The poem’s speaker utilizes his personal and life experience to form a decision. They choose fire first: “Some say the world will end in fire” (Line 1). The speaker maintains the stance that fire would be more destructive, comparing the fire to the realm of passions and spontaneous impulsivity: “From what I’ve tasted of desire / I hold with those who favor fire” (Lines 3-4). The speaker then displays a cycle of logic and decision-making by upping the ante: “But if it had to perish twice” (Line 5). They then decide “I think I know enough of hate / To say that for destruction ice” (Lines 6-7). The speaker decides that ice, despite being the opposite of fire, could be just as equally destructive. The speaker makes a choice, without choosing one over the other. At the poem’s end, the speaker states, “To say that for destruction ice / Is also great / And would suffice” (Lines 7-9). Flawed and ineffective, the speaker’s choice is a simplified dichotomy, not considering that fire and ice can mix. The speaker also posits the two choices without choosing so that readers can make the choice.