d32-overlapping-refs
∅ (8|8|2) 🔗Tip: click a text segment to reply to it.
The office coffee machine should go
This is a constructed debate, made to demonstrate and test the platform for answers that do not point at a single sentence, but at a range of sentences or at a few words inside one. Its topic is deliberately trivial, so that nothing distracts from where the answers point.
I would like to propose that we get rid of the capsule machine in the kitchen and switch to a kettle and a French press. The machine costs us around forty euros a month in capsules alone. It breaks roughly twice a year, and every repair leaves us without coffee for a week. The capsules are not recyclable in any practical sense, whatever the packaging says. And the coffee it produces is, to be blunt, not very good.
Twice a year is not what I remember. It has been repaired once since I joined, and that took two days, not a week.
On this one point I have to concede more than I did above. The recycling claim on the packaging is genuinely misleading, and that is a reason to change something, though not necessarily the machine.
Taken together these four points are weaker than they look, because they are not four independent arguments. Cost, breakage, packaging and taste all follow from the same decision to buy the cheapest capsule machine on the market, and none of them says anything about capsule machines as such.
Both of these sentences rest on the same move, so I will answer them together. Calling four objections "not independent" does not dispose of them; it only says they share a cause. A shared cause is a reason to expect that one decision fixes several of them, which is an argument for replacing the machine, not for keeping it.
A better machine would fix three of the four, and the fourth is a matter of taste. What you are actually proposing is that we replace a bad appliance with a different category of appliance, and that step needs its own justification.
A kettle and a press would cost us maybe sixty euros once, take up less space, and be impossible to break in any interesting way. The obvious objection is that it takes three minutes longer in the morning. I think that is a price worth paying. If anyone disagrees, now would be the time to say so.
This sentence does a lot of work for one sentence. It contains a price estimate, a space claim and a durability claim, and I would like to take them one at a time rather than accept them as a package.
Sixty euros buys a kettle and a press, but not a grinder, and pre-ground coffee in a press is worse than the capsules we are complaining about. The honest figure is closer to a hundred and forty.
The space claim is the one I would question. A press needs a grinder, a kettle and somewhere to put the used grounds, and that is more counter space than the machine occupies, not less.
The passage from the recycling point through to the kettle proposal moves much faster than it admits. Two of these sentences are complaints about the current machine and two are claims about the replacement, and they are presented as if the first pair established the second.
I do not think anyone disputes that the capsules are wasteful. What I dispute is that a press is the obvious consequence, and that is exactly the step that gets no argument here.
Event log (0)
no entries