Fish is better then Chicken

Acceptance Round Argument: “Crispy and well seasoned skin, rendered of excess fat, is a true sign of well made chicken. She is tender and juicy in all of the right places. She can be baked, fried, stewed, steamed, and grilled. Not to mention barbecued. The taste is very fluent, and smooth. The meat is sweet and even better when it is cured. There is no food in the world that is more addictive, tantalizing, mesmorizing, and as hypnotizing as chicken. It pleases all senses from the sense of smell to the sense of taste. A bowl of mashed potatoes and gravy by its side, will do me just fine. However it is made, it is all well with me.” While this certainly sounds delicious, it’s completely unclear how my opponent is attempting to suggest that fish is incapable of being prepared this way. In fact, to pull just one example, if readers will go to the link provided in my references, here is a 4 ½ star Crispy Fish recipe (1). Not only do you get the crispy yumminess that my opponent alludes to in the quote above, you get the healthy goodness of Omega 3 fatty acids! A two for one combo! Interrogator’s Opening Statement: My opponent has thrown out a bevy of claims without support. His first contention is: “Chicken is a poultry styled, very soulful meat. It is consumed by the billions per year. Americans eat over 100 pounds annually.” It is unclear what Interrogator means by ‘soulful’ meat. It would seem that this is a style of cooking, which can be equally applied to fish (2). My opponent claims that chicken is consumed by the billions per year, but provides no citations, nor does he provide the relevance to such data. Contra my contention 1, interrogator states: “The health benefits are irrelevent, as it cannot be proven conclusively, that chicken is as danerous as you have explained it to be” If my opponents contention is that because a multitude of people eat chicken (billions annually), therefore chicken is better, then I think that the health ramifications of chicken are indeed very important. After all, if more and more people die from bladder cancer from eating more and more chicken, then eventually the number of chicken consumed annually will drop significantly. Again, with respect to contention 1, my opponent states: “These are only selective points of information that can be said as well about fish. Not to mention the minute, by deadly amounts of mercury that is lodged into them during the time of processing. Fish are more likely to kill simply because of its toxic environment. Water is a liquid and is a necessity that is consumed daily by almost all living organisms here on Earth. That makes fish itself expendable by far. You can suffer from food poison, and other cancerous diseases. Most of which do occur long term. Some studies even link fish to ADD, and autism. * I think that chicken is safer because they are much more manageable and are kept in captivity. That is my take on these issues.” No citations are provided. Further, with such a plethora of different species of fish to choose from, the intelligent consumer can avoid fish that contain high levels of mercury. As we can see from the data on this page (3), there are plenty of low-level mercury fish out there. According to this cite, the benefits outweigh the miniscule risk to consumers (4). Concluding thoughts: While my opponent has brought up some interesting (although completely unsubstantiated) points, the reality is the impact upon intelligent consumers is minimal. The benefits simply outweigh the miniscule risk. I’ll draw the readers attention to the fact that my second contention, that the multitude of different species of fish provide more variety and therefore satisfy more diverse appetites than chicken has gone unchallenged. References: (1) http://allrecipes.com... (4 ½ stars rated, 5,241 people have ‘saved’ this recipe, indicating they liked it, and it has 118 reviews). (2) http://www.soulfoodcookbook.com... (3) http://www.americanpregnancy.org... (4) http://www.professorshouse.com...