The Instigator
MagicAintReal
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
Death23
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points

A Watched Pot Never Boils

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 5 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,089 times Debate No: 88291
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (164)
Votes (5)

 

MagicAintReal

Pro

*1st round is for acceptance and if you want to introduce yourself.
*There are no round rules other than the above rule.


Full Resolution
A watched pot never boils on a standard stovetop.

Pro
Has the Burden of Proof and 3 sets of 10,000 characters to AFFIRM the resolution that a watched pot never boils on a standard stovetop.

Con
Has also 3 sets of 10,000 characters to NEGATE the resolution that a watched pot never boils on a standard stovetop; Con will be showing that a watched pot DOES boil by refuting Pro.


*Definitions can be changed, in the comments section, before posting your first argument, as long as both Pro and Con agree.

Otherwise...

*Definitions below are agreed on by posting your first argument.


Definitions

watched - looked at or observed attentively, typically over a period of time.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

pot - a container, typically rounded or cylindrical made of iron or steel, used for cooking.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

never - at no time in the future; on no occasion; not ever.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

boils - reaches or causes to reach the temperature at which it bubbles and turns to vapor.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

standard - such as is regularly used or produced; not special or exceptional.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

stovetop - the upper surface of an apparatus for cooking or heating that operates by burning fuel or using electricity, including the burners.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Death23

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
MagicAintReal

Pro

Thank you Con for taking this debate.

I affirm that a watched pot never boils on a standard stovetop, because standard stovetops never get hot enough to boil iron or steel (iron + carbon).

If a pot is watched, the watching has little to no effect on the pot's temperature.

The highest setting on standard stovetops' burners "ranges from 300 to 500 degrees Fahrenheit."
http://www.ehow.com...

The boiling point of iron is 4,981 degrees Fahrenheit.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

The boiling point of steel would be similar to that of iron, because steel is mostly iron with a carbon component.

Even if one were to leave an iron pot on a standard stovetop for an indefinite amount of time, on the highest burner setting, one could never watch that iron pot boil, because the temperature would never get hot enough to do so.

Sure, the contents inside the pot, like water or oil, would begin to boil while one watched it happen, but the pot itself would never boil on a standard stovetop.

I affirm that a watched pot never boils on a standard stovetop, because iron doesn't boil, watched or not, at the highest temperatures of a standard stovetop, ever.
Death23

Con

I. Pro's conduct is poor

This is a trap debate. The trap has taken the following form -

1. Instigator takes the Pro side of a seemingly easy to disprove resolution

2. Instigator advances a subtly inaccurate definition that, if it were accepted as accurate, would grant the instigator a significant advantage

The resolution, as it is commonly understood, is easily disprovable. However, Pro has advanced an intentionally inaccurate definition for the word "pot", and the success of Pro's argument is largely contingent on acceptance of this inaccuracy.

Here is Pro's definition -

"pot - a container, typically rounded or cylindrical made of iron or steel, used for cooking."


Here is the resolution -

"A watched pot never boils on a standard stovetop."

The definition advanced by Pro here is inaccurate because the use of "pot" within the context of the resolution strongly implies the use of "pot" in the following sense:

"The contents of any pot"




Advancing intentionally inaccurate definitions and attempting to win through trapping is poor conduct. This is exactly what Pro has done. I urge all voters to address Pro's poor conduct by voting on conduct only and to consider abstaining on every other category.



II. Strictly speaking, the resolution is false, even if we accept Pro's inaccurate definition


Is it actually true that a watched iron pot would never boil on a standard stove? I don't think that is true, because all that needs to happen is for a watched iron pot on a stove to reach boiling temperature - The heating element of the stove need not be the source of the heat. I can think of some situations where the pot itself may reach boiling temperature while being watched -


1. Oxy-acetylene torches and plasma cutters



The boiling point of iron is known to be 2,862° C. The flame temperature of an oxy-acetylene torch is known to be 3,480° C. The temperatures from the nozzles of plasma cutters are known to exceed 20,000° C. The temperatures from these tools are in excess of the boiling point of iron.

It is entirely conceivable that an unsupervised minor fiddling around in a kitchen would wind up damaging a pot on top of a stove using his father's tools. Perhaps someone who is practicing using these tools using a pot on top of a disconnected stove would wind up causing a pot to partially boil. When these tools are used, the user is typically looking directly at the object being worked on. They would be watching the pot, and the pot itself would be boiling. I don't see that there is much more to it than that.


2. Nuclear warfare


When Hiroshima was attacked, solid materials on the ground immediately below the burst reached surface temperatures of up to 4,000° C. http://goo.gl... It is known that Hiroshima was attacked during breakfast time, 8:15 AM local time. It is not all that improbable that many people were cooking, and that someone happened to be looking at a pot on a stove that happened to be partially boiling at the time, as the boiling point of iron is known to be 2,862° C. The same could be said of the bombing of Nagasaki.

Although the foregoing scenarios with nuclear weapons and metal working tools are uncommon, it is important to note that Pro used the word "never" in the resolution, and this definition specifically says "at no point in the future". There are billions of people on earth, and humans will exist perhaps for many millions of years. This is a game of numbers - It is improbable that neither of the foregoing scenarios will occur throughout the entire course of time of the entire universe. At some point throughout all time, an iron pot will reach boiling temperature while it is on top of a standard stove while someone is watching. This is more likely than not to occur, and it likely has occurred already. The resolution is thus negated.

Debate Round No. 2
MagicAintReal

Pro

*Trap Debate*

The idea of this debate being a "trap debate" seems very ridiculous to me.
This debate allowed for interested debaters to change the definitions before the debate, and accepting debates on this site is optional.

Before Con accepted this debate, Con was presented with:
1. A full resolution
2. A very thorough set of sourced definitions of terms within the resolution
3. An option to change the definitions before posting first round
4. AN OPTION TO NOT ACCEPT THE DEBATE

Con ignored or waived all of the above, and then claimed it was a trap once he consented.
What kind of trap shows you everything in the trap, allows you to change the trap, and never forces you into the trap?

trap - a trick by which someone is misled into acting contrary to their interests or intentions.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Con is acting contrary to his interests WITH informed consent.
I instigated a debate with full disclosure, so there is no misleading being done...Con just wasn't paying attention.
Now, Con regrets it, and expects it to cost me a conduct point.


*Conduct*

Pardon the direct reference, but Con accusing me of poor conduct seems like the pot calling the kettle black.

In the first round, it clearly states that the definitions listed are agreed on by posting your first argument.
Since Con did not attempt to change the definitions before posting his first argument, and then posted his first argument, Con has agreed to the definitions.

However, the first half of Con's 2nd round challenged one of the definitions...

Con whines:
"[Pro] advances a subtly inaccurate definition that, if it were accepted as accurate, would grant the instigator a significant advantage."

My response:
Con, you accepted and agreed to the inaccurate definition that grants me a significant advantage; you were made aware of this in the first round.

Con continues:
"...the use of "pot" within the context of the resolution strongly implies the use of "pot" in the following sense,'The contents of any pot.'"

My response:
Then why agree to do a debate that DOES NOT include that "sense" in the definitions?
Why agree on definitions you don't agree with?

I would like readers to know that when Con's screen shot of "pot" definitions (without a citation), complete with a childish annotation, reads "Pro's BS definition," one can equate that to, "Pro's and Con's BS definition."

Con can complain that this definition isn't implied by the context, but Con agreed on the definitions that I provided 1st round; it's Con's BS definition too.

Also, some may find Con's challenging of definitions that were previously agreed on, per the rules of the debate, a conduct violation; I might be of that some.
If a voter thinks Con's challenging of accepted definitions is poor conduct, then that voter should express it in their RFD and point allocations.


*Voters Look Here*

Con destroys his case:
"I urge all voters to...[vote] on conduct only and to consider abstaining on every other category."

My response:
You heard him voters...Con wants you to abstain on every other category except for conduct, so you should ignore his arguments.
Con wishes to have his arguments ignored.

I however, urge voters to consider ALL of the point allocations for my arguments, because that is the voting system chosen for this debate, and this system was accepted and agreed on by Con.

One might consider this "urge" that Con is selling to be a conduct violation; I do.


*The Resolution Is True*

1. Iron Melts Before It Boils.

If one were to add external heat from "an oxy-acetylene torch" or "plasma cutter" to the solid iron/steel of the pot, the SOLID iron/steel would have to melt first before it could begin bubbling; the SOLID iron must become a molten LIQUID first.

A pot would basically have to look like this to boil:
https://www.youtube.com...

Notice that the molten iron in the video above is just barely boiling; notice there is no solid iron, in fact, the about-to-boil liquid iron is completely molten.

That means that "an unsupervised minor fiddling around in a kitchen...who is practicing using these tools" on a watched pot would only MELT, NOT BOIL, the pot at the particular locations these tools touch.
Thanks to gravity, the melted iron would either drop to the stovetop, or into the pot itself.

The melted iron that falls into the pot instantly cools, because that melted iron is no longer being heated, instead, it is losing heat to the solid, unheated iron it is now in contact with and getting further away from boiling.

The melted iron that falls to the stovetop would instantly destroy the stovetop.
Standard stovetops are made with glass-ceramic which contains B2O3, SiO2, Na2O.

B2O3 melts at 842°F.
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

SiO2 melts at 3110°F
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Na2O melts/sublimates at 2327°F
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The melted iron/steel that falls on to the stovetop is 3286°F
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

When 3286°F molten iron comes in contact with a standard stovetop, the stovetop's materials will melt, and the stovetop will cease to be.

The solid iron/steel cylindrical container would have to become completely molten in order for the iron it is composed of to boil, and by making the pot completely molten, WITH NO SOLID IRON LEFT, one would destroy the stovetop on which it must boil.

I encourage readers to imagine the lava-like molten iron, from the video I provided, on top of a standard stovetop.
Then I encourage readers to imagine adding EVEN MORE HEAT to that molten iron, in order to get it to boil.

This would destroy the stovetop, and thus there would be nothing boiling ON A STANDARD STOVETOP.

2. A Liquefied Pot Is Not A Pot.

Logically, once someone has used an external heat source to make the pot completely molten, to prepare it for boiling, the remaining liquid iron is neither a container nor cylindrical, thus is no longer a pot in this debate.

Since iron goes from solid-->liquid-->boiling, one could NEVER watch a cylindrical container boil ON A STANDARD STOVETOP.

Con asserts:
"At some point throughout all time, an iron pot will reach boiling temperature while it is on top of a standard stove while someone is watching."

My response:
No!
Once all of the iron in the pot becomes molten, it's no longer a container.
Once all of the iron in the pot becomes molten, the stovetop, upon which the pot sat, is destroyed.
Then, after all of that, one would still have to boil the molten iron sans pot and stovetop.

Con still tries:
"When Hiroshima was attacked, solid materials on the ground immediately below the burst reached surface temperatures of up to 4,000" C...it is not all that improbable that many people were cooking, and that someone happened to be looking at a pot on a stove that happened to be partially boiling at the time, as the boiling point of iron is known to be 2,862" C."

My response:
Iron, even exposed to 4,000"C, takes time to change states.
By the time the iron of the pot even began to melt from the radiation of the nuclear bomb, the human watching would be long melted, thus the human would be unable to watch the liquid iron boil on top of a no longer existing stovetop.

I affirm that a watched container made of iron will never boil on a standard stovetop, because:
1. The solid iron of the pot must become completely molten (no solid iron remaining) before it boils.
2. Molten iron melts standard stovetops.
3. Molten iron is no longer a pot, a container in this debate, because it is an amorphous liquid.

So, it is true that a watched pot NEVER boils on a standard stovetop.

Con?
Debate Round No. 3
MagicAintReal

Pro

I extend all of my arguments.
Also, readers should check out this video that I found below, because it shows how long it actually takes to melt iron/steel using a blow torch.

https://www.youtube.com...

Notice the intense heat ring that appears around the metal.
Readers should imagine this happening to a pot on a standard stovetop.

Thanks Con for the debate.
Voters, please vote Pro for all point allocations, and provide a sufficient RFD for each.
Death23

Con

Re: Conduct

Pro's says many things in response to my charge of misconduct. Pro claims that he "allowed for interested debaters to change the definitions before the debate". Pro claims that I had sufficient notice that Pro's definition was inaccurate. Pro claims that "there is no misleading being done." Pro protests the lack of a citation for my round 2 picture showing the definitions. Pro protests my annotation which describes Pro's definition as "PROS BS DEFINITION".

Absent from Pro's response is any explanation for his conduct. Let's be clear: Pro has no explanation as to why he advanced an inaccurate definition for the word "pot". Here's why Pro did it - Pro desired to trick a DDO user in to accepting a debate that appeared easy to win, but the debate was actually much more difficult to win than it appeared.

Pro's assertion that he allowed for definition changes is not true. I did, in fact, attempt to change the definition of the word "pot" before I posted my first argument. Pro refused this request for bogus reasons

This is the rule: "Definitions can be changed, in the comments section, before posting your first argument, as long as both Pro and Con agree." Merely stating "I accept" does not constitute posting an argument because "I accept" is not argument. If Pro were being honest, Pro would simply have stated that he declined to agree to a change in definition because it wouldn't have been to his advantage to do so as his entire argument was predicated on the inaccurate definition.

As to Pro's assertion that he provided sufficient notice of his inaccurate definition, this also isn't true. First, it is important to note that the degree of care which a reasonable DDO user might exercise in picking and choosing debate topics is not the same degree of care that a reasonable person would exercise in reading through the terms of a mortgage loan. This is an online debating community, and the outcome of these debates have little, if any, real-life consequences. So, the standard of care that a DDO user should be held accountable to is not hyper stringent.

Second - The resolution itself - "A watched pot never boils" - is a common idiom, and the meaning of "pot" within this idiom is the contents of the pot as opposed to the pot itself. Reading the debate title, a reasonable DDO user who is familiar with the idiom would plausibly operate under the mistaken belief that Pro intended to use the word "pot" to refer the contents of the pot, as the difference in the senses of "pot" are nuanced. For Pro' to have provided sufficient notice to reliably warn reasonable DDO users, Pro would have to have provided more than merely a single subtly inaccurate definition within a list of many accurate ones - Pro would have to have highlighted the fact that this one definition was bad in order to reliably forestall a prospective opponent's conclusion that Pro was not referring to the contents of the pot. However, Pro did no such thing. Rather, Pro knowingly and designedly provided insufficient notice of the fact that his definition was inaccurate, as Pro desired to cause and rely upon an opponent's mistaken understanding. In fact, when a DDO user described the problem with Pro's definitions in the comments section, Pro took exception to the fact that his trap (i.e. lie) had been revealed for all to see:

Pro wanted his BS to remain hidden, as a trap once seen is less likely to work. This was not a case where Pro accidentally defined "pot" in the way that he did by choosing the wrong sense of the word by mistake. Had that been the case, then Pro would have endeavored to correct the mistake after it was brought to his attention by amending his debate, but Pro didn't do that. Rather, Pro's opening argument is predicated entirely on his inaccurate definition.

Creating trap debates should not be rewarded; It should be punished and discouraged. A debating environment with deceptive trickery and "gotcha" argumentation is not desirable. Trap debates are garbage content that cause a lack of trust between users. Pro's misconduct should be punished.

As to Pro's protest of my lack of citation to a source for my picture of definitions for "pot", the source was the same as Pro's. Here's the link -

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

As to Pro's protest that I called his definition a "BS DEFINITION" - That characterization was entirely accurate. Pro's definition is BS.

As to Pro's assertion that he had no intention to mislead - This is simply a lie. Pro did intend to mislead. That was Pro's plan from the get go.


Re: The arguments about the pot

Pro's first response is to assert that if an oxy-acetylene torch or plasma cutter is used on an iron or stainless steel pot, then only melting will occur. Pro's contention that only melting occurs is supported only with Pro's conjecture, and is not consistent with observation. When iron or stainless steel is worked on with an oxy-acetylene torch or a plasma cutter, more than merely melting occurs. This is known because metal vapors resulting from the use of these tools are well documented and are actually an occupation hazard for welders and other workers involved in metal fabrication. See for yourself -

"torch cutting converts small metal particles into metal vapor. When the vapor cools and condenses back into particles it forms visible or invisible fumes. [...] Metal cutting – all types including laser, plasma and oxyacetylene"

http://www.clarcorindustrialair.com... Pages 1 & 2

https://www3.epa.gov... Pages 2 & 3

Pro's second rebuttal focuses on the materials of standard stovetops. Pro provides a list of materials used in the construction of standard stovetops, and argues that if a melted pot came in to contact with a standard stovetop, the "melted iron that falls to the stovetop would instantly destroy the stovetop."

This contention by Pro is weak. When iron or stainless steel is worked on with an oxy-acetylene torch or a plasma cutter, the heated portion of the worked metal is rather small as it is localized to the point of contact with the flame or plasma. The amount of molten material generated by these tools is small and insufficient to "instantly destroy" a stovetop. Rather, any melted material coming in to contact with the stove would cause only minor, localized damage, and the melted material would quickly cool to the point where no further damage would occur. See a plasma cutter cutting for yourself -

https://www.youtube.com...

Pro's third response is that "a liquefied pot is not a pot." Pro states that "once someone has used an external heat source to make the pot completely molten, to prepare it for boiling, the remaining liquid iron is neither a container nor cylindrical, thus is no longer a pot".

This contention by Pro is weak because the resolution is not "a watched pot never entirely boils on a standard stovetop"; Rather, the resolution is only "a watched pot never boils on a standard stovetop". It is not necessary to "make the pot completely molten" to boil the pot. Partial boiling is sufficient, and a pot is still a pot even though merely part of it has become vapor and the rest remains. This is what an oxy-acetylene torch or plasma cutter will do - Partially convert a pot to vapor while it is being watched.

None of Pro's arguments stand up to scrutiny. Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 4
164 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
I will, right after your ELO gets passed 3,000...
Posted by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
Just post here if you change your mind about chickening out.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
I know it's like my ELO is so low I really need this win...nope I'm married with two kids, I'm a successful teacher and coach, I do this in my free time, and I still manage to have credible voters produce quality RFDs for my arguments, and, in my estimation, since this wasn't a seal = sea lion debate, you crapped your bed.
I'm winning already.
Posted by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
Obviously you didn't win
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Nah, given the better RFDs in my favor, I'm satisfied with this. In fact, to me the RFD is the most important part, and the ones against me were simply errant and retaliatory, hence, I don't need a rematch; this one's already a win for me.
Posted by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
The only reasonable thing to do is to have a rematch by debating the topic again and then we'll settle this once and for all!
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Raisor// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con suffers from forfeiting one of his rebuttals. Many of his last round arguments could have influenced the outcome of the debate, but I did not consider them as they were new, Pro has no chance to rebut them, and Con had forfeited a chance to make the arguments earlier. Pro set the definitions in R1 and Con accepted, I buy PRo's case that Con consented and the R1 definitions stand. I am open to theoretical arguments that Con should still have a chance to dispute definitions, but not when the are presented in th last round of the debate. On nuclear weapons - I buy Pro's argument that nukes would kill an observer. Con's final argument about torching a pot is a little tougher - had Con made his last round arguments earlier I probably would have voted for him, but I am ignoring almost all of the new stuff since he forfeited a round. Even so, I narrowly vote Pro that a the damage torch does to a pot couldn't be considered "boiling a pot"

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter clearly explains their decision within the context of the debate, referencing arguments made by both sides and explaining how they factored into the outcome.
************************************************************************
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Unifierous then there's no conduct violation for a trap debate. How can you have it both ways???
Posted by uniferous 1 year ago
uniferous
@Magicaintreal - You said that there were no round rules other than the above rule (that the first round was acceptance). Therefore, passing a round is not a bad conduct violation as he never broke a rule. Because of this I do not penalize the fact that Con passes a round.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Conduct can't be awarded for something that occurred outside the debate, though he appeared to justify it based mainly on the perception that this was a trap debate. I disagree with the reasoning, but that's not a reason for removal.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by uniferous 1 year ago
uniferous
MagicAintRealDeath23Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments.
Vote Placed by Raisor 1 year ago
Raisor
MagicAintRealDeath23Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con suffers from forfeiting one of his rebuttals. Many of his last round arguments could have influenced the outcome of the debate, but I did not consider them as they were new, Pro has no chance to rebut them, and Con had forfeited a chance to make the arguments earlier. Pro set the definitions in R1 and Con accepted, I buy PRo's case that Con consented and the R1 definitions stand. I am open to theoretical arguments that Con should still have a chance to dispute definitions, but not when the are presented in th last round of the debate. On nuclear weapons - I buy Pro's argument that nukes would kill an observer. Con's final argument about torching a pot is a little tougher - had Con made his last round arguments earlier I probably would have voted for him, but I am ignoring almost all of the new stuff since he forfeited a round. Even so, I narrowly vote Pro that a the damage torch does to a pot couldn't be considered "boiling a pot"
Vote Placed by Petfish 1 year ago
Petfish
MagicAintRealDeath23Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
MagicAintRealDeath23Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: http://www.debate.org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/84432/
Vote Placed by Hoppi 1 year ago
Hoppi
MagicAintRealDeath23Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Haha I loved this debate! I don't think it was a trap debate. Pro provided all the definitions clearly in round 1, and given the resolution I think it's reasonable to suppose that he had some kind of argument in reserve, given that the contents of pots on the stove clearly do boil when watched. Con's argument that a watched pot could partially boil when the heat of an oxy-acetyline torch is applied was convincing. It's true that the metal would melt first (Pro's argument), but the top of the pot could melt and boil without destroying the stovetop (as Con argued), and Pro didn't explain why the whole pot would have to melt and once, therefore his argument that that it would no longer be a pot was not convincing. So arguments to Con.