shall we dine? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.









Learn more about DebateIsland.com's EdTech solution aimed at Middle Schools and High Schools, DebateIsland Education, here!

shall we dine?

Debate Information

when you cook food, you are burning it. prove me wrong.
TrueLoveDeeJGXdebatePRO
«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -  
    It depends on how you cook it. "Burning" is a process of rapid reaction between an oxidant and the substance involving smoke. You are burning meat, for example, when grilling it in a barbeque sauce - but you are not burning it when making a soup with it by boiling water around it.

    I personally am big on cooking, and I never burn my food intentionally. Most of the time I boil it, and sometimes I will bake it in the oven or fry it on a (non-greased) skillet. Whenever there is smoke, it means that I have messed something up.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1037 Pts   -  
    @maxx
    Every time I cook I either cook the bejesus out of it or burn it to Hell.
    Which reminds me, you can make Holy water by getting a pot of normal water then boil the Hell out of it.
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -  
    there are many ways of burning.  heat alones burn; i.e. sunburn. the steak one cooks burns as you cook it. just because we do not burn it to the point where we will not eat it is beside the point. it burns the food. put your hand in the same skillet and you will understand my point.@MayCaesar
  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  

    1. when you cook food, you are burning it. prove me wrong.


    You’re playing a game of semantics and as usual incorrect seeing as you mention cooking as your main claim a cook does not ever  say they are burning food unless they are requested to do .
    Scientifically, 'burningmeans the food has turned mostly into carbon and might turn to dust right before your eyes. Charring gets close to burning, but doesn't allow the food to disintegrate. If you're not careful, char can turn to burn (only a positive if you want it to and it might set off your smoke detector!).

    Plaffelvohfen
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -  
    Again,  put your hand into a hot skillet or a pot of boiling water. Are you try to say it will notburn? Same withfood. Just becausethe animal is dead and cant fill it does not mean itis not burning. Their are variouskinds of burning@Dee
    PlaffelvohfenDee
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2656 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    So we're cooking fuel to run our cars and planes then? Has your house ever been cooked to the ground? 

    I agree with @Dee, it's semantic platitudes... 
    Dee
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  
    @maxx


    You clearly stated and now you’re deflecting ......

    when you cook food, you are burning it.

    You are taking a clinical burn and trying to make your case by comparing it to food , do you call rare steak that’s hit a pan for 5 seconds  “burnt “ if not why not? 


     A cook does not say he/she is “burning “ food they say they are cooking it , no one says “will you please burn my food”  they say will you cook it , why does language and simple terms induce utter confusion in you everytime? 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -   edited July 12
    Put your hand which is meat into a skillet along side a steak. Burns. You are doing the exaxt same to your hand which is meat as you are doing to a steak which is meat. So whats the difference@Dee
    PlaffelvohfenDee
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -   edited July 12
    No wecare burningguel. Cooking is just a human polite way of saying something else. Burning food. One does not have to have the food to catch fire to be burn. You are doing tge exact same thing to a steak as you are doing to your hand when you put them in a skillet. What you guys are claiming as clinically burned,  it is just a word. If you lie outside in very high ultraviolet rays long enough,  i don't know, 40 hours straight. Buddy you will be cooking, and that also means you are burned@Plaffelvohfen
    Plaffelvohfen
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    In a strict chemical definition of the word, yes, you are correct. Strictly speaking, the process of burning requires merely the presence of the burning substance and the oxidant. You could even say that water is burnt hydrogen, with oxygen serving as the oxidant.

    But if you want to use this definition, rather than the one traditionally used to separate burning from other chemical processes, then you have to expand your claim. You see, even when you do not cook your food and eat it raw, you are still burning it. First, the food burns naturally when exposed to oxygen or most other substances, so, unless you are eating it in pure vacuum (not recommended), it has burnt significantly by the time it is in your mouth. Then, it burns as it touches your mouth, as it goes through your body and so on.

    As for my hand, by this definition, I do not even need to put it on a skillet: it burns all the time due to interaction of its molecules with oxygen!
    xlJ_dolphin_473Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    You totally ignore the points made by me and others as usual in an attempt do what exactly is beyond me 
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -  
    What is the difference? My hand alongside a steak in a skillet
    . You claim the hand is clinically burned while tbe steak is being cooke. There is no difference.  You are doingthe exactsame thing to both.@Dee
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2656 Pts   -  
    @maxx
    maxx said:
    What is the difference? My hand alongside a steak in a skillet
    . You claim the hand is clinically burned while tbe steak is being cooke. There is no difference.  You are doingthe exactsame thing to both.@Dee
    There is a difference, context... Context is what gives meaning to the words we use... So unless you have the intent to actually eat your hand, you're not cooking it...
    Dee
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    As usual you’re left embracing absurdities , I’m on the same page as @plaffelvohen , you truly are a strange person where you keep arguing daily over simple terms and refusing to use words and terms in the correct context thus  your continuous confusion 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -  
    What the claim people are saying, I’d that the hand, which is meat and the steak, in a skillet, are different; and that the hand is getting a clinical burn while the steak is cooking.! I see know difference, they are both being cooked and burned@MayCaesar
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -  
    That has nothing to do with the debate  . You failed to answer. What’s the difference between the hand and steak?@Dee
    Dee
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -  
    That is inane. The purpose has nothing to do with it. Fire and heat has no purpose. Their is no difference between the steak and hand in a hot skillet. If you believe that, then find a way to show it@Plaffelvohfen
    Plaffelvohfen
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2656 Pts   -   edited July 12
    @maxx

    Do you cook a log in a fireplace? Can you cook your home to the ground? Do you cook fuel to run your car?

    The verb to cook, implies eating, it is indissociable from food consumption... Burning and cooking are not synonymous...
    Context is what gives meaning, I understand it's hard for you,  but keep at it and you should get it eventually with enough effort...
    Dee
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    Well, the term "cooking" has a certain intent incorporated in it. For example, if you are out in the nature, throwing mushrooms into a campfire for fun, then you are not cooking anything, as your actions are not aimed at producing any edible food. If you put your hand on a skillet, then I certainly hope that cooking is not what you are doing. :)

    Looking at pure chemical processes involved, you are correct, there is not much difference between what happens to your hand and what happens to a steak in the same situation. But human language is heavily contextual. We draw a distinction, for example, between killing in self-defense and murder, even though in both cases similar actions lead to the similar result for the subject. Similarly, we draw a distinction between cooking food and burning food, the latter being typically associated either with a failure during cooking, or with some cooking styles producing a lot of smoke and/or vapor.

    I will be the first to say that human language's contextuality often represents a problem and makes it difficult to discuss certain subjects, as words carry a strong emotional component and can cloud one's judgement. Something as minor as saying "president" instead of "Mr. president" may have profound consequences on how the message is perceived by others.
    Nonetheless, this contextuality is an inherent feature of it, and I would not dismiss it.
    PlaffelvohfenDee
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -   edited July 12
    Logs are not food nor is our homes. Again, the hand which is meat and the steak, which is meat, behaves the same way in a hot skillet, or are you claiming that the fire/ heat can differentiate and only burn the hand yet cook the steak?@Plaffelvohfen
    Plaffelvohfen
  • maxx said:
    What is the difference? My hand alongside a steak in a skillet
    . You claim the hand is clinically burned while tbe steak is being cooke. There is no difference.  You are doingthe exactsame thing to both.@Dee
    What is the difference?
    A lot less if I butcher for eating.

     You claim the hand is clinically burned while the steak is being cooked.
    One term is a medical condition the other a culinary condition.

    There is no difference. 
    There is a difference and it is a lack of understanding basic principles which creates a level of confusion on your part.

    Burning in a culinary scene is a  request of style in which carbon is created upon a food surface in basic understanding. You have the analogy backward in the question Maxx we cook our hand when we have an accident that does not involve a third-degree burn under medical conditions. Mind you as we also cook our skin when we spill lemon juice on it but this does not have a medical-grade type injury associated with it so the cooking process goes unrecognized. Ceviche is a form of dish cooked with acid as there are few acids ever used in the cooking meats as meals to be eaten you do not have the experience to understand the principles fully between cook and burn.

    For my next trick, I am going to pull someone's nose out of someone else's but.
    Please do not make suggestions on who's nose and who's but is involved.

    PlaffelvohfenDee
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -  
    There is no difference @John_C_87
    PlaffelvohfenDee
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -  
    Language aside, there is no difference.  Also, the reasoning peopleare sayingthat the hand is burned is because the person feels the burn, because he is alive and the steak is not. Very well, let us cut that hand off and toss it and the steakin boiling water. Is the hand still only being burned?@MayCaesar
    PlaffelvohfenDee
  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    That has nothing to do with the debate

    It has everything to do with it , you don’t understand basic context or indeed language 


     . You failed to answer. What’s the difference between the hand and steak?

    I didn’t you failed to comprehend . Read above and the several comments from others pointing out your errors 


    Plaffelvohfen
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -  
    maxx said:
    Language aside, there is no difference.  Also, the reasoning peopleare sayingthat the hand is burned is because the person feels the burn, because he is alive and the steak is not. Very well, let us cut that hand off and toss it and the steakin boiling water. Is the hand still only being burned?@MayCaesar
    Saying "language aside" when the debate is about terminology is quite inappropriate. This is a matter of the language, after all.

    Let us step aside for the moment and consider the concept of difference. Whether two entities are different or not depends on the comparison criteria used. Any two entities are equivalent with respect to some criteria and different with respect to some other criteria; no two entities are equivalent in every single respect, otherwise they would be one entity, not two.
    Let us compare cars and cheetahs. They are similar in that they both can develop speeds far exceeding those of most other macroscopic moving objects on Earth. They both travel on land. They both can be used for transportation, with different degrees of success. In all these respects they are similar.
    But cars are synthetic vehicles, while cheetahs are living beings. Cars do not reproduce without external involvement; cheetahs do. Cheetahs cannot (or, at least, have not been known to) exceed the speed of 100 mph, even during short sprints; cars can. In these respects, they are different.

    There are many similarities in between what happens to a slab of raw beef and a human hand when put on a hot skillet, but there are also substantial differences.
    In both cases oxidization of the substance in question occurs; in both cases chemical processes associated with heating occur.
    However, if you actually put your hand on a skillet and hold it there for 3 seconds, you will notice something peculiar: the color and the texture of the area of contact will change substantially. This is what is called a "burn" in medicine: your organism reacts to the perceived danger to it and sends in antibodies to fight off the heat, leading to a bacterial formation at the surface of your hand.
    This is not what happens to the slab of raw beef: it will take far more than a few seconds for its surface to change noticeably from the layman's perspective. This slab does not belong to a living organism featuring complex interdependencies between its different parts and systems, and no antibodies are sent to fight off the danger.

    If you cut off a human's hand and then throw it onto a skillet, then some processes that happen to a living human's attached hand in such a situation will still happen, and some will not. Medically, we would not call what happens a "burn", because such characterization necessarily implies some degree of harm to a sentient living organism, which clearly does not take place here. Chemically, we might or might not, depending on the meaning of the term "burning" we have in mind.
    PlaffelvohfenDee
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1621 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    Does cooking food in a microwave burn it as well?
  • @maxx
    Yes, there is a burn is meant to be felt...either initially or indirectly.
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -   edited July 12
    i am replying to them, it is you who fail to debate, if you wish them to answer for you, then by all means go troll elswhere/@Dee
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -   edited July 12
    you are using word terminology describing a process in 2 separate ways when the process is the same for both. it is like you are sayingt hat there are two different kinds of wetness, the kind i get while swimming, and the kind i get while washing. are you telling me if i stuck my hand into boiling water(assuming that i could stand it) along with a chunk of raw meat;say for an hour, the meat cooks while my  hand does not?  It does not matter what the intentions of a pperson is; to cook the meat but not the hand; the same thing will happen to both of them regardless of words or intention.  @MayCaesar
    Plaffelvohfen
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -   edited July 12
    if it burns a human skin/meat then it does the same for animals. @CYDdhartaIs it possible to burn something in a microwave? - Quora
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -   edited July 12
    @maxx

    The processes are complex in both cases, with some similarities and some differences. As far as wetness goes, there are indeed many different subtypes of it: for example, different liquids produce different textures on surfaces of different solids. Wet ice and wet wood make for very different surfaces to walk on.

    Cooking your own hand in a bowl is not how I have ever seen the term "cooking" used; I do not think it applies here. Both your hand and the chunk of raw meat will experience profound changes in their structure, but those changes will have differences. 
    As an analogy, consider the difference between driving a car while behind the wheel, and putting the car in "neutral" and letting it roll down a cliff on its own. In both cases the fundamental process - the car moving - is the same, but the details of the process are different enough to warrant different terms to describe the situation. In the first case, the car is being driven; in the second case, it is not.

    To further extend the linguistic point, consider a curious fact that certain peoples in northernmost parts of Asia and America have many different words for different types of snow. They may differentiate, for example, between "crusty" snow and "mushy" snow, or between "bluish" and "yellowish" snow. It is impossible to translate those words into English, as they have no counterparts in our language. To us some of these differences may seem far too fine - but to those peoples, given the conditions they live in, recognition of these differences is vital for survival and prosperity.
    This illustrates my earlier point: that differences are contextual and conditional upon criteria used when comparing different entities.
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -   edited July 12
    aside from texture and probably taste, if i threw my hand into a pot of boiling water along with anyother live animal, they both will be cooked; yes or no?  (ona side note, degrees of wetness does not matter, for you are still wet; i have never heard of a dry kind of wet before)@MayCaesar
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    Not in the sense in which the word "cooking" typically is used. What is correct to say is that they both would be boiled.

    Boiling is/was a method of execution in certain societies: the victim would be dropped into a pool of hot water and boiled alive there. Word "cooking" hardly characterizes what was happening to the individual in those cases. Now, if the consequence of this was the individual also being eaten afterwards, then this word applies.
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -   edited July 12
    correct, now do the same with the skillet.( on a side note, everyone is too hung up on words; the eskimo may have 200 different words fo their idea of types of snow; however it just boils down to snow@MayCaesar
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    But, once again, difference between two entities depends on the criteria used and on the level of consideration. Two different types of snow are similar from certain perspectives and different from other ones.

    Particular chemical processes that occur in the hand on the skillet and the slab of raw meat on the skillet are quite similar, but their consequences are profoundly different, and that difference is what warrants usage of different terms to describe what is happening.
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -  
    it is still being cooked, yet in different ways; and for the snow, one can describe it all they want; from heavy snow, crusty snow, dark snow; no matter how it is described; it is still just snow; it is only a matter of perspective. just like the hand in a sillet; it makes little sense why people are saying it is burned and not cooked while the meat is cooked and not burned. the same thing happens to both, just the chemical process varies some in how.@MayCaesar
  • maxx said:
    when you cook food, you are burning it. prove me wrong.
    No, when you cook your food you burn it...
    When you heat your body to the temperature you like it is cooked, burn is not dictated by medical injuries a person can receive by heat.
    I can prove you wrong as I would need to place you under observation and recorded how you cook. You could be right and not be a c capable;e cook, and burn all you try to cook. I do sometimes burn the food I cook.
  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -   edited July 13
    @maxx

    i am replying to them

    You’re replying but couldn’t care less what they say as your “language aside” quote proves yet again your arguments have been destroyed as it’s all about language and context 

    , it is you who fail to debate,

    I defeated your ridiculous argument in my first post and even gave you a scientific definition of the term burn , this is normally the time you run to mods to complain that everyone is picking on you 


    if you wish them to answer for you,

    I answered in my first post but you utilise your usual tactic and ignore absolutely everything everyone says that disagrees with your ridiculous assertions 

     then by all means go troll elswhere/

    No one is trolling except you as you think anything exposed to heat is burnt so a raw steak on a plate on a warn day in Maxxs alternative world is actually burnt.......it’s truly tragic you don’t know the difference between a medical burn and cooking but then again you get terribly confused over the simplest of terms and fly into a rage when people are kind enough to correct you 


    Here is the part of your school curriculum you obviously missed in the US it’s used in your SAT’s over there but you didn’t know that did you ?


    For your further education read on if you find it to “tricky” just ask for help it’s all about that term you refuse to acknowledge context .....

    Here are a few examples to show you how words can change depending on their context:
    Example: “restrain”
    Depending on context, restrain can mean several things:
    To hold back physically: “His classmates had to restrain him from eating the last cupcake.”
    To control emotions: “I wasn’t able to restrain my excitement upon winning the tournament – I threw my ping-pong paddle into the crowd and hit my poor brother on the forehead, knocking him out.”
    To limit: “The embargoes and tariffs were designed to restrain trade.”
    Example: “discriminate”
    Discriminate is often used in a negative way, but it also can be positive:
    To judge, or make an unfair distinction about people based on their race, age or gender: “Widespread racial discrimination led to the disenfranchisement of thousands.”
    To tell apart: “Death doesn’t discriminate between the sinners and the saints.”
    To note subtle differences: “The dolphin’s electroreception enables it to better discriminate between shrimp and crayfish on the muddy river bottom.”
    Example: “compromise”
    As a verb, compromise has three distinct meanings:
    To settle a dispute by mutual agreement and concession: “My sister wanted to listen to hip-hop and my brother wanted to listen to bebop, so we compromised and put on some R&B.”
    To accept a standard that is below what is desirable: “I am willing to accept another motel room, but I’m not prepared to compromise on hygiene.”
    To endanger by foolish behavior: “When Skywalker went along, he compromised the entire mission because Vader could sense his proximity.”

  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -   edited July 13
    @maxx

    correct, now do the same with the skillet.( on a side note, everyone is too hung up on words; the eskimo may have 200 different words fo their idea of types of snow; however it just boils down to snow@MayCaesar


    You still don’t get it and you refuse to look at context , we often see brown grass that’s been scorched by the sun the surrounding grass is never described as burnt / scorched and we can tell the difference in your reinterpretation everything is actually burnt ......come on seriously?
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -  
    words have nothing to do with what heat and fire does. you are claiming that a steak and a hand in the same skillet acts differently depending upon your thoughts? wow!  rthe exact thing happens to both of them any one can understand that and no amount  of intention will change that.@Dee
    Dee
  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    words have nothing to do with what heat and fire does.

    No one has said that your failure to misunderstand simple concepts is staggering 

    you are claiming that a steak and a hand in the same skillet acts differently depending upon your thoughts? wow!  


    No one has said that either that’s yet more deflecting and a strawman on your part 

    If a steak touches a pan for a second do you claim it’s “burned” if so that makes you beyond reasoning with


     exact thing happens to both of them any one can understand that and no amount  of intention will change that.

    Your contention then is everything that is exposed to heat is burned so the raw steak on your kitchen counter is actually burned or frozen if the temperature goes up or down even  one degree ........
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -   edited July 13
    bull, you claimed that the hand gets clinically burned while the steak is cooked.  wanna quote?  what happens to the steak happens to the hand!  just because the steak is not alive to feel the burn doesnt mean anything.  it still happens.  (hey dee are you cooking that steak?)  dee: nope i am clincally burning it:  ( how do you know?  dee: because that is how i worded it ) wow, if mickey was here he would gladly go haw haw haw.  what happens to one happens to the other, how can you possibly not understand that?  I ask you a question:  how would you go about cooking your hand without burning it?
    @Dee
    Dee
  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    bull, you claimed that the hand gets clinically burned while the steak is cooked.  wanna quote?  

    The tragedy here is from my first post I told you the difference between a medical burn and cooking 


    what happens to the steak happens to the hand!  just because the steak is not alive to feel the burn doesnt mean anything. 

    A rare steak is not burned just the same way a hand exposed to extreme heat is not cooked , seriously do you tell a doctor I cooked my hand if suffering a burn? 

    Or do you tell a chef when you want a steak rare to burn your steak?

     it still happens.  (hey dee are you cooking that steak?)  dee: nope i am clincally burning it:  ( how do you know?  dee: because that is how i worded it ) wow,

    No you im-becile I tell a chef to cook my food but not to burn it are you really this d-umb seriously? 

     if mickey was here he would gladly go haw haw haw

    Actually 6 people have all disagreed and corrected your appalling lack of basic education yet you persist 

     what happens to one happens to the other, how can you possibly not understand that?  I ask you a question:  how would you go about cooking your hand without burning it?

    Ask a chef how he goes about making sure he doesn’t burn your steak when you specifically ask him not to ......Jesus you’re spectacularly  
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -   edited July 13
    again  how would you go about cooking your hand without burning it.  and you better lay off the names.. languange has nothing at all to do with the process of what heat and fire does. hey look dees ays, it is rain.  guess what dee call it rain or percipitation or moisture, it is WATER.  the exact same thing happens to a steak as it does to the hand!  . @Dee
  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    again  how would you go about cooking your hand without burning it. 

    How would you go about cooking a steak without burning it ? Next time you dine out why not ask the chef ? But then again I guess the height of your culinary experience is a triple burger and a big gulp 


     and you better lay off the names

    Ahh is it time to run squealing again? 
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -   edited July 13
    since you are not in front of me to deny you forever name calling i have no other alterative. here is your problem. as along as the hand is part of a living being, you think it can only be burned but not cooked; cut the hand off and now it can be cooked.  fire and heat burns, cooking is just word terminology, a concept. the meat is just not burned past the point where we wont eat it.  if you actually believe the words of humans and the concepts behind these words actually contributes and decides for the fire/heat as to what it does when two pieces of meat are put into the same skillet, then i herby promote you to mickeys level..@Dee
    Dee
  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    If I was there in front of you no doubt you would run squealing to the nearest man to assist you 

    cooking is just word terminology, a concept.

    Well done Homer I think you’re getting it exactly what we are saying regards context , I’ve said it from the start you’re playing with semantics , I accept your concession 
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -  
    no you are playing with words, i am simply stating to you what heat and fire does; you are claiming that meat in a skillet behaves differently depending on word usage. why are you refusing to answer the questions? a nice big skillet full of hot grease over a fire. put your hand in it alongside a steak. you are claiming one is cooked while the other is burned???@Dee
    Dee
  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  
    @maxx


    no you are playing with words,

    I’m not it’s not my problem you don’t know what the term burnt means when used by a doctor or a chef , maybe that’s something you can work on?

    i am simply stating to you what heat and fire does; you are claiming that meat in a skillet behaves differently depending on word usage. 

    I’m not I’m saying we all know when our food is burnt again a medical burn and burnt food are totally different .....context 

    why are you refusing to answer the questions? a nice big skillet full of hot grease over a fire. put your hand in it alongside a steak. you are claiming one is cooked while the other is burned??

    Your hand gets a burn if exposed to it but if it were an actual hand on the skillet being cooked by a chef it could still be served undercooked / unburnt unless you  also disagree with culinary science , actual science and contextual meaning of words but you already do don’t you? 
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -  
    culinary has nothing to do with it; words have nothing to do with it. above you agreed that words are just terminpology yet you are using them in context and out of context.  if my hand gets a burn when exposed to it as you just stated, then the steak does as well@Dee
    Dee
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch