On balance, coffee is more beneficial than tea.

Thanks Con. I will start with rebuttals first, defence later.Rebuttal: DiversityCon makes a claim of diversity, but she did not explain how this benefits tea. The benefits is just that it's colorful rather than actually saving people's life. She did however, concluded that coffee had limited offers. This is by far untrue, Coffee has tremendous amount of varieties such as Chai Latte, Yuan Yang which is primarily based on hong kong, there is also the Turkish coffee which is a culturally based drink (7.http://en.wikipedia.org...). The total varieties listed by wiki alone is 64, that alone surpass my opponent's feeble 30.Let me elucidate it a little more, coffee has tremendous amount of varieties. even more than tea, especially with its cultural background such as the Turkish Coffee, Greek Coffee et cetera. This alone will entice tourists to come and experience the wealth of coffee, unlike that 'other' one.Rebuttal: Art and cultureThis isn't an argument, as you're appealing to popularity in hopes of scoring for tea. The same weakness is seen from my opponent is that she failed to explain how this benefits tea. It is popular,yes, and the argument stops there. Tea can still be popular, but given that it holds little health benefits as compared to coffee, this shows that coffee still surpass tea by several layers. Further, Both tea and coffee holds an interesting history, not one is more superior than the other. The earliest credible evidence showing the existence of coffee dates back to the 14th century in Africa and from there, they spread all across the world in a short span of time (8.http://en.wikipedia.org...).In addition to that, I'd like to contest my opponent's point on art. She clearly selects evidence to suit her case. This stands to be completely false, as art has always been associated with coffee. Saying so is complete bias, and suits only to obfuscates her case and endorse mine. The difference is clearly outlined below (9.http://www.npr.org...)This is self explanatory. It holds way more artistic valueRebuttal: Health BenefitsHydration? This is laughable. I didn't know people literally eat coffee beans without filling them with water. The risk of overdosing coffee is close to neil as my previous round states, there are no risk of serious illness. Any overdose will likely damage your health overall, the only difference is that Coffee holds more health benefits than tea and has substantially less risk in the face of a few overdose.My opponent makes her second case whereby tea contain antioxidants which help boost our general health. Aha! She fell into my trap. AntiOxidants causes cancer (10.http://www.webmd.com...). It appears to accelerate it's progression by ten fold as concluded by a medical researcher, Dr Martin Bergo as he said and I quote."We found that antioxidants caused a threefold increase in the number of tumors, and caused tumors to become more aggressive,"His study was conducted on a group of mouse and results show that there was a strong correlation between antioxidants and cancer. Mouse are mammals, they have similar physiology to ours. Thus, there is a cause that antioxidants causes cancer in humans.Let's look at the bigger picture, Antioxidants causes cancer but coffee prevents it. Do you see where we are now? The resolution proposed by my opponent is nullified.Rebuttal: Mental Health BenefitsReduce stress? Even water itself reduces stress. Who would want to be dehydrated anyway. This argument is weak in that it is a rabbit hole benefit comparison, unlike coffee which holds significantly more. We are burdened by cancer and my opponents wishes to advocate the case for stress. This is in itself, a weak premise and holds little substantiation to the resolution. How do you know coffee doesn't entice nervous people, is there any chance to back that up with psychological studies? I have shown how coffee pleases everyone given my first argument while Con sticks to her subjective merit.Rebuttal: Economical and ecological aspectsCon, there is no such thing as "the only way to make coffee is through an espresso machine". Any human being is wary of this as you only need water and coffee beans as well as milk. Only those wishing for a higher taste would go for a more expensive alternate. The benefit is still there.My opponent devoted to her last 2 paragraphs about the economical aspects of tea. This comparison is very selective. It is the same with apples, you may grow it in some parts of the world, and in some parts you can't. You run into loads risks if you were to plant crops. There are apple maggots, fungus that travels by wind, bacteria which hides inside the core of the apple. The inconsistency within its ecological aspects here is very clear, as my opponent ignores the risk.You might risk losing your own herbs if you are unaware of its risks. Any gardener would know this. Regardless, Even if its a cheap alternative, the benefits far holds coffee to be more beneficial than tea. In this case however, I have proved both that tea is in no such circumstance economical nor is it beneficial in terms of its health benefits.Coffee however is proved.ConclusionI have proven my case beyond reasonable doubt through the benefits of coffee while my opponent sticks to selection and cases which yield poor substantiation. Over to you Con.Thank you