On balance, coffee is more beneficial than tea.

Very well, thanks Con. I will be summarizing everything and fix a few holes and misrepresentation. There will be no new arguments, just a summary of what we did above as we agreed on our rule '4th Round - Summary of proposition and opposition's case (NO new arguments)'IntroductionCon resorted to misrepresentation and 'shifting the goal post' mentality. This is evident through her rebuttals with new arguments for tea in an attempt to square off with coffee and treat it as a tie whilst also ignoring my rebuttals that were scientifically proven. Moreover her argument is guilty of the use of personal predicament. This is in addition to several contentions dropped, including arguments that are key and are backed by scientific credibility. I intend to show how.Summary Of Proposition's caseShifting The Goalpost Mentality & Personal PredicamentFirst of all she made rebuttals against my case that ran not to denounce mine but to supplement her case in hopes of scoring. This is shown through previous rounds as she stated that tea had proteins which help combat cancer. Instead of rebutting my argument about coffee's immeasurable benefits(which to my surprise was filled with holes yet it still ran uncontested), she 'shifted the goal post' by making over generalized claims about benefits of tea about how protein contributes to destroying cancer. Anyone can flip a kill card by presenting an alternate case instead of rebutting her opponent. To make things worse, she resorted to public adversary(Personal Predicament) instead of scientific credibility. That's like asking Kim Kardashian how the universe came into existence. This is seen as she said and I quote " just to get in potential health benefit is someones personal choice". How does this qualify as an argument on how X is better than Y? because Z thinks otherwise? I am not done yet. Furthermore instead of locking her horns to tackle the issues, she chose to ran away by saying cancer is too complex. By her premise, if an idea is too complex for us to understand, we should drop it because we're can't possibly comprehend it. The evidence is there as she stated "Cancer risk is so complex that coffee can not possibly claim to influence it significantly. " while scientific sources chose to show otherwise. She cannot just drop my argument.An attempt to square off with coffee by resorting to opinion & bombing evidence outside the contention of coffee is a feeble rebuttal. Therefore it should be dropped.Uncontested ArgumentsSecondly, My opponent's case has lots of generalized claims, of which was without proper elaboration. She cannot do this. You have to elaborate your case. I have provided mine how Rob Van Dam's study with over 130 000 participants on how coffee benefits health in tremendous ways. She did not, in anyway rebutted any of my scientific studies cited. Not one do I see 'Rob Van Dam's study was false due to reasoning XYZ' she insisted on shifting the goal post again in hopes of scoring. Likewise this is seen again as She made additional contentions such as the drawbacks of coffee, of which was generalized as she just spit symptoms of coffee overdose which were clear evidence of blatant generalizations. She did not elaborate how one symptom came into fruition and instead resorted to source towering. Your source is meant to supplement your position, you cannot bomb it in hopes that it explains your position. I provided how one came into fruition, how one benefits opens to another but she did not. Thus, this argument is not even substantiative because Rob Van Dam's study of causal correlation between illnesses and coffee ran uncontested.Moreover, I made contentions from FDA(Food and drug administration) and The US national institute about how tea's benefits are inconclusive. It is in no position to curb cancer. Not even once did she ever criticize the scientific studies cited and instead resorted to telling the audience about how protein prevents cancer. This sort of generalization will not fly off the window, I urge voters to take this in consideration.My contentions in summary that were dropped(without any rebuttals)(1)Coffee Pleases Everyone(3)The effects of an overdose are balanced by neil risk of serious illness(4)Tea has several drawbacks that obfuscates its own benefits(5)The premise of moderation is widely acceptedMisrepresentationCon attacked my premise as she states and I quote "I've never stated that the only way to make coffee is through an espresso machine"The trial is in session. We will now check the soundness of my opponent's accusation on conduct. Lets look at previous rounds"Tea is cheap and simple. To brew a high quality tea at home you need neither special equipment like a coffee machine nor an espresso maker...because you don't have to invest into something that only is there to make you coffee. "Your statement suggest otherwise. You would made it clearer. If it boils down essentially towards 'Coffee making mechanisms are similar to tea', then why is it that in the first place, do you insist on suggesting that it was expensive to make coffee? Why is the word invest into something even there? Semantics is a poor way arguing a case. She cannot do this. She cannot simply shift attention, strawmanned everything while at the same time dropping arguments everywhere.Summary of Opposition's contentionsHydration vs Cancer riskWhich do you prefer? Stage 4 cancer or dehydration? Hidden tumors or clear exhibited symptoms of dehydration? If you, as a person would choose which to prevent first, do you prevent the hidden disease of which you have no knowledge if you have it, or the hydration which can be tackled once the symptoms kick in. The evidence is clear in this that you would choose to prevent cancer.Therefore cancer is the viable alternative. Coffee is indeed better as its benefits are superiorDiversityShe made contentions how one variable expounds to different variables of tea, yet does not give any additional proof whatsoever. Thats like asking how one atom of salt makes a difference in cooking when clearly, the right taste is the norm in cooking. There is no such thing as Medium salty, over easy salty. I fully rebutted her argument by saying that Coffee's cultural variation are superior than tea. This argument is nullifiedArt and CultureShe resorted to historical irrelevancies. We should ignore whats currently in trend and appreciate past artifacts. The Foam Art is widely present in coffee shops, clearly it indicates that it is infact popular. The Supply and demand is clearly on coffee's side. Resorting to history is irrelevant, the supply and demand clearly shows otherwise.Economical aspects"And fungus that travel by wind would be inhaled anyway."Generalized statement. No how or why. My rebuttal on risks of gardening remains strong.StressEmotional argument. I have provided how coffee pleases everyone. At best, both provide the necessary emotional supplements.Overall The resolution is negated. Thank you.