Cow milk is superior to Soy Milk.

. http://www.youtube.com... Explanatory Power and Burden of Proof Because no explicit of burden of proof was stated in the rules and neither me or my opponent claimed the other had burden of proof, we must assume a shared burden. This is only strengthened by the fact that my opponent does attempt to show the superiority of Soy milk via his offensive. Therefore, considering his argument versus mine, we must consider the merits of it as an argument itself. My argument naturally follows to it's conclusion albeit with an implicit premise and therefore my argument has great explanatory power, that is, if my argument hold strong no matter if my opponent likes it or any one does we have to concede the argument. My opponents argument however, has no explanatory power at all. Even if we grant all the premises he brings forward(which we will not be doing if you were wondering), it doesn't naturally follow that Cow's Milk isn't superior. At best it shows that Soy Milk has some advantages which I in fact never argued wasn't the case. My opponent offensive therefore really doesn't hurt my case at all, but nor does it strengthen his own. Hence even if you say my argument is completely invalid at best you should award us a tie in the arguments portion of the debate. The Protein Issue While I was mistaken on the protein portion of the contest, it was because of an oversight of serving size, in which I deeply apologize. However, my opponent drops my portion of the argument about biological values and different types of protein and therefore concedes that even if they have the same amount of protein, Cow's Milk is still far superior in types of protein. He also never addresses the fact that Soy is a plant protein and therefore not a complete protein. I will consider this dropped. The Vitamin Issue So I mention 4 vitamins are essential for the growth and development of human beings as well as the maintaining of a healthy lifestyle and my opponent mentions two. Furthermore, Vitamin B-12 and Vitamin A are both essential nutrients and without them you will die. So his folate argument really falls short here. Furthermore, there are many many sources of folate. You don't need Soy Milk at all to get folate. Anyway you look at it, four is still more than two. The Price Tag My opponent breezes past this point but he fails to say what he is saying. I would ask my opponent, are cigarettes of higher quality and importance(emphasis) than say his Soy Milk. Because it would seem that it costs more. We could also ask if a Big Mac is better Quality than Soy Milk. Quality isn't determined by market value. Quality is determined by comparing characteristics and benefits of one thing over another, while the market is determined by what people are willing to pay for. While some things that are more expensive are of high quality, it does not follow that everything of a higher price is of higher quality. To illustrate this point I will further elaborate, a experiment was preformed by a youtube channel called Brad Hensen did a taste test of In-N-Out versus Five Guys. There was obviously slight bias here, since it was out of California nonetheless the In-N-Out fries taste test was near even with In-N-Out only winning by one point. When it came to burgers however, In-N-Out blew Five Guys out of the water with a score of 18 to 1. However, the price of one In-N-Out burger was much much less than Five Guys(about 5.39 versus 3.80). So my opponents argument is invalid and my premise stands to support the argument. Most people are not lactose intolerant Anyone who clicks on his source will see even if you read the entire case study it never ever says that most people are lactose intolerant, what the case study shows is that if you eat excess lactose foods( 33 grams a day! !) you will suffer negative effects. There are only 5 grams of Lactose in a serving size of Cow's Milk. So unless you drinking 6 glasses of Milk a day, then this study is irrelevant. Another problem with the study was that it was only 21 days long and the short term effects were only shown. We don't know if there bodies would have adapted in the long term to this diet. If you change your diet dramatically in anyway you bound to have some negative effects. This includes with Soy. My opponent is being dishonest when he says that Soy Milk can be drunk by everybody. There two distinct groups that cannot drink Soy that can drink Cow's Milk. People who are allergic to Soy. Plus people who are bodybuilder because it lowers testosterone and raises estrogen. This is because it reduces muscles gains. And even if that were true that most people couldn't drink it, it would be irrelavent because we could only compare these two things in the realm of people who could drink both. Also steroid rage, only applies to the small number of people who take steroids and even then it's never been scientifically proven that steroid rage actually exists. The only cases of evidence are anecdotal not scientifically studied claims. Carbs versus Fats I would like point out he never argues aganist my points explicitly for carbs being worse he just says because it sounds like fat is what makes us fat therefore it must be what makes us fat. Obviously this is a vast oversimplification and he consequenitally drops my carbs portion of the case, so he must concede Soy Milk does contain more carbs even if he doubts the importance which I will explain is a mistake below. My opponent says bodybuilders eat tons of carbs. While many bodybuilders do eat many carbs and no one would argue they don't , however they are referring to complex carbohydrates with a high glycemic index. My opponent just completely drops the point about carbs and only tries to punish me on fats. Nonetheless, just because nobody says "your a carbo" doesn't prove anything as my opponent fails to understand. It is laughable that they show the California governor instead of the bodybuilder Schwarzenegger to support their point. A analysis of 21 studies published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that "a diet filled with saturated fat was not associated with increased risk. .. . [ of coronary heart disease, stroke or coronary vascular disease]". The problem with carbohydrates is that it's very easy to binge on them because they satisfy us often more than the fatty counterparts, for example cheesy puffs versus pork chops(pork has more fat, cheesy puffs more carbs). Fat is actually the preferred fuel of the human body. Evolutionarily speaking, we have been eatting fat heavy fat foods for thousands of years and we only(relatively) recently started eating all these carbs. I mean meat naturally contains a decent amount of fat. Another problem with carbs is that they are hard to digest in comparison to Fat. If you are still doubting my position, think about this. We absolutely need fat to survive, lipids are absolutely required for making ATP while the body can produce it's own glucose. In fact, carbohydrates are the only macronutrients we can completely cut from our diet and be completely fine, eliminate fats or protein and eventually you will die from a nutrient deficiency.