This is a pun . . .

Despite the one-sidedness of this topic, I will argue against my opponent that the previously stated phrases are not all puns. Of course, because of how interpretive this topic is, I cannot disprove ALL of the phrases in being puns. However, I am not required to. Because of my opponents statement that "The following are puns" I know that he is arguing under the belief that every mentioned phrase was a pun. I must only determine that at least ONE of the above phrases are not a pun to disprove him. For this, I will choose the phrase: "...you can't have your kayak and heat it too." Now I realize the intended pun in this situation. It is arguing that this phrase sounds like, "You can't have your cake and eat it too." However, according to my opponents preferred definition of a pun, it is clearly not. As clearly defined by my opponent, a pun is play on words either by interchanging different senses/definition/interpretations of a same word, or else a similar sense/definition/interpretation and sound of a different word. The words 'kayak' and 'cake' do not share either of these similarities. Kayak is pronounced kaiï¿½ak (according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) and does not have any different sense other than: an Eskimo canoe made of a frame covered with skins except for a small opening in the center and propelled by a double-bladed paddle (according to http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Therefore, it does not meet the first said qualifier of a pun. The arguable qualifier for this word, kayak, as a pun, would be that it shares the the similar sense/definition of the word 'cake' by linking it via a similar sound. However, the only similarity here between the two sounds is the beginning sounds of 'kuh' and the ending sounds of 'kuh'. This is HARDLY enough evidence to prove that "...you can't have your kayak and heat it too" is a pun. Please bear with me as I give an example: Two men sit on a bench. They both watch by-passers walk by until one passing man falls to the ground and dies. They both look at the man on the ground until one says, "Thats the third time today." "Yep," the other agrees. "They're just dropping like floss." Now if you think a long time about this scenario, you realize that its not funny. The joke is obviously intended to compare "dropping like flies" to "dropping like floss", but the word floss isn't at ALL related to the story at all. This is the same as my opponent's phrase. Both share the similar beginning sounds (kuh and kuh in kayak as to the kuh and kuh in cake AS does the fuh and seh in flies compare to the fuh and seh in floss) but neither are funny or related and neither can be considered puns. Now say that, perhaps, my story was revised to that the men falling down dead were dentists. Then MAYBE it could be considered a pun because of the facetious relationship between the vaguely similar words and the subject. HOWEVER, my opponent's "pun" has no such link between his random words and the story. IF the words kayak and cake shared a similar middle sound as well as the beginning and ending similarities, then the pun argument might have some bearing. However, they do not. To strengthen my argument, I will state that there is only one pronunciation of kayak as cited in these numerous sites: http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.wordnik.com... http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com... http://www.audioenglish.net... Unless my opponent has found the pun somewhere else in the phrase debated, of which I am glad to listen to, my conjecture is inarguably correct. To summarize my points: 1. I need only to disprove one of my opponent's "puns" to disprove his contention 2. Kayak and cake haven't enough sound similarity to be considered a pun 3. There is no loop hole around the pronunciation of "kayak" 4. My argument remains sound as long as my opponent finds no other pun within the phrase I conclude my argument with the resolution that not ALL of the previously mentioned phrases are puns.