Horses are better than Fish.

Thank you for a speedy response and I will compliment you on your debate.Before starting, I would like to quote my opponent: "Hello! I am here to show you how fish are way better than horses." Way: by a great amount (1)He said that quote, thus changing the resolution he has to meet to "way" better instead of just better. (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com... With that said, onto the actual debate.Rebuttal 1a: Dissecting my opponents' point.I would like to point out that my opponent's first argument contained almost the same wording as mine. Also, he used a link to prove his point without actually saying something on it. All he said was that it "improved culture" and provided a link, a broad one at that, without having details in the actual debate to support it. Not to mention it was from wikipedia, which is not a reliable source. For example, it said that fishing dated back to 40,000 years. By some people and Christians, this is wrong because of Creationism, which dates to 6,000 years ago. Just getting that out there.Rebuttal 1b: Arguing my opponents' point.My opponent stated that fishing helped culture. I will quote something from his link:"Fishing scenes are rarely represented in ancient Greek culture, a reflection of the low social status of fishing (2)." To me, it seems like it did not help culture in a good way. From that passage, it did provide culture, yes, but in a rather bad way. This shows that only peasants fished while the merchants rode horses. It also showed the Greeks did not see fishing as a very important way of life.(2) http://en.wikipedia.org... Rebuttal 2a: Dissecting my opponents' point.In his next argument, he states that fish are a very important food. He states stuff about the food chain and the ecosystem. However, he does emphasize it so it seems like fish are the only things whales and dolphins eat. He also says that bears would be effected, but I think they would simply evolve into more of herbivores than carnivores. My opponent then went on to put a link without actually putting on the debate site what the link contains. He merely said "if you scroll down to their diet..." without actually listing the diets of the bear. The last thing he says is that very few species are not dependent on fish. That is not true. If anything, very few species are entirely dependent on fish.Rebuttal 2b: Arguing my opponents' point.For your very few species don't rely on fish argument, that is not true. Almost no land animal ever, EVER depends on fish. Plant life usually don't depend on fish. Microscopic organisms would throw a party if fish were extinct, as small fish eat plankton. No herbivores eat fish. Not even most carnivores eat fish. After dissecting the argument, some problems surface with the way he emphasized it. First off, whales usually eat krill (3). While some do eat schooling fish as a part of their diet, they do not become dependent on it. They could live without it, and diet mainly on krill and bottom-dwelling creatures such as worms.As for dolphins, their diet is consisted of fish, squids, shrimp, and other bottom dwelling creatures (4). Since dolphins can depend on two other things for food, the fish absence does not make it as big of a problem as you think and display. This is the same as saying that the horse, who is pray to exactly three animals (same as your argument) would kill off all wolves, mountain lions, and bears (5).You may also argue that horses are not prey. Yet they have eyes on one side of head, eaten by predators, don't walk in straight lines, and also eat grass and are vegetarians (6).As for humans, we don't NEED to eat fish. Not at all! It could actually be better if we didn't eat fish (7). We have a diet of pretty much anything that tastes good. Fish can have parasites, and if undercooked, infect us and cause food poisoning and even death. As for your sushi argument, we can easily make sushi out of crab, cucumber, shrimp, and boy, I've even eaten a octopus meat sushi. Since we really only need rice and seaweed to make sushi, your argument is invalid here.The last thing I would like to point out is that bears are actually MOSTLY HERBIVORES. Plants make up 90% of their diet (8). They could live on just vegetation. Also, they can hunt other animals besides fish, you know, Maybe a nice jungle critter once in a while. If fish were out of the bears diet, it would be like pasta coming out of our diet. We lose a healthy and rewarding snack, but we can live without it.(3) http://seaworld.org...(4) http://www.dolphinaris.com...(5) http://www.thecloudfoundation.org...(6) http://www.gentlehorses.com...(7) http://www.peta.org...(8) http://www.bearsmart.com... Rebuttal 3a: Dissecting opponents' argument.In his next argument, he turns to the Eco system, which was actually almost his argument before. This time, he uses penguins, bears again, and humans. He also says "off of the top of his head." That makes empty arguments supported by nothing whatsoever. He also says "I think." He also states that countries would've died without fish. I will go on to argue that.Rebuttal 3b: Arguing opponents' argument.Right now, it seems like you are acting like each animal depends on fish and fish only. However, this is not true, not even for the penguins.Yes, the penguins do eat fish. But you failed to recognize that they also eat krill and squids (9). I will quote from the website:"The smaller penguin species of the Antarctic and the subantarctic primarily feed on krill and squids." That means your argument invalid for many species of penguins. It also assures that they will not go extinct as you said, but rather become weaker while other species stay the same.As for bears, I have already argued that. They can eat other fatty meat also, such as rabbits or mice. Plus, vegetation can provide the strength they need to get through the winter.As for Ancient Egyptians, it is ludicrous to say that they would've died off without fish. Sure, they may have become somewhat weaker, but not die. Ancient Egypt is known for it's great soil and vegetation DUE to the Nile River (10). We even find many statues of Egyptians who are well overweight from eating too much. Without fish, is it possible that they could've lived longer due to being a better weight? Possible.The last thing that I would like to point out is that fishes have decreased 90% over the past 50 years (11), and I don't see any big effects besides more people eating sushi and fish when they really don't need to.(9) http://seaworld.org... (10) http://www.touregypt.net... (11) http://www.workman.com... Rebuttal 4a: Dissecting my opponents' arguments.In his fourth argument, he states human health and what fish can do. He states that it can lower blood pressure, and do two other things for your health. While this is true, there are also dangers of eating fish as I will point out. He did tell you what was in the link, but did not actually make an argument but rather told you what was in it and to read it.Rebuttal 4b: Arguing my opponents' arguments.Despite the fact I think that this is the opponents' most stable argument yet (good job) I still find a rather easy way to refute it.For the things that you listed that fish help you with, I will say you are correct. But those are only medical circumstances, not regular. How often does a fish actually save you from the fatality of a heart disease? And fish is just one of many, many ways to lower your blood pressure. As for making you healthy, I will say that it is healthy to eat fish. However, horses are equal to helping you stay in shape. Riding provides great exercise and helps your muscles such as your core muscles, back muscles, and your leg muscles (12). Not to mention you must use your brain to ride, as you control the horse, so it isn't exactly a joyride for most untrained people. When you get trained, it's like walking on clouds, trust me.I have already stated that undercooked fish can cause parasites and food poisoning.(12) http://www.classicaldressage.co.uk...Rebuttal 5a: Dissecting opponents' arguments.Apparently, my opponent has two fifth arguments, so I will dissect and argue them at the same time. Both of these two arguments follow the same post: that fish are better pets. However, as I stated, you must prove that they are WAY better based on what you said.Anyway, you state that fish are low-maintenance while you concede to the point that some are higher maintenance and it depends on the breed. This is the same for horses, as I will later point out. On his second argument, he shows one sentence and adds a link for you to read. That is not debating, but I will argue it anyway. It will not be efficient since I barely have any more room to write.Rebuttal 5b: Arguing opponents' arguments.First off, you have already conceded to the point that fish can be high maintenance. Horses do somewhat tend to be high maintenance, but there is a solution to that. Wherever you keep your horse, there will be someone willing to take care of it and exercise it (13). And since they love the job, they usually don't cost a ton of money.As for your next arguments, they aren't really refutable because I would have to click on every single link and read it to refute it. Due to the fact I have no words left, my opponent can either let me do it in the forth round or skip the argument.(13) http://www.horsegroomingsupplies.com...Thank you for reading. Your move!