I wish I could remember what the term is for this kind of logic, but it can easily be wrong depending on the context.
Wrong:
God is love.
Love is blind.
Ray Charles is blind.
Ray Charles is God.
Right:
All Peach mains are gay.
Cheap Peach mains Peach.
Cheap Peach is gay.
Also, the word "can" should not be placed near the word "impossible." "Can" implies possibility and it is indeed possible for a burrito to kill you (choking). Thanks for the correction on inverse logic though.
Regardless, the context in which I was speaking makes sense.
Edit: XD
when i said "can", i meant in the context of the hyptothetical example i was using. Not in terms of real life.
and, no what you're saying doesn't make sense.
i didn't mean to get all logic nerd in here buttt
the example you provided is that of a "false analogy" which really doesn't apply here, so I suspect you are thinking of a logical fallacy called "denying the antecedent"...which happens to be the exact fallacy you're using.
what you're trying to say (i think) is that my argument leads to an absurd conclusion (that hyping doesn't help tournaments), therefore my argument is invalid (which is a legit form of arguments called reductio ad absurdium), but the logic you use to reach this absurdity is invalid.
the form of denying the antecedent goes like this:
if P then Q
not P
therefore not Q
this is an invalid form.
an example of why this is invalid:
"If it is Kevin playing you, you will fight a Snake.
It is not Kevin playing, therefore you will not fight a Snake"
obviously this is invalid, as you may very well fight another snake player.
so, say P = NOT HYPE and Q = NOT HURT (we have to use this weird syntax in order for the form to make sense, but you get the idea)
then my argument is expressed in line 1: if P, then Q, or
1. if NOT HYPE, then NOT HURT (if you anti hype, you don't hurt a tournament)
so line 2 would be "say we NOT NOT HYPE (which is the same as saying "say we HYPE")
line 3: therefore "NOT NOT HURT" (or "thefefore we HURT")
so your full logic is this
1. if I NOT HYPE a tournament, then i DON'T HURT the tourney. (this is my argument)
2. well, that means if I HYPE
3. then i HURT
and since that's obviously not true, you are saying that premise 1 is false.
BUT as mentioned above, you are using an invalid argument form to come to that conclusion. (denial of the antecedent)
so, in conclusion
If it is impossible for anti-hype to hinder a tournament then inversely it is impossible for hype to help a tournament. Right, Kevin?
no.