Ok, but you're wrong.
Magic MIssile, and Chromatic Orb, for instance, are simply more versatile as singular specific abilities, than any cantrip in the game. That is a benefit of those spells, that cantrips don't have. Magic Missile can be used to hit up to 3 targets with a level 1 slot, or can be piled on, as circumstance dictates. Just last month I had a player throw a level 1 Magic Missile becaus there were 3 casters holding concentration, and none of them were likely to die from anything he had left, so making all 3 make saves to keep concentration was the most useful thing to do. Chromatic Orb can do a wide range of damage types, making it extremely useful to have on hand at every level of play.
Finding a few situational ways that a 1st level spell can be better than a cantrip doesn't make it better than a cantrip. It makes it slightly different. That difference is enough to make such spells better in a few circumstances but not generally better. On every enemy that doesn't have a damage resistance you can avoid (that you are not already avoiding with your cantrip) or a damage vulnerability you can exploit (that you aren't already exploiting with your cantrip) then the cantrip is better. When the cantrip is better in a good majority of the circumstances you can forseeable face then it is objectively better even if it isn't better in every circumstance and situation.
But beyond those specific examples, ignoring the versatility of preparing spells, and the versatility of how spells and spell slots interact is simply an incorrect way of discussing the utility of spells. Spells don't exist in a vacuum, therefor discussing them as if they do is incorrect.
Here we go again... I am not talking about the spell itself or the spell slot itself. I am talking about a specific spell cast from a specific spell slot. Trying to talk about different abilities than the ability I'm talking about is the reason this discussion has went on so long.
Part of the power level of any given level 1 spell is that it can be used when it is most useful, while cantrips are very very limited in number, and only the mechanically weakest of them has any versatility within the cantrip itself.
I think there is a valid point somewhere. I don't think you are stating it correctly. I think your compounding a valid point here about situational strength with an invalid point about versatility.
I would restate the valid point I see here as:
1. Cantrips are an unlimited baseline ability.
2. If a specific spell isn't better than a cantrip in any given situation then don't use the spell but use the cantrip
3. In practice all 1st level spells cast from 1st level slots are going to be better than cantrips when you use them as your not going to use them in situations where a cantrip would be better.
Conclusion: Ultimately it doesn't matter if 1st level spells are only situationally better than cantrips because in practice that's all they actually need to be in order to produce better effects than cantrips.
I find this both reasonable and compelling. (Note that the point doesn't rely on other spells or the spell being cast from a different spell slot, ie: the argument isn't about versatility but about situational strength).
If you can't see past comparing magic missile and any direct damage cantrip as if nothing else in the game exists, then you're simply approaching all of this in a irreparably flawed manner.
I guess it would depend on what you mean by comparing them as if nothing else in the game exists. If it's just code for versatility matters in this discussion then that's not flawed because versatility doesn't matter.
This simply makes it seem that you are not engaging genuinely in a discussion, but rather simply using pedantics and petty rhetorical tactics to avoid having an actual discussion while talking down to people who are trying to communicate in good faith.
I think accusing someone of not arguing in good faith is bigger evidence of someone not arguing in good faith. When you have to defend yourself against strawmen for 200ish posts then it gets a little frustrating. Please don't mistake pointed comments due to frustration as not engaging in the discussion.
That's on you. You keep repeating yourself, not because you actually need to, but because you refuse to accept or acknowledge any nuance, and you whenever anyone has an aside in their post, compares one thing to another, or in any other way get's the least bit tangential, you ignore literally the entire rest of their post, to nit pick about the tangent.
I have to repeat myself because what I'm saying constantly gets misconstrued, because people make points I agree with as if I don't, because they claim I said something I didn't and then proceed to knock it down. So no, repeating myself is on them.
You also blatantly ignore points that are brought up several times by several people, until finally responding with things like "ah, yes, thank you for finally saying something relevant. it only took 100 pages for someone to bring this up!", and then proceed to...not even actually address what was brought up.
Prove it. Because this is untrue. When someone says something that is relevant I point it out. Even when they kind of stumble over something relevant as you did in this post I point it out. I have done that over this whole thread. I can't help that 95% of the comments on this thread have had to do with things that weren't relevant to my actual claim. Between strawmen and misconstruing my words and outright putting other claims into my mouth, there hasn't been much relevant to that's been stated.
