Chocolate is beneficial to your health

I'll start with my argument before responding to my opponent's.O1) The resolution is "Chocolate is beneficial to your health". This implies a weighing debate, where Pro advocates for why chocolate is, on balance, better for health than harmful. This means that whichever side advocates for the largest impact wins the round.O2) Because of the lack of specificity in "Chocolate" in the resolution, attempts to narrow down an argument to a specific kind of chocolate is non-topical because obviously not all kinds of chocolate in existence are one specific type -- Pro needs to advocate that generic chocolate is beneficial, while I need to argue that generic chocolate is harmful.It is common knowledge that women crave chocolate around or during the time of their period. It's a widely accepted fact. But why is this true? This is true because when someone takes a bite out of a piece of chocolate, it releases certain endorphins to try to right the imbalance of mental hormones in a woman's body.[1][2] But this balance is something that the woman's body is not prepared to have during this period of time. This skewing of of the females level of hormones is able to cause mood swings.[1] Mood swings are widely acknowledged as a cause for depression, which is also widely accepted as a reason why people commit suicide.[3]Thus, through the linkage of evidence, we can conclude that chocolate can lead to increasing rates of suicide. And suicide is the ultimate impact in today's debate because:a) Death through suicide is going to outweigh any kind of disease you can get from not eating enough chocolate. You can take medicine and get treatment for being sick. You can't take a pill that cures a bullet to the brain. Suicide outweighs on severity.b) Death through suicide outweighs any kind of cancer or disease because there's at least a chance to survive diseases like that. Kimotherapy and radiation therapy offer chances and opportunities for cancer patients to beat the disease. You can't beat a bullet to the head. Suicide outweighs on a scale of certainty.c) Death outweighs any kind of health benefits as an apriori side constraint. It doesn't matter how much better my metabolism becomes if I'm dead. This means that the negative harms come first. Now let's look at his case. Group his arguments together.The problem with his case is that he advocates for very specific kinds of chocolate to link to his benefits: the chocolates with high levels for Theoflavin and dark chocolate that has somewhere between 60-70% cocoa isn't exactly your run-of-the-mill chocolate bar. This has two implications on the debate at hand:1) You prefer my arguments as my arguments link to all chocolate, whereas his arguments only link to very specific kinds of chocolate. 2) You don't evaluate his impacts because they're overstated in impact: not everyone who picks up a chocolate bar will pick up these kinds of chocolate, meaning that not everyone will receive these health benefits. Everyone who picks up a chocolate bar, however, links into my arguments as my arguments aren't specific to a certain kind of chocolate. My impacts are more reliable and accurate.But to respond to his first and second arguments specifically:His impact here is never actually going to be true. Even if he's showing that this Theoflavin helps fight cancer and that flavonoid-rich chocolate reduces diabetes rates and heart disease rates, his own source admits that "some of the most popular processing techniques have been shown to strip chocolate of up to 90 percent of its healthy phytochemicals, ..." meaning that the chocolate on the market today doesn't actually have the right balance of chemicals to give him his desired results. Just picking up a Hershey's bar from the grocery store and eating it doesn't make you less likely to get cancer or less likely to have a heart attack. This makes the debate super easy to evaluate:1) You're preferring death as the ultimate impact in today's debate. I'm the only one linking their impacts into death by showing that chocolate leads to increased rates of suicide.2) You're preferring my arguments over his because they're more likely to happen. His impacts rely on very specific kinds of chocolate that aren't available currently, whereas any generic bar of chocolate links into my harms. 3) His impacts are overstated and unlikely to actually happen: the chemicals needed for his arguments to be true just aren't found in the everyday chocolate bar. Whereas any chocolate bar links into my harms. Sources:[1] - http://nutritionexpert.healthspan.co.uk...[2] - http://www.bodylogicmd.com...[3] - http://www.emedicinehealth.com...