In the book 'Faults in our Stars' the grenade metaphor that is used is not good.

Let me revisit my argument: Metaphors are, by definition, not required to be literal. In fact, they are required to not be literal in order to qualify as metaphors (saying that bee is busy as a bee would be most literally correct, but would not, in context of the noun it is being attributed to, be a metaphor) In a conversation I had with a friend, a few days ago, my friend told me that he is a slave. His homework had been piling up and the number of hours he was obligated toward it had lengthened considerably. Is the slave metaphor a good metaphor? If I were to adopt my opponent's literal standards, of course not. A slave is compelled via the utmost degree of physical, mental and emotional coercion to do his work. My friend could skip his homework without being beaten or sold to another. A slave also does not gain personal immediate benefit from the task he/she does whereas my friend's completion of his homework assignment directly reflects upon his academic and, eventually, life career. Every metaphor has at least one aspect or another that doesn't correlate with the situation the metaphor describes. Let us look again at the 'busy as a bee' metaphor. It takes the industrious aspect of the bee, strips away all other characteristics, and applies it to a situation in which industriousness is present. When applied to something other than a bee, say, a person, I could easily say that since the bee facilitates much of his functions via flight and that his industriousness is driven by the chemical commands of a queen bee, a human, whose industriousness is very likely born of other causes, is not a good target toward which to attribute the 'busy as a bee' metaphor. That is ridiculous. Again, a metaphor is not meant to be literal. As long as an intended core element of the metaphor can be shown to be analogically applicable to a scenario, it is adequate as a metaphor; it is a good metaphor. Therefore, having shown the connection between the grenade metaphor and the character to which the metaphor was to be applied, I have secured the CON position. CON wins the debate. Q.E.D. Now, I would like to address an insult thrown at me from my opponent's last round, specifically the one where my opponent implies that I, CON, am not a deep thinker in an attempt to negate my having found the grenade metaphor's adequacy. First, just because you don't agree with my understanding of the grenade metaphor, doesn't mean I am not a deep thinker. In fact, it is you who was (and still is, apparently) unable to draw the metaphor's meaning as I have. Second, it seems you have abandoned your tsunami metaphor (good, because it was pretty absurd) in favor of your volcano metaphor. Although the volcano metaphor is not the best (literally applied, it would mean Hazel would have an impact on an unimaginably immense section of the social network, completely wiping it to ashes and dust; Hazel's death only actually affects the few people she is or could be closely connected with), it is adequate because one element, the fact that it has an epicenter of pain, connects it to Hazel's situation. However, as I have already lighted upon during my previous round, the volcano metaphor, along with the tsunami metaphor, fails to emulate the situation to which the grenade metaphor attempts to analogize. This would be, as I've mentioned before, the detonation which, in a metaphorical sense, would be Hazel's death, and the subsequent radial expansion of pain with those closest to its reach feeling most pain and those furthest feeling less. It is in this way that the grenade metaphor supersedes the volcano metaphor; a volcanic explosion destroys all in its radius (Pompeii is a great example) with no degree of scaling (of course, I am not arguing that the volcano metaphor is not a good metaphor, only that the grenade metaphor is better).Rebuttals:PRO - Volcanoes have an epicenter too.CON - PRO obviously skimmed my round 2 or he would have seen that my argument extends past the bit about th epicenter. PRO - I do not believe that the grenade metaphorCON - I have shown that the grenade metaphor is by definition, adequate. Regardless of what other people think, the grenade metaphor is good. Another response I'd like to make on this is that your point about many other people 'believing' the metaphor to be inadequate is moot. Does this population statistically supersede that of its opposition? If so, how is this significant toward your position? A large majority of people believe in higher beings (God, God(s)), but popular belief does not constitute existential evidence. The other subpoints you made to substantiate your position I have already responded to (b)literal application, I've already shown that metaphors, by definition, ignore literal applications, c) basically calling me someone who is not a deep thinker; patronizing the CON position doesn't support your case)PRO - The whole point of a metaphor is to make a comparison between 2 objects so that people can make connections to understand the author's point better. CON - I agree. To that end, I have quite literally (oh the irony) highlighted the point of connection. You have neither responded to or contradicted my point about the grenade's connection to Hazel's situation. You've instead opted to reiterating your points about the grenade containing certain aspects that cannot be literally applied to the Hazel predicament. I have already explained why this is irrelevant, and will not do so again.PRO - The readers need to understand that connection to make the metaphor worthwhile. As proved above, the people who do not believe in a higher being and the deep thinking readers may not understand the metaphor as my opponent (and many of the people reading this) has understood it.CON - Suppose I were to take a four year old who does not know the meaning of the word 'busy' nor the existence of bees. If I were to tell this four year old that a person is busy as a bee, it would, undeniably, fail to understand what I am saying. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that half the world shares the same quantity and quality of knowledge as this anecdotal four year old. Bees still exist. The metaphor 'busy as a bee', although not understood by a sizable number of people, still qualifies as a metaphor!! I will proceed to ignore the point about 'deep thinking'. The 'faults', as my opponent puts it, to the grenade metaphor are irrelevant (pretty much what I've been saying throughout the entire debate) in light of the definition of metaphors in general (all metaphors do not literally apply so, literally, all metaphors would have 'faults').Conclusion:PRO's win condition was to show that the grenade metaphor was not good, but he has failed to do so. Moreover, CON has shown that the grenade metaphor is adequate (good) via the definition of the word metaphor. In fact, CON went one step further and has not only shown that the grenade metaphor is good, but that it is even superior in its point of connection to the metaphors PRO proposed. This is an overwhelming CON win. VOTES! :)