I contend that the adage "How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood" remains unresolved. The answer "as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood" is not a satisfactory answer.
The con side will be arguing that this answer is indeed satisfactory.
I agree that the answer "as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood" is not quantitative. However given the amount of information known about the woodchuck I feel that this is the best answer available, and therefore the answer must be satisfactory as no more specific answer is possible.
I concur with your assessment that the aforementioned answer is the most specific answer possible given the available information about the hypothetical woodchuck and the wood he would be chucking. However I disagree that the answer given by the tongue twister is satisfactory. The answer given was inherently known before the question was even asked. Obviously the maximum amount of wood the woodchuck could chuck would be the maximum amount the woodchuck could chuck. The answer given is an axiomatic truth. It doesn't better define the woodchuck's chucking ability any more than the question being asked did. For this reason I maintain that the answer given is unsatisfactory.
Reasons for voting decision: "The answer must be satisfactory as no more specific answer is possible. The point of the answer was to provide a whimsical conclusion to the tongue twister. It meets that requirement."
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.