A Watched Pot Never Boils

Re: Conduct Pro's says many things in response to my charge of misconduct. Pro claims that he "allowed for interested debaters to change the definitions before the debate". Pro claims that I had sufficient notice that Pro's definition was inaccurate. Pro claims that "there is no misleading being done. " Pro protests the lack of a citation for my round 2 picture showing the definitions. Pro protests my annotation which describes Pro's definition as "PROS BS DEFINITION". Absent from Pro's response is any explanation for his conduct. Let's be clear: Pro has no explanation as to why he advanced an inaccurate definition for the word "pot". Here's why Pro did it - Pro desired to trick a DDO user in to accepting a debate that appeared easy to win, but the debate was actually much more difficult to win than it appeared. Pro's assertion that he allowed for definition changes is not true. I did, in fact, attempt to change the definition of the word "pot" before I posted my first argument. Pro refused this request for bogus reasons This is the rule: "Definitions can be changed, in the comments section, before posting your first argument, as long as both Pro and Con agree. " Merely stating "I accept" does not constitute posting an argument because "I accept" is not argument. If Pro were being honest, Pro would simply have stated that he declined to agree to a change in definition because it wouldn't have been to his advantage to do so as his entire argument was predicated on the inaccurate definition. As to Pro's assertion that he provided sufficient notice of his inaccurate definition, this also isn't true. First, it is important to note that the degree of care which a reasonable DDO user might exercise in picking and choosing debate topics is not the same degree of care that a reasonable person would exercise in reading through the terms of a mortgage loan. This is an online debating community, and the outcome of these debates have little, if any, real-life consequences. So, the standard of care that a DDO user should be held accountable to is not hyper stringent. Second - The resolution itself - "A watched pot never boils" - is a common idiom, and the meaning of "pot" within this idiom is the contents of the pot as opposed to the pot itself. Reading the debate title, a reasonable DDO user who is familiar with the idiom would plausibly operate under the mistaken belief that Pro intended to use the word "pot" to refer the contents of the pot, as the difference in the senses of "pot" are nuanced. For Pro' to have provided sufficient notice to reliably warn reasonable DDO users, Pro would have to have provided more than merely a single subtly inaccurate definition within a list of many accurate ones - Pro would have to have highlighted the fact that this one definition was bad in order to reliably forestall a prospective opponent's conclusion that Pro was not referring to the contents of the pot. However, Pro did no such thing. Rather, Pro knowingly and designedly provided insufficient notice of the fact that his definition was inaccurate, as Pro desired to cause and rely upon an opponent's mistaken understanding. In fact, when a DDO user described the problem with Pro's definitions in the comments section, Pro took exception to the fact that his trap (i. e. lie) had been revealed for all to see: Pro wanted his BS to remain hidden, as a trap once seen is less likely to work. This was not a case where Pro accidentally defined "pot" in the way that he did by choosing the wrong sense of the word by mistake. Had that been the case, then Pro would have endeavored to correct the mistake after it was brought to his attention by amending his debate, but Pro didn't do that. Rather, Pro's opening argument is predicated entirely on his inaccurate definition. Creating trap debates should not be rewarded; It should be punished and discouraged. A debating environment with deceptive trickery and "gotcha" argumentation is not desirable. Trap debates are garbage content that cause a lack of trust between users. Pro's misconduct should be punished. As to Pro's protest of my lack of citation to a source for my picture of definitions for "pot", the source was the same as Pro's. Here's the link - . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... As to Pro's protest that I called his definition a "BS DEFINITION" - That characterization was entirely accurate. Pro's definition is BS. As to Pro's assertion that he had no intention to mislead - This is simply a lie. Pro did intend to mislead. That was Pro's plan from the get go. Re: The arguments about the pot Pro's first response is to assert that if an oxy-acetylene torch or plasma cutter is used on an iron or stainless steel pot, then only melting will occur. Pro's contention that only melting occurs is supported only with Pro's conjecture, and is not consistent with observation. When iron or stainless steel is worked on with an oxy-acetylene torch or a plasma cutter, more than merely melting occurs. This is known because metal vapors resulting from the use of these tools are well documented and are actually an occupation hazard for welders and other workers involved in metal fabrication. See for yourself - "torch cutting converts small metal particles into metal vapor. When the vapor cools and condenses back into particles it forms visible or invisible fumes. [. .. ] Metal cutting – all types including laser, plasma and oxyacetylene" . http://www.clarcorindustrialair.com... Pages 1 & 2 . https://www3.epa.gov... Pages 2 & 3 Pro's second rebuttal focuses on the materials of standard stovetops. Pro provides a list of materials used in the construction of standard stovetops, and argues that if a melted pot came in to contact with a standard stovetop, the "melted iron that falls to the stovetop would instantly destroy the stovetop. " This contention by Pro is weak. When iron or stainless steel is worked on with an oxy-acetylene torch or a plasma cutter, the heated portion of the worked metal is rather small as it is localized to the point of contact with the flame or plasma. The amount of molten material generated by these tools is small and insufficient to "instantly destroy" a stovetop. Rather, any melted material coming in to contact with the stove would cause only minor, localized damage, and the melted material would quickly cool to the point where no further damage would occur. See a plasma cutter cutting for yourself - Pro's third response is that "a liquefied pot is not a pot. " Pro states that "once someone has used an external heat source to make the pot completely molten, to prepare it for boiling, the remaining liquid iron is neither a container nor cylindrical, thus is no longer a pot". This contention by Pro is weak because the resolution is not "a watched pot never entirely boils on a standard stovetop"; Rather, the resolution is only "a watched pot never boils on a standard stovetop". It is not necessary to "make the pot completely molten" to boil the pot. Partial boiling is sufficient, and a pot is still a pot even though merely part of it has become vapor and the rest remains. This is what an oxy-acetylene torch or plasma cutter will do - Partially convert a pot to vapor while it is being watched. None of Pro's arguments stand up to scrutiny.