The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Lexicaholic
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points

A man can have his cake and eat it but a woman can't.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,916 times Debate No: 8299
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (7)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

"You can't have your cake and eat it". On the face of it, this idiom doesn't make sense. I mean you could go to the bakers and buy a cake, in which case you would 'have it' and on the way home you could 'eat it'. But this isn't what the saying means. 'Have it', in this context, is meant in the sexual sense.

That's right. So, a man could go to the bakers and buy, say, a chocolate �clair and (hopefully in the privacy of his own home) insert himself into it and, using his hand to apply pressure to the cream-filled confection, move it vigorously up and down until he goes off. Then he could eat it. It might be a bit salty, but anyway, it should still be edible.

This wouldn't be possible for a woman to do, which is why, presumably, they don't attempt it (as far as I know).

It is, therefore, affirmed that a man can have his cake and eat it, but a woman can't.

I thank you.

http://www1.istockphoto.com...
A chocolate �clair yesterday (prior to being had and eaten).
Lexicaholic

Con

The issue is whether or not a man can both have a cake and eat it as well where as a woman can not. I propose that, assuming the same cake, no person, man or woman, can be in a position to have the cake and to have eaten the cake at the same time.

""You can't have your cake and eat it". On the face of it, this idiom doesn't make sense."
- If you have, that is to say 'are in possession of', your cake, it must not have been eaten. If, on the contrary, you have eaten the cake (that is to say, you eat it) the cake is no longer in your possession. Note that personal integration through digestion is not the same as possession, as one state suggests separation from oneself and the other suggests unification with oneself. Therefore, the idiom makes sense, if you understand the two states in regards to the cake to be occurring simultaneously.

"'Have it', in this context, is meant in the sexual sense."
-It is unnecessary to redefine have it in a sexual context, as no matter what aspect of one's physiology one uses to store or display the cake, or for what purposes one engages in said storage or display, one is still at the moment of having it 'in possession of' the cake. For the purposes of the idiom, the definitions are interchangeable, as one state (having it as in having at it) is a subset of the other state (having it as normal people think of it).

"It is, therefore, affirmed that a man can have his cake and eat it, but a woman can't."
- This is not at all affirmed.

"http://www1.istockphoto.com......
A chocolate �clair yesterday (prior to being had and eaten)."
-In the interests of full disclosure, I did not review your pictorial evidence. I believe I will be a happier person for having not done so, and, rating my happiness above my need for full examination of the issue in this one instance, I believe I will not review this picture in the future.

Have a good weekend, and please avoid my local bakery.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I extend my thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate.

However, with the greatest respect, I must contradict his assertion that neither a man nor a woman can have a cake and eat it and will do so by using the following hypothetical scenario:

A bachelor has bought a large chocolate �clair and he has just started to eat it when there is a knock at the door.

It is the big fat bloke from next door who has come round to borrow a steak and kidney pudding and a few cans of lager. As he comes in, he eyes the �clair greedily and the following conversation ensues:

Fat Neighbour: What have you got there?

Cake Eater: It's the cake that I am eating with my afternoon tea.

Fat Neighbour: I see, so you have a cake and you are eating it?

Cake Eater: That's right. Er, would you like to share it?

Fat Neighbour: Well, I can't help noticing that it's very squashed and most of the cream has been squeezed out. In fact, what cream is left looks more like wallpaper paste than a sugary dairy product, but yeah, I'll help you eat it, thanks very much.

You see, by my opponent's reasoning, unless you eat your cake in one mouthful, you can have it and eat it (and, indeed, share it).

However, this grammatical argument is very convoluted and I still maintain that the meaning of "have" in this famous phrase is the sexual one.

Thank you.
Lexicaholic

Con

I thank my opponent for his response ... sort of. I was actually hoping he would forget about this argument and I could spam this last section with meaningless drivel. Oh well, on to the argument:

My opponent attempts to posit that, while no man or woman alone could have a cake, in the sense that he has propounded, while also eating the cake, two men could accomplish both at the same time. As disturbing as this suggestion is hilarious, my opponent's argument is in error. His assertion was that "a" man can have "his" cake and eat it but "a" woman can't, which limits this discussion to comparing the capabilities of two singular individuals, one a man and the other a woman. This is not an argument as to whether or not men can have their cake and eat it while women can not, but whether or not a man can have his cake and eat it where a woman can't. Consequently, his counter-argument is outside the scope of this debate's consideration.

The fact remains that my opponent is describing an individual who has, in the sense he has put forth, a cake, while also eating a cake. Because my opponent uses the present continuous form of both verbs, these states of having and eating must occur simultaneously. (See http://en.wikipedia.org... ) By reiterating his limitation of having in the sexual sense, my opponent actually harms his own argument, as a broader scope of have might be argued to still exist for the cake material held but uneaten in a person's mouth at the time of eating. Assuming, however, that the man posited in the argument is an ordinary man, it is unlikely that erogenous stimulation will take place orally. As my opponent has not suggested that this man is out of the ordinary, except in his fondness for eclairs, it is logical to assume no oral stimulation in a sense that would amount to having (as that word is intended in this argument).

In conclusion, within the limits set out by my opponent's assertion, neither a man nor a woman can have a cake and eat it. I thank my opponent for having this debate (in the ordinary sense of the word 'have'), and urge you to vote Con!
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Right-vs-Left 7 years ago
Right-vs-Left
1 shirt $16.88
cab ride $26.37
chocolate éclair $24
another cab ride $26.37
walking up your stairs 5049 calories
bolt lock $6.92
dinning room tables $76.09
Belt $9.84
"Having" your cake and eating it too..... Priceless

LMAFO
"Have a good weekend, and please avoid my local bakery."
HOW RICH
Posted by nonentity 7 years ago
nonentity
"Have a good weekend, and please avoid my local bakery."

LMFAO
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
Too far, Brian, even for you.
Posted by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
I think the problem is confusion as to what 'in the sexual sense means.' I was assuming sexual stimulation, not ... er, release. I assumed that was just a result of having it. Re-reading my opponent's second argument I see that he was thinking about it differently. Oh well, it was funny at least.
Posted by feverish 8 years ago
feverish
Great stuff guys.
Pro disproved Con's point about eating and 'having' needing to be simultaneous, but I think Con could have triumphed by pointing out the kinds of cakes that a woman might be able to insert.
Can't vote anyway, good luck to both.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
brian_egglestonLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by nrw 8 years ago
nrw
brian_egglestonLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 8 years ago
pcmbrown
brian_egglestonLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by thejudgeisgod 8 years ago
thejudgeisgod
brian_egglestonLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
brian_egglestonLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
brian_egglestonLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
brian_egglestonLexicaholicTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03