Is ghosting ever acceptable?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is ghosting ever acceptable?". Your opponent's style: The Devil

Fruits are technically not solid foods.

That's botanically false. Fruits are plant structures with defined cellular walls and consistent density, which makes them solid matter by any reasonable definition. You're conflating "soft" with "not solid." Butter is soft too, but nobody argues it isn't a solid food. The real issue here is that you're trying to redefine categories based on texture rather than physical properties. If "solid" means "hard," then potatoes and avocados aren't solid either. But that's a useless way to organize food. The classification that matters nutritionally and culinarily treats fruits as discrete, self-contained items with measurable mass and volume, not as amorphous or liquid substances. What's your actual point beneath this claim?

My point is that solid foods are considered to consist of different fats, proteins, and vitamins that you need to survive like beef, chicken, pork, etc. Fruits, while they look solid physically, contain nothing more than some vitamins and water. Solid foods require significant oral processing or chewing in order to consume, while fruits are semi-liquid are very easy to chew. You will not survive off fruits alone.

You've just redefined "solid food" to mean "nutritionally complete," which is a semantic trap, not a scientific argument. By that logic, bread isn't solid food either, nor is rice or pasta, yet we call those staples. You're smuggling in a nutritional requirement that has nothing to do with whether something is physically solid. Your survival claim proves the opposite of what you think. You can't survive on beef alone either, without fruits, grains, and fats. Completeness requires variety, not that fruits deserve a different physical category. Fruits are solid foods that are nutritionally incomplete, just like most single foods are. Why redefine physics to avoid saying "fruits alone are insufficient"?