Horses are better than Fish.

Hello! First I would like to thank my opponent for making it so easy to point out all the flaws in his round 3 argument. My opponent dropped numerous arguments 1.He failed to deny that watching fish reduces stress and anxiety. 2.He failed to deny that to a lot of cultures in olden times depended mainly on fish. 3 My opponent failed to refute that under population and over population are likely to occur if fish became extinct. 4.My opponent failed to refute that some species of penguins would die off because of fish. 5.My opponent failed to refute you need a specific environment to care for a horse properly. 6.My opponent failed to refute that injury can occur when caring for a horse. 7.My opponent also lied about the information I presented. 8. my opponent failed to refute that fishes had an impact on culture may it be positive or negative. These are all arguments my opponent neglected to mention to you. Doesn't it give you a new perspective on his argument? Rebuttal 1: Every different land has a different culture. One of the things that make up culture is diet. Here are all the cultures that depend on fish as there main source of protein and/or economical stability. The world: http://www.conservation.org... India: http://en.wikipedia.org... Egypt: http://www.infosamak.org... China: http://en.wikipedia.org... Japan: http://en.wikipedia.org... Billions of poor people: http://www.fao.org... Those are people of countries and/or people that depend on fish for economical stability and/or their main source of protein. My opponent stated this: "Not to mention it was from wikipedia, which is not a reliable source. " "For example, it said that fishing dated back to 40,000 years. By some people and Christians, this is wrong because of Creationism, which dates to 6,000 years ago." Notice, he says wikipedia is not a reliable source, yet he used it as an example for his argument by quoting wikipedia and giving a link that I USED! If wikipedia is not reliable, why did he use it for his argument? This is what my opponent previously stated: Not to mention it was from wikipedia, which is not a reliable source. For example, it said that fishing dated back to 40,000 years. By some people and Christians, this is wrong because of Creationism, which dates to 6,000 years ago. Just getting that out there. Rebuttal 1b: Arguing my opponents' point. My opponent stated that fishing helped culture. I will quote something from his link: "Fishing scenes are rarely represented in ancient Greek culture, a reflection of the low social status of fishing (2)." To me, it seems like it did not help culture in a good way. From that passage, it did provide culture, yes, but in a rather bad way. This shows that only peasants fished while the merchants rode horses. It also showed the Greeks did not see fishing as a very important way of life." (2) http://en.wikipedia.org...... end of quote Isn't that a double standard! This rebuttal negate round 3, rebuttal 1 of my opponent. Rebuttal 2: Even though it may not make them animals extinct directly, it can make huge changes on the world. 1. Beavers only eat Fish and Crabs, so if fish were gone, beavers might become endangered due to lack of food. This would cause a lot of damns to be left barren. Which would make the damn deteriorate in time. A lot of damns would break! This would cause catastrophic floods! this would cause many animals to die, and many predators of the may lead to under population. This would be like a ripple effect to all species! All species either being over populated or under populated. (Humans included!) the fluctuations may lead to species population being completely UNSTABLE! It would go like this, Coyotes in the area are under populated because a lot of beavers are dying. This then causes cattle number to dramatically increase. As a result, more beef is being shipped to stores. This may lead to them not being checked well for disease. Under cooked meat can effect us and animals! But then, there are more food for the coyotes, and they become over populated because of the rise in food, and cattle become under populated, which causes beef prices to raise, and less beef being ship to stores! This process would repeat! Effecting different species! this is also the same for bears. The bears would eat all of the berries in the area. they would then have no food for a long time and, as I said Die because of Hypothermia because they weren't fat enough for the winter, or starvation. This Rebuttal negates The round 3, rebuttals 2 and 3 made by the pro. Rebuttal 3: Fish (like any other food) can not cure a disease, but they can help your body fight it and prevent it! Horse riding only helps core and back muscles as shown in the link. http://horses.about.com... Also, just like any meat, if you don't cook it right, it might have a disease or parasite. Just like if you were cooking a steak, you have to follow the instructions to make sure that does not happen. But most parasites can be cured, and food poisoning is only temporary! Caring for a horse is a lot more dangerous than under cooked fish! 1. You can fall of and break anything in you body including your neck very easily. 2. A horse may trample you. Those two reasons can kill you much easier than any parasite in fish or food poisoning! This rebuttal refutes round 3 rebuttal 4 of my opponent! Rebuttal 4; High maintenance fish usually cost about this: If you were to own a cichlid tank. The most popular of the tanks, this is how much it would cost. 40 gallon tank 100-200 dollars Cichlids (5) 50-60 dollars Filters 20-40 dollars food 5-10 dollars decorations 30-70 dollars Lights (Optional) 20-50 dollars Water heater 50-70 dollars The sum can equal about 430$ Stable 300,000-600,000 Dollars that surpassed the fishes cost just by the cost of the stable! Imagine how much the horse, the hay, the land, and the saddle cost! Fish can be high maintenance because of: Cleaning tank, checking the PH, checking the water temperature, Putting in water conditioner, and feeding them. Here are the duties with a horse. Feeding, giving water, having to ride or walk it for it's exercise, have to clean stable, have to pick up poo, and spend time with it. Overall, the fish is lower maintenance than the horse. This negates round 3 rebuttal 5 made by my opponent Also, who is to say we couldn't replace the horse with a donkey or camel in the old times. I have proved all of the statements that my opponent wrote this round false. Good day Ladies and Gentleman!