> You can sit on your ass from the comfort of your home while your shit cook
If you want to make shitty food then yeah you can do that. I prefer food that takes some effort, so either I put that effort in myself or I pay someone else to do it. Regardless, I consider cooking to be "work" because it takes time and I'd rather not do it. You are free to disagree but it doesn't invalidate my argument.
To summarize the rest of your reply: I can cook enough food to eat for $85 every 2 weeks and it takes 0 work to cook that food, so paying for meals is more expensive. Well sure, if it cost me $85 for two weeks of food and I don't factor in any time for cooking, then it's going to be hard to "save money" by ordering out. So bravo: you've proved that people who can buy 2 weeks of food for $85 should not order out.
Unfortunately this doesn't apply to my own situation, so I'll provide a more general claim that should cover all scenarios:
If you make more money doing activity X than activity Y, you can perform activity X and pay someone to perform Y and still have money left over. I hope this isn't a controversial statement for you.
So now lets say that X = "work" and Y = "cook a meal". If I work and pay someone to cook a meal, (I.e. perform X and pay someone to perform Y), I end up with money left over. If I cook a meal (i.e. perform Y), then I have no money left over. I end up with a meal in both scenarios. Personally, I would prefer to have a meal and money than a meal and no money.
If you're still finding these concepts to be confusing I would definitely recommend checking this book out.