Chopsticks are better than forks

"No I didn't because I didn't stop there. The argument is that a fork can do anything that chopsticks can do, while chopsticks can't do everything a fork can do. You only gave examples of things that both a fork and chopsticks can do. That does not prove your claim that chopsticks are superior to a fork. "I did not only give examples of things that both of them can do. (From Round 1)In addition to what chopsticks can do, I added things that they can do better, which are "precision manipulation of food at a higher degree," "easier producibility," "higher cleanibility," "more design potential," and "that they are better at cutting food without assistance from other hand." The things I mentioned as ties are "amount of food that can be picked up," "food piercing."Please do read my arguments carefully, and pay attention to the comparative adjectives in my sentences.Folding food Folding food is not only used when you are eating rice paper. For example, let's say you are eating a salad. And let's say for the sake of argument, every lettice piece is too large to fit in your mouth at once. You attempt to eat them using a fork, you will get the dressing all over the sides of your mouth, but with a pair of chopsticks, you can just fold the lettice leaves into a smaller size and put them into your mouth without a mess. Or when you are eating a lengthy, thin piece of beef with a fork, you will need to cut it when eating with a fork, but with a pair of chopsticks, you can just fold it and eat it.Of course it is a matter of preference if you want to get the dressing on you chicks or eat it cleanly. However, when it comes to judging how better a tool something is, the personal preference is irrelevant. A killer may prefer stabbing over shooting, but that does not mean a knife is superior to a gun. This is as relevant as it gets, it is about manipulation of food."Picking up floating piecesThis depends on the food, and a person's skill level on both untensils. Ill leave this one to the voters."I can say the same thing about foks, when you told me about cutting steak. This depends on food, and a person's skill level on both utensils. This is just a bad argument. In fact, all of our previous argument depended on food, wouldn't you agree? You tried to tell me chopsticks are worse at eating steak, cake and icecream. I could have said, "well it depends on food and your skill, so it does not matter." Instead, I rebutted your arguments by stating that chopsticks can be used to eat those foods at least as well as, if not better than, with chopsticks, and how they can be used.And the point I was making was that it requires less work to pick up a floating piece of food with chopsticks than with a fork, and it was a very solid and irrefuttable argument. You do not even have to be that skilled to do that with chopsticks, so the skill level is what is irrelevant here."Picking up a piece of food on top of a bowl of food It can be easily done by scooping it up with a fork."I mentioned scooping with a fork in the "picking up floating pieces" part. I just did not think I had to mention the same thing twice. I said that it increased the chance of you dropping the food. This is a very unstable use, and thusly, chopsticks perform better. Also, you have less control of what you pick up with a fork."Yes this is what we are debating about. That was an introductory claim not an argument. You don't need to rebutt that."I was not rebutting it. I was focusing more on the following sentence."This is one of the few advantages that chopsticks have over forks. But we have is it enough to overcome the superiority of forks when it comes to functionality? I don't think so." I was saying, this does not hold place before the argument any way. This is closer to conclusion, not thesis."Not at all. I cut beef and pork with a fork all the time with ease. This would be nearly impossible with chopsticks. Also a fork's spikes can perforate and make it even easier to cut the piece of meat."As a user of chopsticks AND forks, I disagree. You need to press down really hard with a fork to cut through, for example, a pork chop. From time to time, I had to use both my hands, depending on the quality of the meat. However, since the nature of cutting using chopsticks is "splitting" it is almost always easier.C1A. Let's say the same person takes longer to learn to use chopsticks. But he can use the chopsticks to do all the things he could never do with the hook, and there is nothing he can not do that he could do with the hook. Now, which is the better utensil? Learning curve is irrelevant. It is irrelevant especially when you consider learning chopsticks do not even take that long a time. It only takes a coordinated person couple of hours of practice, or a slow learning person only a month or two. I do not like to say "master" because they are forks and chopsticks, there is nothing to master. But mastering does not take that long either. Once you can use either utensil, mastering is just a matter of time. Even if someone takes a year to master something it is still only a tiny portion of life of a person. It is not like learning to play guitar or cello, learning curve is irrelevant.C1B. That would be relevant if everyone had to go through "dominant hand amputation" at one point in his or her life. And it is not harder to do hold food down with chopsticks as you cut it. All you need is two anchor points, and chopsticks can provide it. And if the meat is so tough that you "have to" switch hands(people do so, not because it is not possible, but because they find it more convenient to cut with right hand), may be you shouldn't be eating that.C1C. I should have been clearer. I was saying it was more relevant than the learning curve. I was agreeing it is less relevant than the functionalities.C2. I did address this in C3.C. of Round 2.C3A. The only reason I decided to add a scenario where you will be using scissors, was because you were already including the use of knife. You cannot give yourself and your opponent different sets of rules. And adding spoon will add the same number of advantages to both chopsticks and forks.C3B. It is nothing like skewering with a spoon. They have totally different contact area, and you do not need additional effort, unless the food is very slippery and you are using a metal chopstick which is only used in Korea anyway.C3C. D. I said chopsticks can be used to eat those things at the same or higher efficiency, and I stated how, they will be and are used. Do not just say things, prove them. When I make a statement, I always try to support with an evidence, but you do not seem to be making the same effort. Include evidences, or your words carry no weight. Say why they are inefficient.C4. TV dinners only need one hole on each section, and they usually have three to four sections. This means it requires three to four stabs, regardless of which utensil you use. So a fork has no advantage over a chopstick here.However.... Above Korean Cup ramen requires you to punch in three holes on the cover to drain water (you can see the three pre-perforated white round spots at the top). This cannot be achieved with a fork at all(unless the fork is damaged and has only one prong) without damaging the rest of paper cover.Do not say this is irrelevant, you brought it up.C5. Prove it, you cannot just say something and expect your opponent to accept it. A pair of chopsticks perform better than a lone fork as I proved. You almost never need assistance from the other hand when using chopsticks. Obviously, you do need that when using a fork (knife to cut, spoon for scooping). In all cases where you may need to switch to a spoon from chopsticks (when there is too much broth or when you are eating soup), you need to switch to spoon from fork as well, so fork does not necessarily perform better with a spoon.CW - Chopsticks win! (See what I did there? I don't even need "for the" part, because it is so obvious)