Spoons are more useful than forks.

~"Can you cut with a spoon? Sure, but since the edge is rounded instead of straight, the cut is less perfect."~ My opponent has just admitted that you can do anything with a spoon that you can with a fork (except kill someone, which will be dealt with shortly). Therefore, my opponent admits that the spoon renders the fork useless. The cut might not be perfect, but that doesn't matter; we are not talking about sculpting here. As I stated before, we are talking about which is more useful as an eating utensil. Since the food being cut is not intended to be put on display but rather intended to be masticated by the teeth of the individual shortly after it is sliced, the quality of the cut hardly matters. Thus, a spoon, since it can do anything a fork can, plus more (like scoop up a liquid) wins. ~"The voters should penalize you for eating enchiladas with a spoon."~ I have already demonstrated that it doesn't matter if you cut things with a spoon. The voters should judge the quality of the arguments posted, not my eating style. =P ~"I, despite my best efforts, have never been able to break someone's skin with a spoon. I have, however, bled someone to death using multiple, shallow stabs with a fork. It took 28 hours."~ Well, sorry love, but I can't help it if I'm just that much stronger than you are. According to the Sheriff of Nottingham from the 1991 version of "Robin Hood" from 20th Century Fox, spoons should be used to take revenge instead of swords, since the dullness would hurt more. Since swords are obviously more awesome than forks, and since spoons beat swords, the only logical conclusion is that spoons > forks. While your fork argument obviously implies that your victim was in an incredible amount of pain, think about how much longer it would take with a spoon. The gratification of watching the person die would be multiplied. ~"Your hands aren't waterproof? Does water flow through them or do they puff up like a sponge? Weird."~ No, yes, and yes. But I understand that a normal human cannot keep liquid in their hands for too long due to the gaps between the fingers and whatnot, and due to the scooping motion and other movements there is a very high likelihood that it will spill all over. Besides, in order to scoop up a liquid, you must immerse your hands into the liquid. Even if you can discover a way to keep the liquid inside your cupped hands, the fact that your whole hand was immersed means that liquid will drip from other parts of your hand, meaning you will have some terrible cleanup to do later. That's hardly useful. ~"This is kind of a new argument, but it's also totally easy to eat a liquid with a fork. You just get a balloon, fill it up with the liquid, poke a hole in the balloon with the fork, and suck it out vampire bat style. See? Totally easy."~ But in the absence of a balloon, what will you do? Revert to using a spoon! And I must say, that seems a tad more complicated than using a spoon. Even if you did use that technique, you could use a pin or your teeth to poke a hole in the balloon, once again rendering the fork completely useless. The bottom line is, a spoon is far more necessary and therefore more useful than a fork. Any food that you can eat with a fork, you can eat with a spoon. Macaroni and cheese, enchiladas, fruit salads, salads... while it may look awkward, a spoon is just as useful in these situations. However, there are certain foods that require a spoon. Soups, oatmeal, and to a certain extent cereal and ice cream, among many others, cannot be enjoyed with a fork. While the fork is a useful tool, the spoon does everything the fork can, plus more. I thank my opponent for this wonderful, highly controversial debate and I strongly urge a PRO vote. ~~Jack Samra.