Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
12
debates
45.83%
won
Topic
#5906
Should Cereal be considered a soup?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Mieky
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two hours
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1500
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Description
This thought-provoking product invites consumers to explore the intriguing question of whether cereal qualifies as a soup. Designed for those who appreciate culinary debates, it encourages discussions around food classification, texture, and cultural perceptions. With a unique blend of humor and insight, this product serves as a conversation starter, perfect for gatherings or personal reflection on the nature of food.
Round 1
Alright, hear me out—cereal should totally count as a soup. Think about what soup actually is at its core: a mix of liquid and solid ingredients. That’s literally what cereal is—a bowl of milk with cereal pieces floating around. It’s no different from noodles in broth or veggies in a stew. And sure, some people argue that soup has to be hot, but that’s not even true. Cold soups like gazpacho or fruit soups are still soups, right? So why can’t cereal be the breakfast version of soup, with milk as the broth and cereal pieces as the mix-ins?
And let’s talk about preparation. Not all soups are some long, slow-cooked ordeal. There are instant soups, like ramen or canned tomato soup, that take almost no effort. Cereal’s the same vibe—quick, easy, and low-key. Pouring milk over cereal is basically the breakfast version of adding broth to a bowl of soup. It’s all about the swap: milk instead of broth, cold instead of hot. But the concept? It’s identical.
Even how we use cereal makes sense in the soup category. Soup can be a starter, a main course, or even a side, depending on the type. Cereal’s just as flexible—it can be breakfast, a snack, or even a late-night meal. It’s versatile, just like soup. When you think about it, cereal checks every box that matters. Sure, it’s not what we traditionally call “soup,” but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t belong. It’s time to give cereal the soup respect it deserves.
And let’s talk about preparation. Not all soups are some long, slow-cooked ordeal. There are instant soups, like ramen or canned tomato soup, that take almost no effort. Cereal’s the same vibe—quick, easy, and low-key. Pouring milk over cereal is basically the breakfast version of adding broth to a bowl of soup. It’s all about the swap: milk instead of broth, cold instead of hot. But the concept? It’s identical.
Even how we use cereal makes sense in the soup category. Soup can be a starter, a main course, or even a side, depending on the type. Cereal’s just as flexible—it can be breakfast, a snack, or even a late-night meal. It’s versatile, just like soup. When you think about it, cereal checks every box that matters. Sure, it’s not what we traditionally call “soup,” but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t belong. It’s time to give cereal the soup respect it deserves.
Let’s be real—cereal is not soup, and it never will be. Soup, by definition, is a dish that’s cooked, where ingredients come together in a liquid—usually a broth or stock—to create something cohesive and flavorful. Cereal? It’s just pouring milk over some crunchy pieces of grain. There’s no cooking, no blending of flavors, no process that turns it into a unified dish. It’s literally as simple as "milk meets cereal," and that’s where it ends. That alone sets it miles apart from what soup actually is.
Then there’s the temperature thing. Yes, a handful of soups like gazpacho or chilled cucumber soup are served cold, but they’re still crafted with intention—blended, seasoned, and balanced to be a complete dish. Cereal? It’s cold by default and doesn’t require any effort beyond opening a box and a carton of milk. There’s no thought of “bringing the flavors together” like you’d expect in a soup. Even the milk in cereal doesn’t function like a broth. Broth is carefully made to complement the ingredients; milk just happens to be a liquid that makes cereal easier to eat. It’s not adding depth—it’s just wetting your cereal.
And culturally, soup and cereal couldn’t be more different. Soup is hearty, versatile, and can fit into pretty much any meal as a starter, side, or main course. It’s the ultimate comfort food—savory, warm, and nourishing. Cereal, on the other hand, is sugary, light, and specific to breakfast or snack time. It’s marketed for convenience, not for the depth or substance you’d expect from a proper dish like soup. They’re fundamentally designed for completely different purposes.
At the end of the day, cereal doesn’t need to be a soup to be valid. It’s cereal. It’s its own thing. Trying to call it soup just feels like overthinking something that’s perfectly fine as it is.
Then there’s the temperature thing. Yes, a handful of soups like gazpacho or chilled cucumber soup are served cold, but they’re still crafted with intention—blended, seasoned, and balanced to be a complete dish. Cereal? It’s cold by default and doesn’t require any effort beyond opening a box and a carton of milk. There’s no thought of “bringing the flavors together” like you’d expect in a soup. Even the milk in cereal doesn’t function like a broth. Broth is carefully made to complement the ingredients; milk just happens to be a liquid that makes cereal easier to eat. It’s not adding depth—it’s just wetting your cereal.
And culturally, soup and cereal couldn’t be more different. Soup is hearty, versatile, and can fit into pretty much any meal as a starter, side, or main course. It’s the ultimate comfort food—savory, warm, and nourishing. Cereal, on the other hand, is sugary, light, and specific to breakfast or snack time. It’s marketed for convenience, not for the depth or substance you’d expect from a proper dish like soup. They’re fundamentally designed for completely different purposes.
At the end of the day, cereal doesn’t need to be a soup to be valid. It’s cereal. It’s its own thing. Trying to call it soup just feels like overthinking something that’s perfectly fine as it is.
Round 2
But here’s the thing—not all soups are complicated or require cooking! We’ve got things like instant ramen, canned tomato soup, or even a quick broth with noodles that are super easy and don’t require the depth or hours of simmering you’re talking about. They’re quick and simple, just like cereal. So, the idea that soup needs to be something cooked for a long time doesn’t hold up. Cereal falls into the same category as those quick soups. You just pour the milk over the dry cereal and, boom, you’ve got yourself a meal. And let’s talk about cold soups like gazpacho. They’re still considered soup, but they don’t require cooking either. They’re just chilled blends of ingredients mixed together. That’s basically what cereal is—ingredients mixed together in a liquid. Sure, milk isn’t as complex as broth, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that it’s a liquid base, just like broth or stock. And cereal is a meal—it’s filling, it’s satisfying, and it serves the same purpose as soup in a lot of ways, just at breakfast. There’s no reason why we can’t think of cereal as soup. It’s liquid and solids mixed together, plain and simple.
Okay, I’m not saying instant soups aren’t “quick,” but there’s still intention behind those. Whether it’s the ingredients in a ramen packet or the tomatoes in canned soup, there’s some kind of base or preparation happening. Even with something as simple as ramen, the broth is seasoned, and the noodles are cooked, which means there’s a thought process going into creating a dish that works together. Cereal, on the other hand, is just milk and dry cereal. No seasoning, no cooking, no blending—it’s just two things sitting together in a bowl. The milk isn’t creating a dish or bringing any depth to the mix—it’s just there to make the cereal easier to eat. Soup, by its very nature, is a dish that evolves over time through cooking or blending flavors. You’re not doing that with cereal. You’re not creating something cohesive—it’s literally just milk with dry cereal, and it’s meant to be eaten immediately, not simmered or allowed to blend together for hours. Cereal might seem like it fits the basic definition of liquid and solids, but when you look at the purpose and the process behind it, it’s clearly not the same thing.
Yeah nothing like that is happening.
Moderator here... I thought I had already addressed this...
So the rule is:
"Multi-accounting and any action indistinguishable from it is prohibited. Dispensation may be granted on a case-by-case basis, such as for multiple users within a single residence; but they will have certain restrictions applied (e.g., never voting on each other’s debates)."
That said, we give the benefit of doubt so long as there's no signs of exploitative intent. Exploits would be things like if you keep debating each other but one kept intentionally losing to boost the others rating, or if you two voted on each others debaters (which was a huge problem back in the day, and literally caused the need for the no multi-account rule). But so long as nothing bad like those occur, we in the moderation team will trust that you're just good friends.
Fair enough. Hopefully if we do debate in the future, It'll be about an actual topic not this whole back and forth. Take care.
For future reference, I don't mean to ignore responses. I just don't have time to reply to people everyday.
The trouble of talking here is that our discourse lacks the actual debate structure on the website and is not confined to its rules.
For instance, we are having trouble on deciding the makeup of the argument. Am I trying to prove something or bring awareness to its likelihood?
You adhere to the view that I am required to prove something for the sake of the argument, even though I was never based in that goal and repeatedly said as much.
But it can't be helped since you continue creating a loop where you say I am required to prove something, and then I disagree with that statement.
It's one of your defenses which is understandable, though not enlightening for the subject at the hand.
-
I'm glad you had fun, and I hope you stay on the site. Maybe we'll have a debate in the future sometime.
I guess this was my way of welcoming you to the site.
...Lol, that was a bad joke
I’m honestly done with this conversation. I’ve explained my side, and I’m not going to keep justifying myself. You’re entitled to your interpretation, but I’m not here to debate my personal intentions or get dragged into assumptions about me. I joined to debate, not to defend my actions based on your perspective. If you have any further issues, feel free to take it to a mod, but I’m moving on.
I had fun with this debate. ;)
I see what you're saying, and I get that you're interpreting the activities on the site, but again, interpretation isn’t proof. You’re making an assumption based on coincidences and patterns that seem to fit your perspective. But there's still no solid proof that we’re the same person or that my account is a backup for a second account. Just because things look suspicious to you doesn’t make them fact.
The point about ‘recorded action’ is fair, but your interpretation is still based on surface-level actions. What you're not factoring in is that people’s actions often overlap for reasons that have nothing to do with multi-accounting. You mentioned lying on the profile—that’s not the case. I made the account like anyone else would, to get involved and debate. The 'intent' you’re digging into is based on your perspective of my actions, but you still don’t have any proof of malicious intent.
And I’m not here to argue with you about who I am or why I’m on this site. I’m here to debate. You’re right that I can’t know exactly how you’re interpreting things, but I can only speak for my own intentions. I’m not pretending, and I’m not trying to deceive anyone. I’ve given you my side, and I think we’ve covered all the angles. Beyond this, it’s just us going in circles.
"I’m not looking to convince you of anything beyond that I’m a real person here to debate."
I am very convinced that you came here to argue with people
"But let’s be clear: the activity on the site doesn’t prove anything beyond surface-level coincidences."
No, that's interpretation of the activity, not a proof that the activity is a coincidence.
"but that doesn’t automatically mean we're the same person or that one account is a 'backup.'"
Doesn't mean you're automatically not the same person either.
"The argument you’re making is built on assumptions about intent,"
Not only intention, but also recorded action. This is how we characterize people in our minds: by the things they do.
"As for the profile details—again, they don’t tell you who we are or what our actual intentions are. If you’re relying solely on the data from the site, then you’re ignoring the full context of why we might behave a certain way. Just because we act similarly on here doesn’t mean we’re the same person. People do this kind of thing all the time—people from similar places, with similar interests, end up with some common behaviors. That's normal."
Even if the profile details are a lie--which claiming this does not help your case at all if you're implying that you've been a liar from the moment you entered the website--this is still a reflection of what type of person you are irl.
For example, if someone lies about their profile details this can mean they don't care for realistic profile details, they like to lie, to be anonymous online, or they like to play pretend.
It's not just data on a site. These are words that flowed from a real person who's using his real mind. Unless you're a bot, but I don't think so because you're taking this personally.
Though AI has the capability to do something like this...
All I have is what you've said and done on the site anyways. How I am supposed to know your irl intentions and the background context for why you decided to come onto a debate website and make two active accounts?
Look, I understand your point about ‘perspective’—we’re both interpreting the situation based on what we can see. But let’s be clear: the activity on the site doesn’t prove anything beyond surface-level coincidences. Yes, we signed up on the same day, and yes, we have similar names, but that doesn’t automatically mean we're the same person or that one account is a 'backup.'
The argument you’re making is built on assumptions about intent, and that’s where we’re diverging. You're assuming that multi-accounting is the 'more likely scenario,' but there’s no definitive evidence for that—just circumstantial evidence, which, as you’ve pointed out, we both agree can't be proven. So, you're relying on the idea that this must be the case because it fits the pattern you've observed, but that’s not proof.
As for the profile details—again, they don’t tell you who we are or what our actual intentions are. If you’re relying solely on the data from the site, then you’re ignoring the full context of why we might behave a certain way. Just because we act similarly on here doesn’t mean we’re the same person. People do this kind of thing all the time—people from similar places, with similar interests, end up with some common behaviors. That's normal.
Lastly, I never said multi-accounting was the most likely scenario. I said "you can believe what you want", but I’m telling you, it’s not the case here. I think we've reached the point where agreeing to disagree is the best way forward. I’m not looking to convince you of anything beyond that I’m a real person here to debate.
I think it’s silly to bring US court rules into this when, rather, we operate by debate rules on here.
But I digress,
Your first paragraph is basically what I’ve been saying to you in the first place.
I already said that we can’t prove this.
However, while you’ve brought up anecdotes, I’ve brought up “perspective”—as you say—based on Mieky’s and your history, activity, and profile details on this site which are all recorded.
These items are objectively and clearly visible actions by you (and Mieky) as well as being reflections of your intentions on the site.
Also, you didn’t object to your multi-accounting being the more likely scenario.
All you’ve really said about that is I can’t prove it, which isn’t the nature of the argument to begin with.
You bring up more stories that no one can confirm, but what I am relying on is recorded activity from you on the site that we can all resort back to
Look, I get your angle here—you’re leaning on what seems 'more likely,' but likelihood isn’t the same as fact. You’ve created a narrative that fits your perspective, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. Sure, I can’t prove Elio’s existence to you beyond anecdotes, but your assumptions don’t constitute proof either. If this were a court, it’d be 'innocent until proven guilty,' not 'guilty because it looks likely.'
As for the 'they' thing, I genuinely do use gender-neutral language as a habit, even with close friends. Not everyone sticks to rigid linguistic rules. If that seems implausible to you, fair enough, but it’s how I speak.
As for bringing Elio into this, that’s not going to happen because, frankly, he joined for one debate and isn’t invested in the site. He doesn’t want to deal with accusations or drama, which is why I’m addressing this myself.
At the end of the day, believe what you want. I’m here to participate and enjoy debates.
"I get that multi-accounting is an issue here, but jumping to conclusions without solid proof isn’t fair either. Believe what you want, but I know we’re not the same person, and I’ll leave it at that."
It's not about solid proof, and you should know this.
It's about what is more likely to be true.
You can't provide solid proof, and neither can I. You're trying to change the context of our argument.
Against my points, what can you say besides anecdotes that show that it is more likely Elio is a real person?
"Alright, I get that you’re skeptical, but honestly, you’re reading way too much into this. I referred to my friend as 'they' out of habit because I tend to use gender-neutral language when I talk about people casually—it wasn’t some big slip-up or hidden agenda."
No you're not that naive. Elio must be a fairly close friend to do this sort of thing with you, so you would be familiar with his gender orientation.
By the way, why don't you ask Elio to join this conversation with us?
He probably doesn't like being accused of being imaginary
Alright, I get that you’re skeptical, but honestly, you’re reading way too much into this. I referred to my friend as 'they' out of habit because I tend to use gender-neutral language when I talk about people casually—it wasn’t some big slip-up or hidden agenda. Elio made the account, marked 'male,' and debated because he thought it’d be fun, but I can’t control how you interpret things.
The name thing? It’s just how I talk. I wasn’t trying to come off as innocent or naive; I just thought mentioning him would help explain the situation. If I really was trying to deceive you, don’t you think I’d be more careful instead of using matching names, joining on the same day, and debating in similar styles?
I get that multi-accounting is an issue here, but jumping to conclusions without solid proof isn’t fair either. Believe what you want, but I know we’re not the same person, and I’ll leave it at that.
Interesting you refer to your friend as "they" like you forgot that Elio is a man according to his profile. If Elio was really your friend--and real to begin with--you would know that he was a man and refer to him as such.
It seems that you hastily made a 2nd account and forgot that you marked "man" for it, and that's why you are telling me your friend is a "they" now.
And there are options for "other" or "not selected," so if your friend wanted to be referred to as a "they" I would think Elio would not select "male."
You can give these stories about your experience and history with "Elio," but no one can confirm this.
On the other hand, I've shown evidence that when interpreted by logic would make it seem more likely that you are multi-accounting.
-
Personally, I don't know why you included a name for your friend like it matters.
I think you did that to seem innocent and child-like, but you're clearly not based on your profile.
You're like, "Oh, don't hurt me! It's just me and my good friend Elio. Please don't think I'm lying."
You're a full-grown adult that has a good, involved social life and has experience with debate, so including your friend's name seems uncharacteristically naive and furthers suspicion
Yeah, I get why it might look a bit sus, but I swear we’re not the same person. My friend whis name is Elio just made their account to do one quick debate and dip, while I’m planning to stick around and be more active. We thought it’d be funny to have matching names, but I see how it could seem sketchy. If you’re still unsure, we can even debate over it someday.
;)
You and your friend are pretty similar,
what with giving yourselves very similar names
making accounts on the same day
having the same debate tone and style.
I can't tell you guys apart ;).
One account is clearly more active and detailed than the other. Almost like Mieky is a backup for a main account...
lol ik Don't worry its just me and my friend doing a debate.
The use of multiple active accounts by one person is not allowed on this website.
Not assuming anything, of course. Just a random thought I suppose