In the book 'Faults in our Stars' the grenade metaphor that is used is not good.

My opponent propounded several points against the grenade metaphor. The short layout of his arguments is that the grenade metaphor is not applicable due to several logistical functionalities of the grenade which, when literally applied to Hazel's situation, would be categorically dissimilar. My opponent then proposes two 'better' alternatives as more literally correct metaphors. (IT'S A TRAP!) As I will proceed to show, the grenade metaphor does not need to be literally applicable (although it is to a certain extent, which I will also argue because why not). I have two contentions, each of which, if uncontested is sufficient in affirming the CON position. Again, if I can show that the grenade metaphor is good as per the resolution (regardless of my opponent's arguments), I win the debate. Contention 1: The grenade metaphor is good, or adequate, as a metaphor. Being a metaphor, it needs not contain literal, analogical properties in order to suffice as a metaphor. As long as a connection can be plausibly made to analogize the situation to which the metaphor applies, the metaphor is sufficient, adequate - good. The situation to which the author attributes the metaphor is one of inevitable death and resulting pain to the surrounding area of the social network. When my opponent first introduced me to this scenario in round 1, I immediately drew a connection between the grenade metaphor to the protagonist's predicament: grenades explode and cause pain to the surrounding area and death at its epicenter; the protagonist is the grenade of cancer which is the area of maximum pain (death), and the pain the protagonist will cause will span radially outward with those closer to the center (socially closer to the protagonist) experiencing more emotional pain than those further from it (socially more distanced from the protagonist). My understanding of the metaphor is, however, not absolute. As long as the metaphor is applicably understood by any reader, it is sufficient to say that the metaphor is adequate or good. A subset of contention 1 will have me argue that just because a good metaphor, metaphor X has better, more literally applicable metaphors, doesn't mean that metaphor X should be automatically discounted. Metaphor X is still a good metaphor regardless of whether or not it has superiors. Contention 2: Literal analogical applications of the grenade metaphor DO exist!! (which, I must say, due to the definition of a metaphor, does not need to be proven, but since my opponent's entire argument is based on literal analogical applications of metaphors, I might as well be a sport): I will relate back to and quote from my first contention and add a little more to it to hammer the nail into that coffin. "grenades explode and cause pain to the surrounding area and death at its epicenter; the protagonist is the grenade of cancer which is the area of maximum pain (death), and the pain the protagonist will cause will span radially outward with those closer to the center (socially closer to the protagonist) experiencing more emotional pain than those further from it (socially more distanced from the protagonist)." <--(aha! literal application!). Basically, the situation the grenade metaphor is meant to analogize is the radial explosion of pain around the grenade with a spectrum of those closest experiencing the most pain and those further away experiencing lesser to no pain. It has nothing to do with manipulation. There is also something that I noticed exclusively about my opponent's argument against the grenade metaphor: Hazel, being a grenade, is at the control of her immediate relations to be unpinned and thrown. This would, indeed, create some literal issues with the metaphor. But let's take it from another perspective. The grenade is being controlled by a third, unrelated person, let's call this person GOD. GOD is the one who unpins and throws the grenade (Hazel) at Hazel's family and friends. This point of view effectively negates a good portion of my opponent's points of contention. Now for some rebuttals to some moot points: Not all grenades are lethal, but Hazel's cancer is definitely lethal. Not all cancers are lethal, but Hazel's cancer just happens to be lethal. Not all grenades are lethal, but the grenade named Hazel just happens to be lethal. Grenades are thrown away. None of Hazel's immediate/close relations is going to throw her away. GOD (the third person) is the one who threw the grenade at Hazel's relations, so this doesn't apply. Grenades detonate at will, cancer doesn't kill via a specified timer (not a willed death). True, but GOD is the one who unpins and times the grenade. Of course no one else knows when Hazel will detonate. GOD is the one who did the unpinning. Only GOD knows when Hazel will die. Grenades cannot be manipulated after the pin is removed and will explode at a set time. Hazel's treatment manipulates the time of explosion after the 'pin' has been removed, which is impossible. I can either be extremely pedantic about this one or I can let it slide................ What if the treatment, the manipulation, doesn't really buy Hazel any time at all? The treatment providers think they're extending Hazel's life span, but Hazel's life span has already been predetermined. The pin was pulled at birth. She will die when she is destined to die. Hazel is a grenade because her short life and subsequent death will cause pain in a radius around her. Again, this has nothing to do with manipulation (this is the extent to which I understood the metaphor; yay pedanticism (not a word D:)). Better metaphors: Tsunami/Tidalwave, volcanoes These metaphors utterly fail to emulate the situation to which the grenade metaphor attempts to analogize: the radial explosion of pain with the epicenter being the core of maximal pain. Tsunamis and Tidal Waves do not have epicenters with pain radially decremented. Volcanoes cause pain in a radial pattern, but pain does not decrease with decreasing radius; it remains the same throughout its reach. Let me wrap up by summoning my points back onto the table: Being a metaphor, it needs not contain literal, analogical properties in order to suffice as a metaphor. As long as a connection can be plausibly made to analogize the situation to which the metaphor applies, the metaphor is sufficient, adequate - good. A subset of contention 1 will have me argue that just because a good metaphor, metaphor X has better, more literally applicable metaphors, doesn't mean that metaphor X should be automatically discounted. Metaphor X is still a good metaphor regardless of whether or not it has superiors. the situation the grenade metaphor is meant to analogize is the radial explosion of pain around the grenade with a spectrum of those closest experiencing the most pain and those further away experiencing lesser to no pain. It has nothing to do with manipulation.