Chocolate is good.
Debate Rounds (5)
According to http://www.huffingtonpost.com..., it reduces stroke risks, it boosts heart health, it may fight diabetes, it protects your skin, it can quiet coughs, it improves blood flow, and it improves vision.
In addition to it giving health benefits, it can give a delicious, savory flavor into your mouth. There are many different types of chocolate, if you don't like one too!
Overall, chocolates are great!
My opponent also says that "There are many different types of chocolate, if you don't like one too!" This shows that he believes all types of chocolates have the same health benefits, however I disagree because not all chocolates are created equally. The class of ingredients that makes chocolate are called flavanoids. Milk chocolate does not have any many flavanoids as dark chocolate, and white chocolate doesn't have any at all! Therefore, not all chocolates have the same health benefits.
Now, I will present my counter example, vanilla. Vanilla has numerous antioxidants, has anti-inflammation abilities, and can lower cholesterol. In addition, it can also calm stomach pains, reduce hunger pangs, and relieve stress. On top of that, vanilla is also not as fattening and doesn't have as many unhealthy additions as chocolate. Eating vanilla would give you the same health benefits that chocolate also brings, but it also doesn't have the downsides that chocolate has.
In conclusion, chocolate should not be praised for its numerous health benefits, because it also has major unhealthy characteristics, and because vanilla is another better alternative to chocolate.
http://www.everydayhealth.com..., coffee can do the same. Yet people still drink it! Thus, chocolate is still something good you can enjoy, like coffee!
My opponent then says then says that not all chocolates have the same health benefits. Though this may be true, the chocolates each do have at least one thing. White chocolate, for example, can give calcium, while milk chocolate can give a medium or a high level of cacao.
She then gives a counter example, which doesn't really relate to the topic. Vanilla and chocolate are both good, and we are arguing about how chocolate is good! She believes that chocolate is not good, and I believe it is. This is not chocolate vs vanilla. Thus, this counter example is useless.
In conclusion, chocolate does give health benefits.
Secondly, he says that white chocolate can give calcium and milk chocolate has a high or medium level of cacao. I disagree with his white chocolate rebuttal because milk or other dairy products could just as easily give calcium without other downsides chocolate brings. As you can see, white chocolate is one type of chocolate that should not be praised, as its benefits can be achieved with healthier means. In addition, I also disagree with his milk chocolate argument, because he does not clearly explain what cacao is and how cacao affects the body. Therefore, his rebuttal is invalid.
In my opponent's third rebuttal, he mentions how a counter example is irrelevant to the topic at hand. However, I disagree, my counterexample is valid and acceptable. The opposition's job is to knock down all of the proposition's arguments; the opposition is not arguing the opposite of the proposition.
To sum up, my opponent's rebuttals are invalid, and you should vote for the Con/Opposition.
My opponent then says that milk or other dairy products could just as easily give calcium without other downsides chocolate brings. This may be true, however this does not bring down the fact that the two chocolates still give benefits!
Lastly, my opponent says that her counterexample is valid and acceptable. As I said before, her vanilla example does not bring down the fact that chocolate is still good! Both are good and both give benefits. This is debate is not about one is better than the other.
Although the milk chocolate does have a benefit, it is still not the best option. You also did not refute my milk chocolate point, so your statement, "the two chocolates still give benefits," is false.
As I have stated before, the opposition's (Con's) job is to refute everything that proposition says. Obviously, my counter example proves that chocolate is not good because there are other, healthier, and better options to chocolate.
http://cocoasymposium.com..., the website says that chocolate is not bad for your health. Because this is clearly stated, this means that they do more good that harm. Chocolate is good and gives benefits.
After, my opponent says that I didn't refute her milk chocolate point. This is false, because I said that milk does give benefits- but so does the two chocolates! This means that she just gave another thing that gave some same health benefits. The two chocolates are still.. good!
Lastly, my opponent says that there are better and healthier options to chocolate. This may be true, but it DOESN'T PROVE THAT CHOCOLATE IS BAD! Water is good for you, and apples are good for you. If I was talking about how water is good, and you put in a counterexample that apples are good, this doesn't mean that water is bad! This is what you are saying right now about chocolate. You are saying that milk is also good for you, but that doesn't mean that chocolate is bad. Your arguments are useless, and I have rebutted all of them. Overall, chocolate is great.
Vote for the proposition side.
I don't understand your second rebuttal. You mention that you've stated, "milk does give benefits," but I cannot find where you have said this throughout our debate.
In response to your third rebuttal, I am saying that there are other better alternatives to chocolate, so therefore chocolate is not good because it is not the best option of food to choose from. For example. vanilla is a healthier and more beneficial food so chocolate is not a good option in comparison.
As you can see, I have clearly won this debate because I have rebutted many of my opponent's points, and I have come up with a counterexample to refute his points. Please vote the the Opposition (Con).
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 4 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.