On balance, coffee is more beneficial than tea.

Thanks Con for overlooking my source-clumsiness! [8] http://www.webmd.com...[9] http://www.sciencedaily.com...[10] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[11] http://www.livestrong.com...[12] http://www.cancer.gov...[13] http://www.emaxhealth.com...[14] http://www.pnas.org...Personal Note | I can only ask the reader to critically think for himself about the points of false and valid accusation. We cannot be our own judges and merely point out where we see problems.False accusations 1. concentrating on outlining the benefits of tea is "shifting the goal" - We have a shared BOP. That means that coffee may have it's benefits, as long as they are not overcoming those from tea. I can acknowledge some coffee-benefits by not disproving them, because I also have to show that tea has benefits and more of them. And if these overcome the benefits of coffee I fulfilled my task. It would be a sound argument, if I didn't disprove any, which is not true (-see 4.)2. Cancer is too complex - I stated that cancer risk is very complex, NOT that cancer is complex*. And it is. The source provided showed a tremendous amount of things that influence cancer risk, therefore to argue that it is complex it sound. I admit that I could have phrased that in more detail, like some other arguments -see 3.* That's the second time I've been deliberately(?) quoted wrongly3. Source towering/ null arguments due to missing explanation- I admit that I did not bottle-fed my opponent with my arguments. Because I expected that an intelligent person will treat my arguments intelligently:If insomnia is a medical side effect of caffeine (sourced it) than stating that bad sleeping habits occur is absolutely coherent (The second source was probably towering because it wasn't actually necessary). I don't see why I need to explain how insomnia is supporting poor sleeping habits (because it's a sleeping problem). I did not show why poor sleeping habits are bad but it's not like that is actually a controversial thing. Therefore I admit, that I covered a lot of ground by making my arguments shorter than they should have been. But at points where logical thinking would have automatically connect the dots: "fungus that travel by wind would be inhaled anyway." Seriously, if you have a plant, than this plant shares your environment. And if your plant takes in hidden toxins from the air then you cannot avoid inhaling it yourself. Therefore fungus and toxins in your plant would be previously inhaled anyway. That is plain logical so I really don't see why I'd spent characters on explaining that. You can prove that 1+1=2, but you rarely have to, because it's obvious.4. Failed to refute some arguments(1) Coffee pleases everyone. Coffee cannot logically please everyone, because then everyone would drink and enjoy coffee, without any exceptions. Probably should have taken advantage of that absurd statement. I did honestly not think it was written with seriousness and just a humorous provocation. (3) Overdosing and serious illness. Serious is a matter of perception, and I have shown that the side effects of much caffeine is not something to ignore. I therefore did refute that argument. (4) Drawbacks of tea. Con f.i. outlined antioxidants as a drawback and I showed that they are also a benefit. That is a relativisation because there are antioxidants in tea. And the other drawback was that "tea has nothing". That is logically disproved by showing that tea has "something" to offer (like good taste or selection). That was automatically refuted, without me addressing this statement directly. Again did I not take advantage of that stereotypical argument and I think that shows good sportsmanship rather than poor debating style. (5) Premise of moderation. I showed that the same amount of tea is less harmful than coffee and therefore the premise of moderation has been addressed ("Just imagine drinking two liters of coffee each day."). A moderate amount of tea is already an overdose of coffee; Therefore this argument has been addressed AND disproved. 5. The only way to make coffee is with a espresso machine. A Bialetti, a filter extension, a automatic tap-machine are not all "espresso machines" (they work differently), but are all tools and that still makes them extra-equipment. And if I see a direct quote ("[...]") that isn't exactly quoting what I said, than it is per definition a wrong quote, and I have every right to object that. 6. Lack of evidence that tea can also be flavored with additions like lemon, milk, sugar or syrup. To demand evidence here is valid but a bit "playing possum"; but no worries, tea with extras is an old tradition: She asked, “Take milk?” or “Sugar?” and though I answered, “No,”She put them in, and told me that I “must take it so!”- Small and Early / Tudor Jenks (1857 - 1922)Additional RebuttalArt and Culture | My opponent failed to address some statements here and disobeyed his own rules. 1. Historical irrelevancies. I tried to explain why history is not irrelevant and as we both used statements that refer to the history of our beverage I think it's inappropriate to just turn it down by stating them unexplained as "irrelevancies".2. Supply and demand is a new statement by Con and it's not even sourced that the demand for coffee is higher than the one for tea. Evaluation | Coffee (slightly) reduces cancer risk (Con: "Coffee reduces cancer risk more than tea."). It doesn't cure cancer. Con is hasty to compare a indirectly linked disease (=many factors influence the risk) to directly likable dehydration symptoms (=only coffee is the reason for the symptoms) by saying "Which do you prefer? Stage 4 cancer or dehydration?". Stress | Is not just subject. Tea physically reduces stress. It was a scientific approach to an emotional benefit. Should not be turned down because it's "emotional" without further explanation why "coffee pleases everyone". ConclusionI don't claim | that...* my style/strategy/conduct are flawless - I admit that some of my arguments could have been more detailed. * coffee has NO benefits (what is still in BOP boundaries)* tea has NO downsides ( -"-)But | I've shown that tea...* also influences cancer risk (con's only argued health benefit)* has additional and immediate health benefits (f.i. when you have a cold)* has immediate mental health benefits (stress)* is cheaper * is at least a match in terms of diversityAlso | I have pointed out* where my arguments indirectly and/or directly disproved what Con argued that I did not address at all* where my opponent freely paraphrased me and sold it as a direct quote ("[my words]")therefore: where my opponent shows conduct flaws himselfThanks, for this challenge