Horses are better than Fish.

KEEP IN MIND THIS DEBATE iS ABOUT WHICH ANIMAL IS BETTER (FOR THE ECO SYSTEM AND PETS!) Ladies and gentleman, my opponent knows his back is against the wall, so he is attacking my debating skills. My point was to show you life would be effected dramatically if fish were not in the Eco system. We concluded this through my statements: Horses cost more than fish Fish can be used for stress therapy and anxiety therapy for people that get anxiety attacks. Horses can be replaced. Horses are only a symbol now where fish are in our diet and many other animals. Removing fish from the Eco system could cause what I call a ripple effect (read last round) Horses mean more responsibility. Fish feed many countries and people and is a major part in some country's economic growth. You are very likely to be injured from a horse. You have a more variety in traits, behavior, color, and size Horses in the old days could have been replaced by donkeys or camrels. This is all I have proven over the course of this debate. I have disproved all of the opponents round 3. The opponent also accused me of not answering rebuttle 2 This is his rebuttal for round 2 and 3 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. 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. End quote Round two is basically him saying animals diet would not be effected if fish became extinct. This is my response 1. Beavers only eat Fish and Crabs, so if fish were gone, beavers might become endangered due to lack of food. This would cause a lot of damns to be left barren. Which would make the damn deteriorate in time. A lot of damns would break! This would cause catastrophic floods! this would cause many animals to die, and many predators of the may lead to under population. This would be like a ripple effect to all species! All species either being over populated or under populated. (Humans included!) the fluctuations may lead to species population being completely UNSTABLE! It would go like this, Coyotes in the area are under populated because a lot of beavers are dying. This then causes cattle number to dramatically increase. As a result, more beef is being shipped to stores. This may lead to them not being checked well for disease. Under cooked meat can effect us and animals! But then, there are more food for the coyotes, and they become over populated because of the rise in food, and cattle become under populated, which causes beef prices to raise, and less beef being ship to stores! This process would repeat! Effecting different species! this is also the same for bears. The bears would eat all of the berries in the area. they would then have no food for a long time and, as I said Die because of Hypothermia because they weren't fat enough for the winter, or starvation. This Rebuttal negates The round 3, rebuttals 2 and 3 made by the pro. End of quote As you can see I answered his rebuttal two question. In rebuttal one, I also answer His Egypt statement in rebuttal 1. As you can see, fish are overall better pets, more cost efficient, a benefit to society, and that without fish certain species would become endangered and there would be termoil in the animal Eco system. This is why I think you should vote that fish are better than horses because overall, fish are more important for a steady Eco system!