Lighting marshmallows on fire is the best method of toasting them.

Very true: My Huffington Post link lacked argumentative value. After viewing your link and conducting a bit of my own research, I have concluded that your point holds true regarding potassium chloride being a separate chemical to potassium chlorate; besides this, potassium chlorate is not edible, so my point is doubly disproven. 4. It seems that I ought to have used the magnifying glass idea in the first place. That would reduce the reduction of materials used in the fire-making process, as well as providing, potentially...more entertainment. "Flavor of the SUN:" now that sounds fantastic. And thank you for that. 2. Now THERE is a great description. And yes, you did previously mention that comparison of the well-toasted marshmallow to the one having a cold interior, but it is more understandable once that specific meaning of a "quality" marshmallow is made. With that in mind, have you considered freezing your crackers in ice before using the ice-cold marshmallows? That way the crackers are much harder to break. But I digress, as this portion of the debate is entirely opinion based. So we continue... 7. Interesting to note that I did read that article in my previous research, as well. That seems to be valid logic, and I don't have the science to refute such an argument against health effects of burnt marshmallows. However, I will ask one question: Does the average number of burnt marshmallows someone would likely consume in a year pose a health risk, even if the burning were intentional? And here is an entirely random article about negative health effects of commonly-consumed food, bacon (Yes, I admit this adds almost nothing to the argument.): http://americablog.com... 5. Extremely valid point there. In order to make my argument, I would need a separate definition of "quality." As a side note, I am now in love with the term "circular definition," as I have often considered the implications of such descriptions as are called "pragmatic" definitions. Assuming any of that makes sense. In other words, I am grateful for your introduction of the term "circular definition," as I can now use that myself, and it will prevent me from making such errors. 6. *Level 2 discussion engaged.* *Pushes lever to notch 3...."Level 3 discussion engaged."* I admit to my usage of British spellings, such as "flavour" and "centre." Despite that, I was raised in the U.S.. I tend to use British spellings, however, since I find them to be more...artistic...than the American versions. As a side note, I also use the term "soda-pop" instead of either "soda" or "pop," so it's correct either way. Back to the discussion, however. Perhaps I ought to abandon the definition for toast argument (DTA), but would you not agree that, technically, the British spellings of words were the original versions? If this holds true, then could it be that using the Merriam-Webster definition, and subsequently, Webster's definitions, is using words that were introduced as new and separate from the British spellings, and on purpose, if I remember right? And does that mean that you have been misspelling your words incorrectly? It seems to depend on the context of origins. But correct me if I'm wrong. *Tries to peer in opponent's backpack as opponent removes thermos and sets it aside. Breathes sigh of relief, realizing it is not an explosive, despite the shape. Eyes widen after realizing what is about to occur with the hockey stick. Attempts to duck but is hit in the head by one mic., with the other flying inches over head and knocking MC off the stage. [gasps from audience] ...eyes close, but not before security is called on tea sipper.*