
44 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
rogue join my facebook :)

i am always up for a challenge!
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
yea i understand

1+4=2+3=1+1+1+2=5

hmm, cause and effect is logic, is an example of excluded middle thing

1=something=matter=true
0=nothing=infomation=false+truth
Posted by roguetech 1 year ago
roguetech
Going to take another stab at the Law of Identity and Law of Contradiction.... I didn't do a good job explaining those.

These are best explained using math.

The Law of Identity states 1 = 1.

The Law of Contradiction state 1 + 1 can not = 1.

The Law of Identity and the Law of Excluded Middle therefore requires 1 + 1 = [something not 1]

Therefore, we create a new symbol to mean "not 1".... "2".

The Law of Identity states 1 + 1 = 2.

The Law of Identity states 2 = 2.

The Law of Contradiction state 1 + 2 can not = 3.

[repeat ad naseum... and you congrats, you have math.]

Linguistically, an example would be "a lawyer is a person who practices law", or "a mathematician is a person who practices math". By the Law of Contradiction, a lawyer is not a mathematician, and vice versa, but the Law of Excluded Middle allows for a lawyer to *also* be a mathematician, without negating being a lawyer, unless they are mutually exclusive (like a giraffe and a cat).
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
im not sure i understand what your point is, i agree with it
Posted by roguetech 1 year ago
roguetech
We had a debate where I explained it, but I'll try again. The three laws of logic are the Law (or Principle) of Identity, Law of excluded Middle and Law of Contradition.

The Law of Identity says if a = a, then a = a. If a giraffe is a giraffe, then that's what it is.

The Law of Contradiction is the opposite. If a doesn't = a, then it doesn't. A giraffe can't be a cat.

The Law of Excluded Middle is sort of between that. Even if a giraffe is a giraffe, and not a cat, that doesn't mean it can't be a mammal, spotted, lunch or anything else not exclusive with a giraffe.

A good example of this is if I said "the door is not unlocked". That doesn't mean the door IS locked, though it's the obvious implication. (If I said that to a house sitter, they'd most likely ask for the key.) However, logically the door may not exist, or may not have a lock. If the door doesn't exist, it can't be locked or unlocked. If there is no lock, then it is "not locked", but not "unlocked" either (unless you define "unlocked"as "not locked", rather than "the lock being undone; switched to inactive"). The dichotomy to "locked" is "not locked", not "unlocked". The dichotomy to "unlocked" is not "locked" but "not unlocked".

If you defined "unlocked" as "not locked" then you could invoke the Law of Identity or Law of Contradiction, but that requires an additional logical step.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
hmm can you explain law of excluded middle, maybe i know it
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
logic is true
Posted by roguetech 1 year ago
roguetech
Logic is either accepted or it is not accepted (technically, it's can't be "rejected"). Logic can not be logically demonstrated to be true. However, every argument must be based on logic. Without accepting logic, there's literally no foundation on which to claim there even IS an argument, let alone not with yourself. Even the statement "I think therefore I am" is based on logic. We must accept on an intuitive level that if one person uses logic, then it is appropriate to rebut it with logic. However, vi_spex, you don't seem to be aware of the Law of Excluded Middle, which defines what is a dichotomy.
Posted by TBSmothers 1 year ago
TBSmothers
Thank You it means a lot to me whenever a stranger approves of what I write. Have a wonderful night vi_spex
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
and now i allow you to enjoy your prison cell
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by roguetech 1 year ago
roguetech
vi_spexTBSmothersTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Seems Pro's argument boils down to "[the] opposite of 'is', is 'not' ". Pro not only failed to even suggest why this would be true, Con unequivocally demonstrated otherwise. Whether it was relevant or not, I'm disappointed Con did not dispute "in order for the hero to save some one, some one must die". However, Con may not have realized that Pro was (I think) intending a violation of the Law of Excluded Middle, such that "A hero must *either* save someone, or someone must die", while ignoring that "a hero" could choose to do neither. (The hero either saves someone or *does not* save someone, and Pro's argument is that "someone *is* saved" is the same as "someone is *not* saved.)