Instigator / Pro
13
1675
rating
74
debates
68.92%
won
Topic

Resolution: On balance, a cookie with chocolate chips is better than a cookie with nuts

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
6
0
Sources points
4
0
Spelling and grammar points
2
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 2 votes and 11 points ahead, the winner is ...

fauxlaw
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Miscellaneous
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
2
1477
rating
7
debates
42.86%
won
Description
~ 3,271 / 5,000

Description: Cookies will attract just about everybody, particularly when just out of the oven. Everyone has their preference of a favorite cookie. Mine, unabashedly, is the cookie with dark [or semi-sweet] chocolate chips/chunks. I am proposing as universal cookie material [other than the chocolate or nuts – any nut], a base ingredient list of flour, granulated and brown sugar, butter, and vanilla extract.

As instigator [Pro], my stand is that the chocolate chip cookie is a better cookie than with nuts.

Con will argue for nuts - pecan [my favorite], macadamia, pistachio, walnut, whatever.

Disallowed as a qualified cookie: mixed chocolate and nuts, which, arguably, is a compromise. Also disallowed: cookie dough; also a compromise, and in
Pro’s opinion, may even be a better choice than the baked cookie.

Definitions:

Cookie: a sweet-tooth pleasure food fabricated from a dough of basic ingredients as listed in Description, above, with the added chocolate or nuts, and baked in the oven in variably acceptable conditions of temperature, or duration.

Chocolate chips: for purposes of this debate, limited to dark chocolate [of minimum 60% cacao], or semi-sweet chocolate [slightly higher sugar content] in morsel-sized pieces. Milk chocolate? Equivalent of wanna-be chocolate – not included. We’re talking rich, decadent flavor, not milquetoast.

Nuts: for purposes of this debate, any nut that is commercially available, such as the short list offered in Description, above, but not limited to this list. A peanut, while not “officially” a nut [it is a legume], is included. Nuts may be whole, or in pieces.

Better: more appreciated, healthier, tastier…

Debate protocol

Three-round debate.

R1, R2: Argument, rebuttal, defense

R3: No new argument; only rebuttal, defense, conclusion

All argument, defense, rebuttal, and sourcing will be listed within the context of the debate argument rounds, or sourcing may also be listed within comments within the debate file to conserve maximum space for argumentation, but only during the argumentation’s three rounds. Neither participant may consult with any person associated with DART to serve as a sourced citation as a feature of participant’s argument.

No waived rounds. No more than one round may be forfeited, or forfeiture of entire debate will result. Concession in any round is a debate loss.

No declaration of victory will be made but in the 3rd round. No declaration of assumption of the opponent’s concession or forfeit in any round. These conditions will be obvious to voters only by either participant’s own declaration.

Arguments, rebuttals, defenses, or conclusions may not address voters directly for voting suggestions beyond statement of validity for arguments, et al, made in all rounds. Participants may encourage voters/readers to read/examine any portion of, or entire rounds.

No kritik, such as: “a cookie is not edible” is not acceptable argument.

Once the debate is accepted by an opponent, Pro [me] may or may not respond to any post in the Comments section of this debate. The preference is a non-response in favor of concentrating on the debate, itself, and for fear of having influence on anyone during the debate’s argument phase, particularly on potential voters.

Round 1
Pro
Resolution: On balance, a cookie with chocolate chips is better than a cookie with nuts
 
Thank you, DeadFire27, for accepting this debate. This is a nonsense subject, so, let’s have fun with it. I note you are a relatively new member to the site, so, congratulations for finding us. Welcome aboard! 
 
I Argument: How does one argue about a cookie?
 
I.a Answer: With a sweet tooth and an opinion. Okay, as a joke, that isn’t. 
 
I.b Seriously, This is a debate about fruits and nuts. Chocolate is, after all, from a fruit – literally from a fruit’s seeds.[1]   Nuts are, well… it’s a nut. Call me nuts, but that’s the first and last word on that matter.
 
I.c Argument can be raised on just about any subject under the sun, which figures prominently in the production of both fruits and nuts, so, the debate is thus enjoined. That’s how, and that’s the first and last word on  that  matter, so, the game begins.
 
II Argument: V 1.0: Chocolate is better than nuts
 
II.a First, what’s the big deal getting pieces of nuts or chocolate to the dinner table? No, it’s not as easy as a trip to the grocery store, or this debate would be about Safeway vs. Albertsons, or whatever middleman provides your quantity of foodstuffs. If you live on a farm, producing your own, my apologies; you are beyond reproach and I value your service to the community.
 
II.b For many of you, you’re not even that concerned about buying the cookies or making them; I imagine most of you are adept at the former; not so much the latter. I’ll just say for the record: I love cooking. The kitchen is my favorite room in the house. Never you mind the extraneous possible activities! The former of you, being non-farmers, could not care less about making cookies, which is at least half the better for the butter [which, I’ll wager, is not your store-bought cookie ingredient]!  
 
II.c Nevertheless, not all cookie aficionados engage making them, so, your appreciation scale is somewhat limited. So be it. Isn’t the proof of the cookie in the eating? I rest my case on the buy/make matter, which rhymes with batter, which may or may not be the comparable matter with cookie dough. There’s actually a website discussing cookie dough and cake batter,[2]  but that’s the last word on that batter.
 
II.d Chocolate is a distracting ingredient. Sorry. So, Pro claims chocolate is better [recall by definition: more appreciated, healthier, tastier…]. I will feature, first, taste. For all matters kitchen cooking [oh!, but I’ve made chocolate chip cookies at 13,000 feet in the Sierras, so I’m not limited to kitchens], taste is the ultimate experience. I am not Japanese, though I admire their natural skill in presentation. But a cookie? Hey! let the tasty morsel speak for itself, thanks; I refuse to serve a cookie wrapped in dried seaweed, though it might make a good ingredient. As taste goes… well, let’s just say I’ve prepared a sweet/savory sauce for filet mignon whose main ingredient is  Theobroma,  the genus of the cacao tree, source of our humble chocolate. The Latin translates as “food of the gods.”  That should tell you all the taste, health, and appreciation necessary to convince you that chocolate is the preferred main ingredient of the cookie.
 
II.e Next, is the health matter. Myth buster #1: Chocolate, dark in particular, is a healthy food, taken in moderation. Hell, even water can kill, after all. We call it drowning, so lets not get too wrapped around the axle with comparing, a carrot, for example, to an ounce of dark chocolate. I wouldn’t be surprised if the carrot loses that battle, but I’m not going there. Carrot cake? Do you really eat it for the carrots?  Ain’t my thang, but I’m not at all surprised to learn that the Germans may have corrupted chocolate with that recipe. It’s sort of like milk chocolate [I wasn’t supposed to mention that], you know?
 
II.e.1 Dark chocolate is high in vitamin B-complex. Good for general metabolism and nervous system function.[3]
 
II.e.2 It has phenolic acid. Targets inflammation and aging. I’m 71, feel like 17.[4]
 
II.e.3  Rich in minerals: iron, selenium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, manganese, zinc, and a few kitchen sinks. [strike the last] You think Iron Man is all iron? Think again! This is cardiovascular and blood pressure super food.[5]
 
II.e.4 A mood elevator.[6]  So, if you’re anxious about the test tomorrow, an interview next Monday, or your first date this weekend with someone who actually seems to like you, savor a couple of ounces of dark chocolate. We’re talkin’ that extraneous kitchen activity, here, so, lighten up. Is someone going to try to convince you thatisn’t healthy activity? They’ve never been around the block, my friend, so stuff the nuts; it’s party time.
 
II.f Last, not least, and the big reveal of the shark, and in the first reel, no less! Appreciation. As in, the pleasure delay when the kitchen “oven” has cooled down, you’ve partied hardy, you’re laid back on the sofa, and just thinking nothing could be finer in any Carolina[r] in the morning after that night before. Your teeth itch. You’re tongue’s asleep. You may not even know your name [and there may have been more imbibed than chocolate], even though you’re sure you received a letter yesterday in the mail, but, who cares? What’s in a name, Will Shakespeare? You’ve just had a chocolate high and the kite is still rising. You’re telling me a nut will do that? Sorry, not in my lifetime.
 
III Argument: It’s Sunday; have some respect
 
III.a Well, as I write, it’s Sunday. A parting story, real, actual occurrence; no fiction. A few years ago, as usual, I created a Christmas card [I’m an illustrator and writer, so, easy deal] with a definitive, if alternate Christmas theme. What? Chocolate, of course. As a parting shot for R1, I offer the verse of the card:
 
Think it not strange, if heaven has a care
To justice, good, forthright and fair,
If after our Lord brings us there,
He’ll serve us chocolate all seasons of the year.
 
You do put out a plate of cookies and milk for Santa, yeah? Let a nut try to do all the above for you, and put those nuts in Santa’s cookies…? It’s coal for you, bud.
 
 
 
 
 
[1]https://balconygardenweb.com/is-chocolate-a-fruit-or-vegetable/
 
[2]http://www.cookie-elf.com/cookie-dough.html#sthash.nkujEvlo.dpbs
 
[3]https://balconygardenweb.com/is-chocolate-a-fruit-or-vegetable/
[4]ibid
[5]ibid
[6]ibid
Con
Thank You fauxlaw.

I have to admit, the antics you pulled in R1 made me silently laugh. But not really laugh. My teacher would kill me.

Unfortunately, I'm not able to balance comedy and information, so I hope you don't mind if my response is...… less comedic.

NUTS ARE BETTER THAN CHOCOLATE

Rebuttals:

II. d Argument:

Taste is undoubtedly, a important thing. But the greatest foods can be turned down by horrible texture, look ugly etc. Taste can't define an entire food.

II. e Argument:

Health. A very tricky matter. While dark chocolate is good in small portions, whos guaranteeing small portions? Chocolate is very addicting:
In addition to sugar and fat, chocolate contains several substances that can make it feel "addictive". These include tryptophan, an essential amino acid that is a precursor to serotonin, a neurotransmitter involved in regulating moods. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocoholic
You never specified how much intake of chocolate was going to be eaten. So, I deny this.

II. e Sub-Arguments and Rebuttals (REUTTALS IN BOLD)
II.e.1 Dark chocolate is high in vitamin B-complex. Good for general metabolism and nervous system function.[3] I argue that nuts help the same amount, and more proteins.

II.e.2 It has phenolic acid. Targets inflammation and aging. I’m 71, feel like 17.[4] Most nuts, almonds especially, reduce inflammation that can cause skin to look older prematurely. Eating nuts and seeds is a great healthy snack option that also has anti-aging properties. https://www.partnermd.com/blog/best-anti-aging-foods-younger-looking-skin

II.e.3  Rich in minerals: iron, selenium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, manganese, zinc, and a few kitchen sinks. [strike the last] You think Iron Man is all iron? Think again! This is cardiovascular and blood pressure super food.[5]   , Peanuts contain a range of polyphenols, antioxidants, flavonoids, and amino acids. Research has shown all of these components to be beneficial to human health.

II.e.4 A mood elevator.[6]  So, if you’re anxious about the test tomorrow, an interview next Monday, or your first date this weekend with someone who actually seems to like you, savor a couple of ounces of dark chocolate. We’re talkin’ that extraneous kitchen activity, here, so, lighten up. Is someone going to try to convince you that isn’t healthy activity? They’ve never been around the block, my friend, so stuff the nuts; it’s party time. Overused, you're not going to worry about things you should be worrying about.
The final one: Satisfaction is earned either way, so it doesn't really matter.



III Argument: It’s Sunday; have some respect:

It's Monday over here.

Yeah, looking back, not my best debate.


Round 2
Pro
Resolution: On balance, a cookie with chocolate chips is better than a cookie with nuts
 
Thank you, DeadFire27, for your R1. On to R2:
 
I Argument: Chocolate in cookies is better than nuts, v2.0
 
I.a Being my last round of argument [no new argument in R3], I’m going to drill down on one of my three-phased “better” arguments of R1, taste, taste, taste, and…
 
I.b Taste. This is the real deal in cookies. As a satisfaction quotient, being a sweet-tooth food, you don’t eat a cookie as a go-to for your health, even though chocolate does have that advantage. You eat a cookie for its the taste factor. Dark chocolate exceeds in taste that of nuts, so let’s maintain a proper perspective for the benefits of taste. As said in the description, a cookie with chocolate and nuts [and pecans can, hands down] may be the best cookie ever made, but, as instigator, I disallowed it, so,  “Fugeddaboudid.”  Yeah, got to say it like Hugh Grant to James Caan in Mickey Blue Eyes;   the best slaughter of the Bronx lexicon ever heard.
 
I.b.1 Here’s the real deal, part 1, on taste: most store-bought efforts typically lack butter – a real essential. Think of butter as the ingredient that is the spelunker of cookie dough [or, to continue a theme, a better batter with butter]; you know, cave exploration. Find a cave, which is anything but a straight thoroughfare, like Arthur Avenue through the Bronx. No, you’re looking for Lombard Street in San Francisco as a cookie spelunker, and that’s what butter does. Think a wandering lava tube, and your lava is, of course, melted chocolate. Can a nut do that? Nope. This effect is better, frankly, with chocolate chunks, because the immortal chip has an ingredient that tends to maintain the chip shape, even though melted.
 
I.b.2  Part 2: the sugars, brown and granulated. Most are fine with an even blend – 50-50 split. But, since we’re talking taste, going 75-25 in favor of brown will enhance flavor, particularly when chocolate is your main ingredient. Does a nut care about it’s compliment of sugars? Nope. The brown sugar supremacy is a bit like the discovery that dark chocolate with a hint of sea salt was a flavor bomb. So… kaboom with brown sugar. However, you probably eat salted peanuts, preferring them to the natural, out-of-the-shell flavor. Salt has that effect. So? You’re going to salt your nuts before tossing them in the cookie dough? Sure. Or, in fact, sugar them? Never seen that; have you?
 
I.b.3  Part 3: has naught to do with ingredients, but for taste, oven temperature is a must to get it right. The typical cookie temp is 350˚ F [175˚ C], 12 minutes, plus or minus [your oven varies from mine, guaranteed – and repeat that thought for the other temps]. However, manipulation is stimulation, taste-wise. If you want the chewy crunch, 325˚ F [160˚ C], 14 minutes is your setting. For a softer, out-of-the-oven texture, and you can forget about “softer-texture” nuts, even when cooled [my preference, in case that was forgotten], 375˚ F [175˚ C], 10 minutes is the ticket. How did I make these temperature refinements at 13,000 feet on a reflector oven [a handy device that folds flat in a backpack] facing a good, old-fashioned, open fire [no longer allowed in CA]?  By guessing, goomba. Necessary hint: I’m not from New York; strictly Left Coast, only because I’m left-handed. The end.
 
II Rebuttal: Con R1: Taste; Great foods rejected for appearance, etc.
 
II.a Appearance, texture, etc, are certainly yuck-factors that can overwhelm taste. The food may never reach the mouth, so taste is out of the question, so I get how, just by appearance, taste is never achieved by abused alternate senses.
 
II.b In taste’s defense, rejecting a cookie by sight, smell, or touch [texture], offers taste no real opportunity to be sampled. Therefore, the sense of primary purpose here is not allowed its day in court, and is judged unfairly.
 
II.b In the cookie’s defense, prepared and cooked correctly, the cookie with either main ingredient does not immediately bring to mind objectionable resistance. For this debate, this Con argument will not hold, and the Resolution is upheld, in particular for the chocolate chip, for all the reasons of taste supported above, R2, I.
 
III Rebuttal: Con R1: Health: the minimum daily values super star
 
III.a Con argues that chocolate, while acknowledging its healthful benefits, can be, as I mentioned in R1, II.d,  “distracting.”  Okay, I’ll accept Con’s stronger argument,  “addicting.”   As a chocoholic, I can, nevertheless, on demand, turn down grabbing a handful of semisweet chocolate chips, so, in my case [I acknowledge the addict-factor in others], addiction may be too strong a failing. There are x-oholics of just about any food, and the comparison would be difficult to demonstrate relative to chocolate and nuts. However, that aside, lets do a comparison by a few nutritional variants:
 
III.a.1 Fiber: MDV* 30g[1][same source for all MDVs below]
            DkChoc: [1oz]✭11g[2]
            Nuts [1 oz]  9.8g[3]
 
III.a.2  Protein: MDV 50g
            DkChoc: 3g[4]
            Nuts: 2g[5]
 
III.a.3 Fat: MDV 70g
            DkChoc: 0.43g[6]
            Nuts: 14g[7]
 
III.a.4 Sugar: MDV 90g
            DkChoc: 0.21g[8]
            Nuts: 0.4[9]
 
III.a.5  Vitamin B-complex MDV 0.01g
            DkChoc: 0.13g[10]
            Nuts: 0.56g[11]
 
* min. daily value 
✭ all values of choc & nuts 1oz.
 
In virtually every category [excepting fat and vitamin B-complex], dark chocolate exceeds nuts in minimum daily value requirement per ounce of product. Relative to vitamin B-complex, both chocolate and nuts exceed the minimum daily value. Therefore, the health value of dark chocolate sustains the Resolution,  on balance, as a better cookie ingredient.
 
IV Rebuttal: Con R1: Health: Phenolic acid
 
IV.a Phenolic acid is a major contributor to prevention of inflammation and aging. Con argued:  “Eating nuts and seeds is a great healthy snack option.”   Indeed, they are, but let’s not overlook the origin of chocolate: it’s a seed!  Chocolate is, no doubt, a laborious process from picking the pod from the tree to unwrapping a morsel of chocolate. Whereas, a typical nut can be had as food within a minute of time. From picking a ripe pecan from a tree, to eating the “fruit” thereof from the husk and shell, is seconds of duration. 
 
IV.b The nitty-gritty: polyphenols in dark chocolate amount to 0.034g per 1 oz, rating #2 on the list of foods containing the most polyphenols.[12]
 
IV.c By comparison, the pecan, for example, contains 0.0049g per 1 oz, rating #6 on the same list as above. Almonds, Con’s choice, is worse by a reduced factor of 2.6x.
 
IV.d Once again, dark chocolate prevails as a better ingredient in a cookie, and the Resolution holds.
 
V Rebuttal: Con R1: Health: Minerals
 
V.a Observe the comparative values of mineral content in dark chocolate and pecans, for example, in the following websites:
 
 
 
With the exception of zinc, dark chocolate has, by weight, more of each mineral listed than nuts. 
 
VI Rebuttal: Con R1: Mood
 
VI.a Con argues that this factor is  “overused.”   No, not overused. Used by more people because it works. The chemistry is the evidence. “Studies show that eating dark chocolate actually works chemically to improve your mood.”[13] 
 
I rest my case for R2, and pass to Con.
 


[5]ibid
 

Con
Thank you fauxlaw,

Sorry for the late response.

NEW ARGUMENT:

I was reading through the description to look for flaws when I realized a fatal error.

Resolution: On balance, a cookie with chocolate chips is better than a cookie with nuts
Better: more appreciated, healthier, tastier…
For the resolution to be true, it is necessary that all definitions of better, must apply. And if one is not applicable, then the resolution has been proven false.

Let's hold on to that for a minute, and look through your arguments:

I ARGUMENT RESPONSE:

Taste does not define a cookie, but is undoubtedly important. I'll give you this one, giving you the tastier definition of better.

II ARGUMENT REBUTTAL:

rejecting a cookie by sight, smell, or touch [texture], offers taste no real opportunity to be sampled.
But half of a cookies worth is in it's presentation and appearance. I argue that a cookie, to be considered delicious, must also look delicious.

III ARGUMENT REBUTTAL:

While dark chocolate is more healthy, not many people know that. I'd like to quote my earlier statements:

For the resolution to be true, it is necessary that all definitions of better, must apply.
and
Better: more appreciated, healthier, tastier…
Chocolate is not a widely appreciated snack, at least not in huge portions. Most people consider chocolate to be a unhealthy food, even dark chocolate:

Dark chocolate is a concentrated source of calories and eating too much of it can lead to eating too many calories in general, which may result in weight gain. Dark Chocolate Not a Health Food (healthline.com)
So, I deny the "appreciated" factor of better, proving your entire resolution to be false.

I will drop IV AND V

VI Argument:

Yes, improving your dopamine levels and making it addicting.

Please take note this was rushed, don't bully me for bad arguments.

Thank you fauxlaw.

PS: YES! Back to normal. 
Round 3
Pro
Resolution: On balance, a cookie with chocolate chips is better than a cookie with nuts
 
Thank you, DeadFire27, for your R2. On to R3:
 
I Rebuttal: Con R2: Rebuttals of taste, appearance, and health
 
I.a Being my last round, I will offer no new argument. That phase is done. However, rebuttal and defense, then conclusion, is the order of the day for R3.
 
I.b  Con suggested that the definition of “better” is flawed, but deferred that argument to later in the round. I will, as well.
 
I.c  Con accepted taste as a feature. No further rebuttal needed.
 
I.d Con finds appearance, alone, can dissuade from testing taste, and I accept that possibility, however, Con has shifted one of my three defining criteria of “better;” shifting from appreciation to appearance. But the two terms are not synonymous; therefore, the shift is not appropriate. 
 
I.d.1 Appreciation: according to the OED,  The action or act of assessing the nature or quality of something or someone; judgment, estimation.
 
I.d.2 Appearance: according to the OED:  The action of coming into view or becoming visible.
 
I.d.3 The comparison of the above differs in this manner: appreciation requires making an assessment of the nature of something, whereas appearance is simply something in view, without necessarily making any judgment about that something. In effect, something not seen is not immediately appreciable whereas something seen may not necessarily be appreciated, either. Therefore, the word switch by Con resists tasting as an element of appreciation, and is not appropriate to the “better” definition, and, therefore, the Resolution.
 
I.e Con declares, without substantiation, that  Chocolate is not a widely appreciated snack, at least not in huge portions.”   However, according to CandyUSA.com, in a 2019 study,  “Chocolate represents 60% of the $35 billion U.S. confectionary industry… chocolate is a consumer favorite enjoyed across ages, incomes, ethnicities, and regions.”[1]
 
I.f Con also declares, without substantiation, that  Most people consider chocolate to be a unhealthy food, even dark chocolate.”    However, the properties of chocolate outweigh what opinions people may have about it. Their opinions do not void the fact that chocolate has healthful benefits. Con refers to  https://www.healthline.com/health-news/dark-chocolate-is-not-a-health-food#The-reality-behind-benefits-of-dark-chocolate  without actually citing it. Too bad, because that source also says, “What’s the good news? Cocoa is full of flavanols, chemical compounds found in many vegetables and fruits that have been found to have health benefits, including antioxidant properties that can benefit heart health.”[2]   Add to flavanols all the other vitamins and minerals listed in my R2. So, let’s not let peoples’ opinions, which may not be fact-based, deter from what are actual healthful properties of chocolate – yes, eaten in moderation, as all foods should be moderated to avoid excess. That includes the effects of dopamine, which Con suggests can be addicting. Back to moderation; a concept I support. Translation: enjoy eating a chocolate chip cookie, or two, but lets not indulge the entire batch in one sitting, okay?
 
II Defense & conclusion: The tasty, appreciated, healthy chocolate chip cookie
 
II.a Let’s note, first, that, contrary to Con’s BoP to support nuts in cookies as opposed to dark chocolate, the word find no entry in Con’s R2 by argument or rebuttal. Well, in actual fact, it does appear, but both instances are happenstance. Con quotes my Resolution, which contains the word, but that’s mine, not Con’s. Second, it appears as a portion of “minute,” but that does not count as the word in question. In fact, not including the numerous references to Con’s keyword, nut, in my Description, my previous two rounds entertain the word more often than Con does.
 
II.b I have upheld the wonderful properties of dark chocolate as an ingredient in a cookie, and have defended the taste, appreciation, and health of dark chocolate as those specific properties of  theobroma,  the preferred food of the gods. The nut is not given such divine treatment.  I therefore ask for your kind attention to these rounds, and ask for your vote. Let’s conclude by another Christmas card offering:
 
And its name shall be called
Wonderful, Confectioner,
the mighty Good,
the everlasting Feast,
the Prince of Pieces.”
 
Ó1999  fauxlaw
 
 
 
 
 
 

Con
Thank you fauxlaw,

I concede. I find no good counter argument for yours, and am doubting my own side. Thanks for a good debate. 

Deadfire27