Fish is better then Chicken

This is my final post in this debate and I want to take a moment to thank Interrogator for defending his position. I hope that our readers have enjoyed our exchanges. I certainly have. A review of my two contentions: Second Contention: I will deal with my second contention first, as Interrogator has not introduced any new material to answer in the third round. Interrogator has not addressed my second contention in any of the rounds and therefore it provides at least some evidence that fish is better than chicken in that the multitude of fish species provides more variety in taste for consumers. Further, as an additional point with Interrogator has not addressed, fish provides over 500 million jobs to people throughout the world. This provides additional economic evidence that fish is better than chicken. First Contention: In response to my rebuttals in the prior round, it appears that my opponent has chosen to simply repeat his unsubstantiated claims. Specifically he states: “Fish has mercury and this has been proven to be a danger to one's health long term. You are more likely to die, or become ill with this very potent toxin. It can cause cancer, liver damage, high blood pressure, paralysis, arthritis, and more. If I had a choice to eat one daily for life, it would undoubtedly be chicken meat. Not fish. Chicken is an international phenomenon. And even in China, an Asian country where fish is widely marketed, and eaten.” In response to this, I pointed out that the dangers are overblown and an intelligent consumer can easily avoid these perils. Further, I pointed out the uncontested fact that a person who subsists on chicken for his daily sustenance has a 52% greater chance of developing bladder cancer! Clearly the wise consumer should prefer fish to increasing the odds of bladder cancer. Contra Con’s Soul Food Contention: Interrogator states: “Meatros. I said that most people eat chicken because of the quality of taste. Second it could be said that the flavor of chicken even seasoned, is much better than fish. Fish is more generic in taste, and spoils faster. The smell is not always as pleasant, as is is sometimes known as the stinch of death. Anyway. Chicken has soul, and that means it relaxes and is pleasing to ones soul. That is why it is considered to be the primary and superior soul food of all time.” In round three I provided evidence to support the fact that fish is considered soul food as well. So clearly the providence of ghostly delight does not belong solely to chicken. I cannot see how it is reasonable to suppose that ‘fish is more generic in taste’, when there are 32,000 different species of fish! It is unclear how this could possibly be the case. As to spoiling faster, Con has a point here, however the object of this debate has been about the consumption of fish, not keeping it indefinitely, so unless my opponent is trying to make an aesthetic point about keeping chicken as a part of the interior design of one’s kitchen, I fail to see how this is a better-making property of chicken. Alleged Health Benefits of Chicken The Con states, again without support: “Billions of pounds of chicken, all over the globe, is consumed yearly. 100 pounds alone here in America per person. That is astounding! The health benefits of chicken with no skin, and grilled is safer and better to eat than fish. This is a fact due to chicken's high level of protein, which also comes from eggs. This nutrient is a necessity and valuable asset to one's body.” Certainly chicken does provide a high level of protein and a low amount of fat, when compared to bovine. When we compare the macro nutrients of chicken with fish, fish comes out superior. According to this site (1), the macro nutrient breakdown of chicken and fish, per serving is: Chicken Fish Calories: 160 Calories: 110-140 Protein: 28 Protein: 20-25 Carbs: 0 Carbs: 0 Fat: 7 Fat: 1-5 So, for the weight-conscious American, it would appear that fish comes out ahead in the calorie department, as it has between 20 and 50 fewer calories than chicken. Next we turn our attention to protein. Chicken seems to come out ahead here, but let’s keep in mind that the average person only needs between 30 and 60 grams of protein a day (2). It’s hard to see how chicken would come out significantly ahead here, when the required amount of protein is a paltry 5-10 grams away from the fish eater’s grasp. The real crème de la crème of the data is in the fat content. Fish, as has been evidenced in round three, contains high levels of Omega 3 fatty acids, which provide a spectrum of benefits (3). The breakdown of chicken fat reveals that it contains a startling amount of saturated fat (4). Saturated fat is associated with cardiovascular disease and even cancer (5). Clearly in the fat contest, chicken is no winner and should not be had for dinner. In conclusion, I believe I have satisfied the burden of proof and readers should vote Pro. References: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.vanderbilt.edu... (3) http://www.mayoclinic.com... (4) http://en.wikipedia.org... (5) http://en.wikipedia.org...