Chopsticks vs Forks

Again, I would like to ask my opponent to use spell check. So I'm just going to go through my opponents points and refute them in order. 1. In this argument, my opponent speaks about chopsticks being tools, and how chopsticks are less efficient than forks, and therefore better for you health. I make the argument that we shouldn't be arguing that the tools create the problem, it is the person who uses the tool. You cannot blame the knife for stabbing someone, just like you can't blame the gun for killing someone. You conceded that point in your own circular way, talking about how a friend of yours uses a tiny fork because he eats too fast. You prove it yourself. Your friend eats too fast, so he is given a smaller fork. It is because of him he is given a different tool, so it is your friends fault, not the tool. 2. I did not disregard the portion of speed. I merely took care of it with my first refutation. Look above. 3. In this point, my opponent talks about how korean style chopsticks do not apply to my point of environmental effect. It doesn't matter. I was attacking wooden chopsticks, which are the majority. I took care of the rest of the chopsticks in my other points, which conicidentally you drop. 4. Here is the point about hand eye coordination. You argue that chopsticks are harder to use, so it increases hand eye coordination. Here is my response. Chopsticks should be rated on their utility, not their side effects. The purpose of using chopsticks are not to increase hand eye coordination, it is to eat. Because the primary purpose of chopsticks is to eat, forks are superior for reasons I will show later. 5. So you argue that we should adopt other customs, as in a big company.... First, there is another example. You are a tourist, and go to visit friends. You meet for dinner, and are unable to use chopsticks. Horrific fail and embarrasment. Anyways, back to your example. Even if we learn their customs, that does not mean that we will be able to do everything they can do. No matter how much you practice with chopsticks, I'm sorry, but you will not be better than someone who has been using chopsticks since they were born. 6. SO in this point, my opponent tries to say that chopsticks are beneficial to the environment. This is simply not true. Look at the like I posted in the first speech. That article clearly shows that chopsticks are horrible for the environment. Even if they are biodegradable, they are not better than forks. You have to prove that forks are worse, and you haven't done so. And also, we don't throw away metal forks, we reuse them. So in reality, forks are still better. CONCLUSION: First, my opponent should use better structure, since it is very hard to decipher his speech. Second, my opponent has not shown why forks are worse than chopsticks in terms of the environment. I have shown why chopsticks are worse for the environment, and I have sources backing me. My opponent has done nothing but make a claim. Third, all we have been debating so far are all minor points. We forget one important thing. We forget the fact that we use chopsticks to eat, and forks to eat. Because the primary purpose of a utensil is to eat, we must judge primarily from that standpoint. In my first speech, I presented these points: 1. Forks are easier to use than chopsticks. 2. Forks are better for social gatherings. 3. Ease of learning. 4. More uses for forks than chopsticks. 5. Less impact. My opponent has made no attacks on my first point. We can assume he agrees. Therefore, I have shown forks to be better in terms of ease of use. My opponent has made attacks on my second point, but I have shown why he is wrong. Therefore, I have shown forks to be better in terms of social gatherings. My opponent has also made no points against my point of; it is easier to learn how to use forks than chopsticks. He actually conceded. Therefore, I have shown forks to be better in terms of ease of use. My opponent has not made any arguments against my points that there are more uses for forks than chopsticks. He concedes. Therefore I have shown that forks are better than chopsticks in terms of utility. My opponent made a ridiculous claim that chopsticks are biodegrade-able and forks are not, so chopsticks are better. However, we do not throw away forks nearly as much as we throw away chopsticks. Also, I have shown that chopsticks are horrible for the environment, using my link. Therefore, I have shown forks to be better in terms of enviromental impact. Note to audience: I only have to show that forks are better an any terms, since my opponent has not defined under what context, and I win the debate. Since my opponent has made no arguements against my points of ease of use, ease of learning, and utility, I win the debate on default. Thank you.