is=no, for it to exist
Debate Rounds (5)
to say there is no, is to say there is
the hero is the villain in disguise, life is death in disguise, life=no life, for me to percieve of no life
in order for the hero to save some one, some one must die
Is- 3rd person singular present indicative of be.
Be- to exist or live. 
no- not in any degree or manner; not at all. 
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.
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
degree, value, etc." Since "is" and "no is" are opposites they do not fit the description of "equals" meaning that the pro's
argument is invalid.
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
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".
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by roguetech 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
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.)
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.