Fish is better then Chicken

It is my hope that we have a fun exchange of ideas and that we both learn something from the exchanges. With that said, let’s get to the meat (quite literally! ) shall we? The resolution for this debate is “Fish is better then Chicken”. First, I want to say that in my haste to create this debate, I faltered on grammar, the correct resolution should be “Fish is better than Chicken”. With that minor addendum out of the way, I will be arguing for the resolution and interrogator will be arguing against the resolution. With the resolution as it is, there is obviously a bit of subjectivity involved with the notion of what constitutes ‘better’. I will be attempting to make my approach as objective as possible and in that effort I will be arguing that by fish is healthier than chicken and therefore better (Contention 1 or C1). Another avenue I will be approaching this from is that there are multiple species of fish and therefore provide more variety in which to satisfy more diverse palates then chicken (Contention 2, or C2). Support for C1: Fish contain, in larger amounts, Omega 3 fatty acids. According to the Mayo Clinic: “There is evidence from multiple studies supporting intake of recommended amounts of DHA and EPA in the form of dietary fish or fish oil supplements lowers triglycerides, reduces the risk of death, heart attack, dangerous abnormal heart rhythms, and strokes in people with known cardiovascular disease, slows the buildup of atherosclerotic plaques ("hardening of the arteries"), and lowers blood pressure slightly. However, high doses may have harmful effects, such as an increased risk of bleeding. Although similar benefits are proposed for alpha-linolenic acid, scientific evidence is less compelling, and beneficial effects may be less pronounced. ” (1) Additionally, Wikipedia lists a bevy of health benefits associated with eating fish (2), some of which include joint benefits, heart health, and improved brain function. This is in addition to providing quality nutrients that the body needs, such as selenium, iodine, vitamin A and D. (2) According to this study (3), if you eat chicken 5 or more times a week, your risk for bladder cancer shoots up by 52 percent. Does my opponent think that bladder cancer is something that should be construed as a ‘better’ feature? Support for C2: It’s an objective fact that what we call ‘fish’ is comprised of many, many, species. According to Wikipedia, there are 32,000 different species (4). What is referred to as ‘chicken’ is actually a subspecies of the Gallus gallus (5). The flavor of these species varies widely, as salmon tastes radically different from flounder. The inevitable conclusion from the variety of flavors and the diversity is a virtual culinary buffet of taste. As a final point, fish is, by far, more popular than chicken. Wikipedia states “In 2005, the worldwide per capita consumption of fish captured from wild fisheries was 14.4 kilograms, with an additional 7.4 kilograms harvested from fish farms. ” (6) You add to that the fact that fishing and fish-related industries help employee (directly/indirectly) over 500 million people (6)(7) and you have a powerful argument that fish is better for the economic health of the world as compared to chicken. I would ask my opponent, how many people does the chicken market employ? Concluding thoughts: It seems evident to me that if my opponent is unable to counter both of my contentions, then it is completely unclear how he can objectively say that chicken is better than fish. Note: It seems that my opponent has jumped the guy, so to speak, and put forth what could be construed as an argument in round 1, which is the acceptance round. The readers will have to judge what such a break from the agreed upon debate structure entails. References:(1) . http://www.mayoclinic.com... (2) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) . http://drbenkim.com... (4) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (5) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (6) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (7) ftp://ftp. fao. org. ..