A Watched Pot Never Boils

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 definitionIs 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.