The Instigator
madamouiselle
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
likespeace
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

With or without the butter for croissant?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
likespeace
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,018 times Debate No: 29052
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

madamouiselle

Con

The butter on the croissant is not the way it should be eaten! I am telling you many people have disagreed and they are eating not with just jam, cheese or ham but with the BUTTER?! Butter is definitely for harder breads I must guarantee this! PLEASE admit it!
likespeace

Pro

I accept! As you are the instigator, and have a point to prove, I will allow you to present your case first.

While you are arguing, "The butter on the croissant is not the way it should be eaten!", I will be arguing there is no one right way to enjoy a croissant, and that an individual's values and/or preferences should dictate the matter.

Good luck, and may you enjoy your first debates on this site. :)
Debate Round No. 1
madamouiselle

Con

The following intro might bore you but you must first understand in detail what a PROPER croissant would taste, feel, smell and look like. What I mean is that although there are many bakeries in the world making them, not all will be giving you a proper quality one, often too soggy or too crispy is the case I think. Also, this is not applying to "chocolate croissants" it is only applying to the real deal:


<a href=http://www.debate.org...; width="255" height="191" />Okay...

So really what is a croissant officially and if properly made?

Taken straight from wikipedia [http://tinyurl.com...] we get a brief overview that it is a buttery flaky viennoiserie bread roll named for its well known crescent shape. Croissants and other viennoiserie are made of a layered yeast-leavened dough. The dough is layered with butter, rolled and folded several times in succession, then rolled into a sheet, in a technique called laminating. The process results in a layered, flaky texture, similar to a puff pastry.


Observe carefully what this source has told us... The dough is ALREADY layered with butter.

This means if you are going for taste or nutrients, the butter is already in the dough anyone who has had a croissant will definitely agree I think).

So... Why is is WRONG to butter it?

Well If I were to take a hot dog bun and start covering it with flour before I put the sausage on and then ate it it is clearly disgusting and stupid to do. Also, if I were to take an ice cream cone and before putting the ice cream on I sprinkle 'coney bits' into the cone you would also say I am being stupid.

So when you try putting butter, which by the way is very fattening and thus unhealthy for the person with average metabolism (to have on top of all the butter in the dough) http://tinyurl.com...

However for me nothing is worse than when they put the butter, then put cheese and then toast the whole thing... What I am saying is that the butter dissolves into dough (which already has it) and the butter and cheese both are very fattening and bad for heart!
likespeace

Pro

1. The Redundancy Argument

> "The dough is ALREADY layered with butter. This means if you are going for taste or
nutrients, the butter is already in the dough."

a. Quantity matters. A chocolate chip cookie with one chocolate chip usually tastes different
than a chocolate chip cookie of the same size with a dozen chips. This is one reason
cookbooks suggest quantities and stores sell them in large packages. Likewise, extra
butter isn't redundant. It changes--many say improves--the taste.

b. Absurdity! What if you agree with the redundancy argument? Then you must also believe
that buttering bread, waffles, or pancakes doesn't affect its taste. That's because those
recipes also typically list butter as one of the ingredients! And so, if you agree
buttering any of those alters their taste, you must reject the redundancy argument.

The Redundancy Argument is doubly refuted!

2. It's disgusting.

If Con finds buttering croissants disgusting, she shouldn't butter them. That says nothing of what others should do!

3. It's stupid.

If Con finds buttering croissants stupid, she shouldn't butter them. That says nothing of what others should do!

4. Buttered croissants are less healthy!

Flatly untrue! But I can at least understand how Pro came to this faulty conclusion. :)

Consider her case:

A whole croissant has 380 calories.[1]
A whole croissant plus an entire pat of butter has 416 calories.

If we ignore that eating a croissant isn't so healthy to begin with, doesn't butter makes it worse?

The problem, my friends, is that this is a false dichotomy! In lieu of eating a whole croissant, one may choose to eat 1/2 a croissant plus 1/2 a pat of butter. In fact, one can choose to eat as many or as few calories as one likes, buttered or unbuttered, by simply controlling the size of their portions. Personally, I like to share my deserts!

One may similarly choose to eat as many or as few grams of fat as one likes.

And so, Con's fourth and final argument is refuted.
Debate Round No. 2
madamouiselle

Con

madamouiselle forfeited this round.
likespeace

Pro

My opponent has the burden of proof to show, "The butter on the croissant is not the way it should be eaten!"

While I should already win by virtue of having refuting my opponent's arguments in the previous round and their concession via a complete lack of defense, I now present two arguments in favor of adding butter--

Arguments

A. It adds flavor, moisture, and richness.

B. It acts as a barrier to prevent the moisture in any filling from soaking into the bread.

Evidence

While these may be self-evident to prolific chefs in the audience, I present the following--

"A spread is used to add flavor, moisture and richness... Some spreads, especially plain or flavored butters, also act as a barrier to prevent the moisture in the filling from soaking into the bread." --- "On Cooking"[1]

"On Cooking" has 5-star reviews on Amazon and is used as a primary course book by many colleges and culinary schools. The author is in fact the founder of one of America's culinary schools. [2]

Sources

[1] "On Cooking", third edition, pg 828
[2] http://www.amazon.com...

Debate Round No. 3
madamouiselle

Con

madamouiselle forfeited this round.
likespeace

Pro

I extend all my arguments and refutations, which remain unchallenged by my opponent.
Debate Round No. 4
madamouiselle

Con

madamouiselle forfeited this round.
likespeace

Pro

Con intended to prove, "One should not butter their croissants."

I've presented two arguments in favor of buttering croissants, sourced from a famous culinary text.

Con argued that she feels buttering croissants is "disgusting" and "stupid". While that's a compelling reason why she should not butter her croissants, it's not a compelling reason why others who feel differently should not butter theirs.

Con presented the Redundancy Argument--croissants already have butter, so adding butter is redundant. First, I countered that the quantity of ingredients matter. Second, I pointed out that this argument is somewhat absurd since the logical conclusion is that one shouldn't butter the vast majority of breads, pancakes, or waffles.

Finally, Con argued that eating buttered croissants means eating more fat. However, one is not obligated to eat the whole croissant, and may limit their fat and calorie intake with portion control in either case.

Con had the burden of proof, but neither challenged my arguments, nor attempted to defend her own.

Thanks for reading this debate. :)
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
"Ay de mi! Why do newcomers flee, when a strong argument they see?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by utahjoker 4 years ago
utahjoker
madamouisellelikespeaceTied
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: FF and Pro gave good reasoning
Vote Placed by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
madamouisellelikespeaceTied
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: Full forfeit.
Vote Placed by CIIReligion 4 years ago
CIIReligion
madamouisellelikespeaceTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: CON forfeited, but PRO had a better argument anyways!
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
madamouisellelikespeaceTied
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: F.F.