Instigator / Pro
4
1500
rating
10
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#5308

Pineapple can go on pizza if you want it to

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
0

After 1 vote and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
6
1706
rating
562
debates
68.06%
won
Description

Internet culture has taught us that pineapple does not belong on pizza. This is what a majority of people have said. What they have also acknowledged is that it is merely a popular thing to say, rather than real fact. Does pineapple belong on pizza? I'd say, if you like pineapple on pizza, go ahead. If you don't, then don't go ahead. Just don't suffocate people with your opinions and tell them they aren't allowed to eat it.

Round 1
Pro
#1
First, a list of my definitions:

Belong: for something's proper purpose to be located within something specific, or for something to be good on/in something.

Subjective: for something to have no logical reasoning to it, as it cannot have any, and there are therefore no wrong answers.

Objective: for something to have a complete set of logical reasoning behind it, and there is therefore an absolute right answer.

Taste: a person's appeal to certain things (often characterized by subjectivity).



Does pineapple belong on pizza? Internet culture says no. At this point, we have been internet-pressured into either believing, agreeing with, or just saying, that pineapple does not belong on pizza, and that pineapple pizza is an abomination, or is just wrong, or disgusting. Of course, this has no logical validity to it.

There are a few aspects of food specifically that are objective, such as health value, or possible allergies to a particular ingredient. However, first off, pineapple pizza is obviously not healthy. Don't kid yourself, it's pizza. And for allergies, those can vary from person to person. Some people can eat pineapple pizza, some people might not. But just because somebody might be allergic to pineapple doesn't mean somebody else is, therefore, it is invalid to say that somebody else shouldn't eat them. The only valid thing somebody could say is that people who are allergic to pineapple should not be eating pineapple pizza. And, yeah duh. But when it comes to saying that pineapple doesn't even belong on pizza, the implication of that statement is wrong. The implication of that statement says that there is an absolute taste. Somebody's taste who somehow transcends over all others, and thus absolutely decides whether or not a specific set of tastes is right or wrong. This is obviously an incorrect idea.

Your taste in food is subjective. Whether something is healthy or unhealthy, authentic or inauthentic, took ten hours to make or two minutes, they don't provide enough logical reasoning to say that something should objectively taste good or bad. Otherwise, you'd be able to predict exactly whether or not somebody will like something. And sure, there is often general consensus in some things, but it's not perfect. You can merely say it is likely somebody will like or dislike something. But tastes are still subjective, and yet, people tend to treat it as if it is objective. And then, they are somehow shocked when they find out that other people don't have the same tastes as theirs, so they just conclude that that person is flat out wrong and distasteful. When asked why, they will usually have some kind of excuse, like saying that they should like this because they're from this state, or that acidic should never go with savory, among others. But ultimately, these are just ad hoc reasons that never actually address the underlying problem of the matter: all taste is subjective. There is no absolute taste. Not in food, not in video games, not in movies/TV shows, not in people, or anything else. Now, I will admit that there are some characteristics about things like video games, where if there were a video game that was exceptionally violent and horrific, that would be good reason to say that that is not a good game. Or for people who have committed unspeakable crimes, that is obviously a reason to not like someone. But when it comes to food, the only objective thing you can say about food is whether or not it is edible. Moldy bread is objectively bad, because if you were to consume it, you would likely fall ill. But when it comes to whether or not pineapple belongs on pizza, there are no wrong answers. There are no tastes that somebody could have that are objectively right or wrong. So when people treat it as if they are objectively right or wrong, they are setting themselves up for failure, though usually if they have a crowd of people agreeing with them, they can hang on to their cover for now.

Some people might say that acidic foods don't belong with savory foods, and that's why pineapple doesn't belong on pizza. But this is not addressing the underlying problem, it is merely delaying it. There is still the question of why don't acidic foods belong on savory foods. Again, there is still no objective answer to this question. So, saying that acidic foods don't belong with savory foods is just delaying the problem, rather than addressing it.

The odds of the tastes of somebody you know being exactly the same as yours in every aspect is extremely improbable, so you should expect that their tastes will disagree with you in at least one aspect. It shouldn't be surprising at all.



In conclusion: if you like pineapple on pizza, go for it. If you don't like pineapple pizza, don't go for it. But don't think that you can tell somebody that they are wrong for liking pineapple on pizza without realizing the things I have said above. Whether you like it or not, this is the truth about taste in food. And for as ridiculous as some food combinations may seem, they are still fundamentally subjective, and there is no real reason to ridicule someone, say they're wrong, or be surprised at all, when their tastes differ from yours in any way. Just because the internet says it, doesn't mean you have to say it. And if somebody makes fun of you for liking pineapple on pizza, they are wrong.
Con
#2
After a lot of deliberation I have gone with the simultaneously laziest and most sportsmanlike approach to be effort-efficient and fair on my opponent.

My opponent is debating a topic of if pineapple belongs on pizza and that has next to nothing to do directly with the resolution of this debate.

My case is as simple as this:

  1. Inspired by Wylted in the comments, you can't always put pineapple on pizza, it's not always available regardless of you wanting to do so.
  2. Sometimes you can put it on but the Italians that are meat-supremacists will kick the shit out of you and refuse you to their establishment for asking for it.
  3. This is the most important one... 'if' is contingent on the part after it. You can have pineapple on pizza even in situations you don't want it to (be on pizza).
used to say that a particular thing can or will happen only after something else happens or becomes true:
Round 2
Pro
#3
"My opponent is debating a topic of if pineapple belongs on pizza and that has next to nothing to do directly with the resolution of this debate."
I'm not defending either side of this. What I'm saying, and what you would have gotten upon reading my argument, is that it is simply incorrect to make an absolute statement on which tastes are better and which tastes are worse, because there are no objectively good or bad tastes, it is all subjective.
As for your point that it has next to nothing to do directly with the resolution of this debate, the title of the debate clearly states that pineapple can go on pizza if you want it to. It's saying that if you want it to go on pizza, go ahead. This also directly means that if you don't want it to, then just don't eat it. This is exactly the point I was making in round 1. So, sorry, but it has everything to do with the resolution of this debate.

"You can't always put pineapple on pizza, it's not always available regardless of you wanting to do so."
Just because a food is not available in your region has nothing to do with whether or not it belongs on something, or whether or not there even is an absolute opinion. Pineapple does not objectively belong or not belong on pizza, and just because it might be scarce in your part of the world does not mean it objectively does not belong on pizza. To claim any kind of objectivity on this matter would simply be incorrect, because again, all taste is subjective. In fact, generally foods are considered even more luxurious when they are scarce, because then they are rare, and therefore more expensive, and therefore, you only get them at fancy restaurants. But, again, it is still subjective, and if you do or don't like it, then more power to you to either eat it or not eat it.

"Sometimes you can put it on but the Italians that are meat-supremacists will kick the s*** out of you and refuse you to their establishment for asking for it."
This isn't an argument against pineapple pizza. If anything, all it really is is just a statement against whatever Italian guys kick you out of their establishment for even asking for pineapple pizza. That's on the Italian people for 1. treating this matter as if there is an objective answer, which there is not, and 2. ridiculing you for it. Now, obviously, them actually kicking you out of their establishment is likely an exaggeration (though if that's not an exaggeration, dang). The Italians are the ones in the wrong in this situation, as they are directly denying the fact that all taste is subjective, and that nobody should be ridiculed for eating pineapple pizza.

"This is the most important one... 'if' is contingent on the part after it. You can have pineapple on pizza even in situations you don't want it to (be on pizza)."
I'm not entirely sure what your point here is. Can you clarify in your next argument?



In conclusion: your arguments are not logically sound as arguments against mine. You have also provided no rebuttal of any kind against my statements, so I extend all of my previous arguments from before. The principle still stands that all taste is subjective, so treating it like it is objective is simply incorrect. And you have not provided any kind of rebuttal to this statement, so the grounds that you currently stand on are thin.
Con
#4
Forfeited
Round 3
Pro
#5
Placeholder.
Con
#6
The title of the debate is that pineapple goes on pizza if you want.

I made 3 points:
  • you can't always put pineapple on pizza, it's not always available regardless of you wanting to do so.
  • Sometimes you can put it on but the Italians that are meat-supremacists will kick the shit out of you and refuse you to their establishment for asking for it.
  • This is the most important one... 'if' is contingent on the part after it. You can have pineapple on pizza even in situations you don't want it to (be on pizza).
If pineapple is not available and you want it to go on pizza, it can't go on pizza.

If you are going to be assaulted and/or denied the pizza, it's unrealistic to promise that nearby a pizza parlor or you yourself can just make the pineapple pizza that day or in the next few hours (thus meaning you wanted pineapple on pizza but couldn't have it)

Pineapple can go on pizza regardless of you wanting it to, meaning it's a lie to say it goes on pizza if you want it to.
Round 4
Pro
#7
I see that you are abusing a technicality in the wording of my title in order to win the debate. I am not sure if pointing this out makes it invalid to continue on like this, but I do think it is unfair that I have to octuple check my title to make sure that there are no technicalities, and if I miss one, then I might lose the debate, not because I didn't have a good argument, but just because I missed a technicality in the title.

However, despite this technicality, the title actually still does not fail at expressing the point of the argument. You see, the word "can" was not referring to capability, it was referring to allowance. Whether or not somebody is allowed to eat pineapple on pizza. And grammatically, these can mean both. And I am here to specify that the "can" in the title is referring to allowance, rather than capability. So, if you continue on using the same argument under the same premise, you are simply choosing to misunderstand and misinterpret the title of this debate intentionally, which I will not let stand. If you do this again, I will point it out, and explain in detail once again why you should not have done that.

The supposed technicality in the debate title was not a technicality, but rather, a misinterpretation/misunderstanding. And I will go as far as to say that you did that intentionally, because if you had read my debate argument, you would have very clearly gotten the premise that the "can" was about allowance, rather than capability, and yet you went through with it. You are simply debating with intentional ignorance, and choosing to pretend like you thought the "can" was about capability, and started arguing with that. You clearly are missing the point of my argument, and are intending to misinterpret the title in order to win, instead of actually providing a real rebuttal to my arguments.

And, because of that, I will extend all of my arguments.



In conclusion: your debate tactic is nothing more than intentionally misinterpreting the title of this debate, even though it grammatically can imply either, and my debate argument clearly demonstrated that it was about allowance, and not ability. And yet, you chose to continue with a misinterpretation of the title thinking that you could win that way.
Con
#8
I stand by all the technicalities.

My opponent mad ethe debate to be impossible to lose for Pro. Instead it was impossible to lose for Con.

Do not pity Pro. Laugh at the situation and show no mercy in the votes.
Round 5
Pro
#9
I already told you, the technicality is merely a misinterpretation.

When a debate title has a technicality, it means that there is a very slight detail within the title that, when following the rules of grammar, actually mean something slightly different than intended. And in order to interpret the title the way it was intended to be interpreted as, they would have to not follow the rules of English grammar. But this is different. Here, we have a situation where the true grammatically correct interpretation of the title is not the only way, but rather, simply one way. Here, it is grammatically correct to interpret the title as saying that you are capable of eating pineapple on pizza if you want to, but it is also grammatically correct to interpret it the intended way, being that the title is saying that you are allowed to eat pineapple on pizza if you want to. Both of these interpretations are grammatically correct, so with no further context, both of them are valid.

It is only when further context is provided that one of them becomes valid, and the other becomes invalid. As the maker of the title, I know what I meant, and I know you know what I meant, because you read my arguments. Those arguments provided the context for which "can" the title was referring to, and eliminated the other one. And which "can" did I eliminate and which "can" did I not? I eliminated the ability meaning of can. Clearly, when I referred to the word can, I was referring to allowance, rather than ability. I specified this over and over again, and yet you choose to ignore it.

This is not a situation where interpreting the "can" as allowance is a grammatically incorrect way to interpret it. No, this is just the result of the title being made in such a way that it can be interpreted in two different ways, which initially, are both equally valid. It is only when further context is provided, like when I made my arguments, that the further context is provided, and you realize which meaning I was referring to. It is grammatically correct to interpret the "can" as allowance. It is a valid interpretation. Therefore, after I have stated my arguments, including specifying this very thing, continuing to misinterpret the title and choose to be purposefully ignorant is not a good debate tactic when I dedicate an entire paragraph to showing you how you are wrong.

I say, voters should also not show CON any mercy, and do not pity him. Clearly, you think you can win just by misinterpreting the title, and not by using actual facts and logic. I have shown you why your misinterpretation is invalid in this debate, so you simply can't use this tactic. You think that your path to success is simply finding a technicality in a title, and then ignoring when they point out why that "technicality" is really just a misinterpretation, because both interpretations are equally grammatically correct.

The actual point of this debate is to discuss whether or not it is valid to say that pineapple objectively does or does not belong on pizza, and you are merely trying to misinterpret the title as a way of winning. I know I have spent all this time talking about this one thing that he is doing, but 1. I said in my previous argument that I would respond to him in detail if he did this again, and 2. I have nothing more to say as of this moment on the topic of pineapple pizza because he hasn't said anything about that in his most recent argument. I am saying how his argument is invalid.


Now that I have spent all this time talking about just your logical fallacy, let's now say one more thing about pineapple on pizza. If you think that it is valid to say that pineapple does or does not belong on pizza, this would be on the notion that there is an objective set of tastes. And, if there is, explain why that is. How can there exist one set of tastes that are somehow objectively better than the others? Clearly, if you think that there can be an objective opinion about pineapple on pizza, then you somehow believe that this can be true.



In conclusion: you are getting caught up in one small detail within the title that can be interpreted in two different ways, and you are choosing to interpret it the wrong way, even after I have specified again and again and again why you are wrong. Clearly, this is not enough for you to stop continuing to focusing on nothing but that as a way to win the argument. Your rebuttal against me in round 3 was related to pineapple pizza, the actual point of the argument, but it relied solely on the notion that his interpretation of the title was correct, which it wasn't. At this point, we are drifting away from the actual point of the argument, but I still must point out his logical fallacy.
Con
#10
I stand by all the technicalities.

My opponent made the debate to be impossible to lose for Pro. Instead it was impossible to lose for Con.

Do not pity Pro. Laugh at the situation and show no mercy in the votes.