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

I Find your links dubious. The Huffington post? yeah, fine, they placed marshmallows in their top 10 best burnt foods. Your NatGeo linked video, on top of being hilarious, actually mentions several ingredients aside from just potassium chlorate. This includes glass and sulfur. Your final link states the effects of eating potassium chloRIDE, not potassium chloRATE which is in match heads, and actually involves bleach in making it. https://www.reddit.com... I am going to conclude that there is no direct evidence for any harm to be done by using a match to toast a marshmallow. Since I think overall I am not going to have the necessary chemical understanding to argue that point. Forward to the discussion: 4. I don't care how this turns out. From now on I am always toasting my marshmallows using the flavor of the SUN through a magnifying glass. Such an elegant concept. I'm blown away. 2.Yes, my statement was very much an opinion. I should have expanded on what I meant by higher quality, as in golden brown exterior coupled with a fully melted interior vs. the black exterior and cold center I described next. This portion of the discussion is inherently opinion based since it depends on how you like to eat your marshmallows. As I enjoy a good smore, a cold center will act as a ball breaking my crackers. You may enjoy eating the marshmallow strait off the stick and that texture may be enjoyable. in my opinion, might as well not toast it at all if your not going to melt the inside. 7.I'm going to throw this article in here http://healthyeating.sfgate.com... Which states that when burning food, the more charred black it gets the more of certain compounds called Advanced Glycation End Product Effects (or AGE's) are released in that food. The article states as follows, "Because these compounds cause oxidative stress in your body, AGEs potentially speed up the aging process and contribute to both diabetes and kidney problems." 5. I think that the definition for quality is wrong in the dictionary. *gasps from the audience* My argument is that you should never use a word to define itself. For example; how much utility is the definition for QUICKLY, if I only define it as (adj) TO MOVE QUICKLY. It is a deficient definition. *This is not the actual definition, "quickly" has a very good definition describing it* When you use a word to describe itself its called a circular definition. https://en.wikipedia.org... 6. Now I will agree that Merriam-Webster may not specifically use the word RADIENT in the definition of toast. However the Oxford definition does. *Now watch carefully as I take this up a notch* Merriam-Webster is the U.S. dictionary and Oxford is the English (british) dictionary. So far throughout the discussion you have been using the spellings for CENTER and FLAVOR as CENTRE and FLAVOUR. Meaning that you use the Oxford dictionary in your day to day life. Merriam-Webster's defines centre as a chiefly british variant of center and does not include it as its own word and definition, thus not a proper word in the eyes of Merriam-Webster. Either abandon the Merriam-Webster definition for toast argument, or admit you have been spelling your words wrong. *reaches in backpack, pulls out thermos, sets aside. pulls out hockey stick, proceeds to use hockey stick to fling mic's from ground at opponent. sips tea from thermos*