A Watched Pot Never Boils

*Trap Debate*The idea of this debate being a "trap debate" seems very ridiculous to me.This debate allowed for interested debaters to change the definitions before the debate, and accepting debates on this site is optional.Before Con accepted this debate, Con was presented with:1. A full resolution2. A very thorough set of sourced definitions of terms within the resolution3. An option to change the definitions before posting first round4. AN OPTION TO NOT ACCEPT THE DEBATECon ignored or waived all of the above, and then claimed it was a trap once he consented.What kind of trap shows you everything in the trap, allows you to change the trap, and never forces you into the trap?trap - a trick by which someone is misled into acting contrary to their interests or intentions.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Con is acting contrary to his interests WITH informed consent. I instigated a debate with full disclosure, so there is no misleading being done...Con just wasn't paying attention.Now, Con regrets it, and expects it to cost me a conduct point.*Conduct*Pardon the direct reference, but Con accusing me of poor conduct seems like the pot calling the kettle black.In the first round, it clearly states that the definitions listed are agreed on by posting your first argument.Since Con did not attempt to change the definitions before posting his first argument, and then posted his first argument, Con has agreed to the definitions.However, the first half of Con's 2nd round challenged one of the definitions...Con whines:"[Pro] advances a subtly inaccurate definition that, if it were accepted as accurate, would grant the instigator a significant advantage."My response:Con, you accepted and agreed to the inaccurate definition that grants me a significant advantage; you were made aware of this in the first round.Con continues:"...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.'"My response:Then why agree to do a debate that DOES NOT include that "sense" in the definitions?Why agree on definitions you don't agree with?I would like readers to know that when Con's screen shot of "pot" definitions (without a citation), complete with a childish annotation, reads "Pro's BS definition," one can equate that to, "Pro's and Con's BS definition."Con can complain that this definition isn't implied by the context, but Con agreed on the definitions that I provided 1st round; it's Con's BS definition too.Also, some may find Con's challenging of definitions that were previously agreed on, per the rules of the debate, a conduct violation; I might be of that some.If a voter thinks Con's challenging of accepted definitions is poor conduct, then that voter should express it in their RFD and point allocations.*Voters Look Here*Con destroys his case:"I urge all voters to...[vote] on conduct only and to consider abstaining on every other category."My response:You heard him voters...Con wants you to abstain on every other category except for conduct, so you should ignore his arguments.Con wishes to have his arguments ignored.I however, urge voters to consider ALL of the point allocations for my arguments, because that is the voting system chosen for this debate, and this system was accepted and agreed on by Con.One might consider this "urge" that Con is selling to be a conduct violation; I do.*The Resolution Is True*1. Iron Melts Before It Boils.If one were to add external heat from "an oxy-acetylene torch" or "plasma cutter" to the solid iron/steel of the pot, the SOLID iron/steel would have to melt first before it could begin bubbling; the SOLID iron must become a molten LIQUID first.A pot would basically have to look like this to boil:Notice that the molten iron in the video above is just barely boiling; notice there is no solid iron, in fact, the about-to-boil liquid iron is completely molten.That means that "an unsupervised minor fiddling around in a kitchen...who is practicing using these tools" on a watched pot would only MELT, NOT BOIL, the pot at the particular locations these tools touch.Thanks to gravity, the melted iron would either drop to the stovetop, or into the pot itself.The melted iron that falls into the pot instantly cools, because that melted iron is no longer being heated, instead, it is losing heat to the solid, unheated iron it is now in contact with and getting further away from boiling.The melted iron that falls to the stovetop would instantly destroy the stovetop.Standard stovetops are made with glass-ceramic which contains B2O3, SiO2, Na2O.B2O3 melts at 842°F.https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...SiO2 melts at 3110°Fhttps://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Na2O melts/sublimates at 2327°Fhttps://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...The melted iron/steel that falls on to the stovetop is 3286°Fhttp://www.engineeringtoolbox.com...When 3286°F molten iron comes in contact with a standard stovetop, the stovetop's materials will melt, and the stovetop will cease to be.The solid iron/steel cylindrical container would have to become completely molten in order for the iron it is composed of to boil, and by making the pot completely molten, WITH NO SOLID IRON LEFT, one would destroy the stovetop on which it must boil.I encourage readers to imagine the lava-like molten iron, from the video I provided, on top of a standard stovetop.Then I encourage readers to imagine adding EVEN MORE HEAT to that molten iron, in order to get it to boil.This would destroy the stovetop, and thus there would be nothing boiling ON A STANDARD STOVETOP.2. A Liquefied Pot Is Not A Pot.Logically, once someone has used an external heat source to make the pot completely molten, to prepare it for boiling, the remaining liquid iron is neither a container nor cylindrical, thus is no longer a pot in this debate.Since iron goes from solid-->liquid-->boiling, one could NEVER watch a cylindrical container boil ON A STANDARD STOVETOP.Con asserts:"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."My response:No!Once all of the iron in the pot becomes molten, it's no longer a container.Once all of the iron in the pot becomes molten, the stovetop, upon which the pot sat, is destroyed. Then, after all of that, one would still have to boil the molten iron sans pot and stovetop.Con still tries:"When Hiroshima was attacked, solid materials on the ground immediately below the burst reached surface temperatures of up to 4,000" C...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."My response:Iron, even exposed to 4,000"C, takes time to change states.By the time the iron of the pot even began to melt from the radiation of the nuclear bomb, the human watching would be long melted, thus the human would be unable to watch the liquid iron boil on top of a no longer existing stovetop.I affirm that a watched container made of iron will never boil on a standard stovetop, because:1. The solid iron of the pot must become completely molten (no solid iron remaining) before it boils.2. Molten iron melts standard stovetops.3. Molten iron is no longer a pot, a container in this debate, because it is an amorphous liquid.So, it is true that a watched pot NEVER boils on a standard stovetop.Con?