The argument you mentioned is a philosophical perspective that raises questions about the nature of existence and nothingness. It is indeed a thought-provoking topic, and there are different viewpoints on this matter.
From a philosophical standpoint, some argue that the concept of "nothing" can only be understood in contrast to "something." Without the existence of something, the idea of "nothing" might be difficult to grasp or define. In this sense, "nothing" can be seen as a concept that emerges in relation to the presence of "something."
However, others might argue that "nothing" can still be a meaningful concept on its own, even if there were no other things in existence. They might view "nothing" as an absence of anything, a complete void, or the absence of all properties and entities.
Ultimately, this debate revolves around complex philosophical and semantic questions, and different philosophical schools of thought have explored these ideas in depth.
In the context of the riddle, it is presented as a playful language puzzle, where "nothing" is used in a more colloquial sense to mean the absence of a physical substance. The riddle is not necessarily attempting to delve into the intricacies of philosophical discussions about the nature of "nothing." Its aim is to provide a clever play on words and a fun challenge.