The Instigator
dtaylor971
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Cooldudebro
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Horses are better than Fish.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Cooldudebro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 995 times Debate No: 42743
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

dtaylor971

Pro

I challenge con to this debate. First round for acceptance only.

Horses v. fish in general. They will be referred to as both animals and pets.

Better will be defined as: one's superiors in social class or ability.
Cooldudebro

Con

I accept! Good luck. This will be a close one!
Debate Round No. 1
dtaylor971

Pro

Yes, this should be interesting. Our last debate was very fun. First, some ground rules.

The past or the present arguments may be used.

BOP: The BOP for me, pro, is that I must prove that horses are in fact better than fish.
BOP: The BOP for him, con, is that he must prove that fish are in fact better than horses.

Round 2: Presentations of arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Polishing up.

This debate will be concluded by who has the better arguments about horses and fish as BOTH animals and pets.

With that all said, let the debate commence!

--Case I: Ancient and Medieval Times--
Before we go into the 'as pets' section, I would like to state a few things about horses as animals.

Sub argument I
For my first sub argument, I turn to horses and how they helped develop our world today. In ancient times, people relied on trade to develop their communities (1). However, they had no means of electric transportation that they have today. So they turned to horses to get around.

Horses helped on the Silk Road a ton. The Silk Road is an ancient trading passage that helped develop communities (2). Without horses, the trade could not have happened, as many had to walk hundreds of miles on foot just to trade.

Aside from means of transportation, the horses also helped the Romans develop roads (3).

The Romans did, in fact, use the idea of horses to develop roads. Due to the fact that horses were actually the fastest mean of transportation, they built roads that could fit two (4) chariots side-by-side. The road development of Ancient Rome further proved the importance of horses. Without horses, the Romans may not have developed roads.

Horses helped many get along very, very fast. Well, not compared to today, when cars can reach 100 miles an hour. But the speed that horses went at was unheard of until they were discovered. Many ancient people used them to travel as many as 300 miles in just two days (5)!


The last main thing that the Ancient horses did in transportation is spread news (6). People could deliver news and mail much faster on horses than on foot. This helped spread news, such as an oncoming attack, a plague, or a new king. Horses helped people stay in touch.

(1) http://www.livescience.com...
(2) http://www.ess.uci.edu...
(3) https://www.chronofhorse.com...
(4) http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
(5) http://imh.org...
(6) http://imh.org...


-Sub argument II-

My second sub argument on horses will be about battles. In ancient times, it is no secret that battles were there left and right. When the Christians left the Muslims in a pile of blood during the crusades. The Red Cliff battle. And horses were appearing in every single one of those battles.

My first argument is that horses helped shape the first archers in warfare (7). In the Ancient time period, around 900 BCE, the Greeks went to war with the Scythians, who raided the Ancient Greeks. They were able to do that because of horses. The Scythians shot arrows from moving horses, meaning the Scythians were harder to hit and were advancing faster.

The horses also helped make the chariot (8). The chariot, in battle, contained of the fighter and the driver. The driver controlled the horse while the fighter fought with javelins, and very efficiently at that (9). The chariot was the best military weapon from 2000-500 BCE (also 9). Without horses, battles both in ancient times and today would be very different.

My last argument for this sub-argument in the Trojan Horse. The horse that was used was supposed to be a symbol of giving up. But the Greeks hid inside it, and when everyone slept, trashed Troy and destroyed it (10). Without horses, the Trojan War itself would be very different. Had horses not been used, the big Trojan Horse would not have been used, and the Trojans could've won the fight. Thank God for horses!

(7) http://horse.fieldmuseum.org...
(8) http://filebox.vt.edu...
(9) http://www.ancient.eu.com...
(10) http://greece.mrdonn.org...


--Case II: As pets--
I have stated that horses are very good animals in general and very important. Here is the definition of "pet" we will be following:
Pet:
An animal kept for amusement or companionship (11)

Sub argument I

In my first sub-argument of this topic, I will turn to the characteristics of a horse.

First off, a great pet should usually live a long and healthy life. Horses definitely win in that category. First off, a long life makes a great pet. The average lifespan of a horse is about 27 years (12). That means you could grow old with your pet and have an everlasting bond with it. An average lifespan of a normal pet freshwater fish is about two years (13). I'd rather have a pet that I can grow old with and really get to know. I feel that lifespan is one of the best factors of a pets' life.

As for being healthy, horses win also. Fish can easily be infested with parasites (14). Horses can also, but not as easily. Horses can also eat a variety of things that help their digestive system, such as apples. Fish can mainly only eat scientific fish feed and plankton or microscopic bodies. Meanwhile, horses can rely on this steady diet (15):
Fresh water
Carrots
Apples
Grain
Grass
Hay.
Those are all things that you can obtain without going to the store, except maybe for grain. Horse food is easier to obtain and better for them.

The last thing in this sub-argument is what we do with them after death. For fish, many people flush them down the toilet. However, with horses, many people go as far as to bury it (16). Some cremate it to hold on to them forever. Even though this costs up to $1,500, many love their horse enough to spend that much money to keep them with them forever. Fish, you spend about one dollar (usually) to get rid of them. That toilet flush goes to your water bill.

(11) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
(12) http://horses.about.com...
(13) http://www.petplace.com...
(14) http://www.drsfostersmith.com...
(15) http://www.rspca.org.uk...
(16) http://www.bluebonnetequine.org...

Sub argument II
My last argument for today is what you can do with your horse.

For a horse, you can watch it in the arena, ride it, groom it, feed it, pet it, walk it, and do tricks with it (17). With a fish, you cant really do anything besides watch it and feed it. You can't pet it, which kind of takes away from the definition of "pet."

Whenever you are bored and have tons of energy, you can always ride a horse. This eats up your time and usually takes about two hours (18). You can watch a fish for fifteen minutes, but then you usually get bored. The only thing you can really do with a pet fish is feed it and try to make it more colorful and beautiful (19).

The last argument for this round of debate will focus on what tricks you can teach your horse. With a horse, you can teach it to follow your instructions (20). A horse can memorize the sound of your voice and come to you. You can teach it to walk, run, trot, stop, go in between barrels, and much more! With a fish, you can't really tech it that many tricks.

(17) http://www.horseforum.com...
(18) http://www.wikihow.com...
(19) http://www.wikihow.com...
(20) http://www.horsetricks101.com...


Thank you for reading. Your turn! :D
Cooldudebro

Con

Hello! I am here to show you how fish are way better than horses.

Case 1: Ancient Times

In these times, many of the countries we remember and live in today would not exist or would have failed if it weren't for fish. Fish also gave the people culture as shown in the link bellow.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Fishing was very important even in ancient history!

Case 2: Food

How would society be like today if we didn't eat fish? Fish are really important to all food lovers! Without fish, we could never make sushi! Also, say good bye to dolphins and whales! Since dolphins and whales eat fish, they would starve and die off if fish would disappear! Keep in mind that the bear species might be effected. Because fish is a main part of a bear

http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you scroll down to their diet, you will see that bears mainly eat aquatic animals. Well, since there is no fish, there are nothing living in the waters! Only jelly fish and shrimp and very few species that aren't dependent on fish! This can cause irreversible damage to our fragile Eco- system!

Case 3: The Eco System Without Fish.

As I already described the facts that dolphins and whales would die off. But that's not it! Here are a list of animals off the top of my head I think, would die without fish!

Penguins: Penguins diet is almost completely dependent on fish! They would die off!
Bears (That live in warm, hot or mild environment!) There main diet depends on fish! They would not have enough fat to survive through hibernation, and would die from hypothermia, or starvation.
Humans in Egypt: Egypt was dependent on the Nile river to give them fresh water and fish! Without fish, the Egyptians, would have died off a long time ago.

Those are just a few species and countries that would have died if there were no fish! There would be every species either effected by over population or under population!

Case 4: Human Health

A recent Harvard study shown, that fish is and I quote "part of a very healthy diet" End quote.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...

In the article, it tells about how fish has many nutrients such as Vitamin D and protein! It also show that fish help fight heart diseases with Omega 3! It also helps reduce blood pressure!

Case 5: Pets

Fish are a great pet! The beginner fish are generally low matinence. They require little attention and are fun to watch them swim around!

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Some fish require little care, while other need a lot of care! Some fish supplies and matinence are cheaper than horses. Fish diseases cost cheap to fix! Some fish are territorial and fight when other fish come near them. Some are peaceful, and other need to be kept solitary! Fish differ in behavior, and appearance like these two fish for example:

Neon tetras http://en.wikipedia.org...

And

Betta Fish! http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thus, fish offer more of a variety than horses do!

Case 5: The Draw Backs Of Horses

if you fall off your horse, you can fall and become paralyzed or die!
Horses are high matinence as shown in the link http://en.wikipedia.org...
Some horses will trample you if they don't like you!
You need to live in the country to own one properly!
They can cost a lot of money as shown in the link. http://www.equine.com...
Horse diseases are common and hard to treat as shown in the link. http://www.petmd.com...

If you view the importance of fish in the past and the importance of them now, you will be fish are a lot more important and better. Thank you ladies and gentleman for your time and consideration!
Debate Round No. 2
dtaylor971

Pro

Thank you for a speedy response and I will compliment you on your debate.

Before starting, I would like to quote my opponent:


"Hello! I am here to show you how fish are way better than horses."

Way: by a great amount (1)

He said that quote, thus changing the resolution he has to meet to "way" better instead of just better.

(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...

With that said, onto the actual debate.


Rebuttal 1a: Dissecting my opponents' point.
I would like to point out that my opponent's first argument contained almost the same wording as mine. Also, he used a link to prove his point without actually saying something on it. All he said was that it "improved culture" and provided a link, a broad one at that, without having details in the actual debate to support it. 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...

Rebuttal 2a: Dissecting my opponents' point.
In his next argument, he states that fish are a very important food. He states stuff about the food chain and the ecosystem. However, he does emphasize it so it seems like fish are the only things whales and dolphins eat. He also says that bears would be effected, but I think they would simply evolve into more of herbivores than carnivores.

My opponent then went on to put a link without actually putting on the debate site what the link contains. He merely said "if you scroll down to their diet..." without actually listing the diets of the bear. The last thing he says is that very few species are not dependent on fish. That is not true. If anything, very few species are entirely dependent on fish.

Rebuttal 2b: Arguing my opponents' point.

For your very few species don't rely on fish argument, that is not true. Almost no land animal ever, EVER depends on fish. Plant life usually don't depend on fish. Microscopic organisms would throw a party if fish were extinct, as small fish eat plankton. No herbivores eat fish. Not even most carnivores eat fish.

After dissecting the argument, some problems surface with the way he emphasized it. First off, whales usually eat krill (3). While some do eat schooling fish as a part of their diet, they do not become dependent on it. They could live without it, and diet mainly on krill and bottom-dwelling creatures such as worms.

As for dolphins, their diet is consisted of fish, squids, shrimp, and other bottom dwelling creatures (4). Since dolphins can depend on two other things for food, the fish absence does not make it as big of a problem as you think and display. This is the same as saying that the horse, who is pray to exactly three animals (same as your argument) would kill off all wolves, mountain lions, and bears (5).
You may also argue that horses are not prey. Yet they have eyes on one side of head, eaten by predators, don't walk in straight lines, and also eat grass and are vegetarians (6).

As for humans, we don't NEED to eat fish. Not at all! It could actually be better if we didn't eat fish (7). We have a diet of pretty much anything that tastes good.
Fish can have parasites, and if undercooked, infect us and cause food poisoning and even death. As for your sushi argument, we can easily make sushi out of crab, cucumber, shrimp, and boy, I've even eaten a octopus meat sushi. Since we really only need rice and seaweed to make sushi, your argument is invalid here.

The last thing I would like to point out is that bears are actually MOSTLY HERBIVORES. Plants make up 90% of their diet (8). They could live on just vegetation. Also, they can hunt other animals besides fish, you know, Maybe a nice jungle critter once in a while. If fish were out of the bears diet, it would be like pasta coming out of our diet. We lose a healthy and rewarding snack, but we can live without it.

(3) http://seaworld.org...
(4) http://www.dolphinaris.com...
(5) http://www.thecloudfoundation.org...
(6) http://www.gentlehorses.com...
(7) http://www.peta.org...
(8) http://www.bearsmart.com...


Rebuttal 3a: Dissecting opponents' argument.
In his next argument, he turns to the Eco system, which was actually almost his argument before. This time, he uses penguins, bears again, and humans. He also says "off of the top of his head." That makes empty arguments supported by nothing whatsoever. He also says "I think." He also states that countries would've died without fish. I will go on to argue that.

Rebuttal 3b: Arguing opponents' argument.
Right now, it seems like you are acting like each animal depends on fish and fish only. However, this is not true, not even for the penguins.

Yes, the penguins do eat fish. But you failed to recognize that they also eat krill and squids (9). I will quote from the website:
"The smaller penguin species of the Antarctic and the subantarctic primarily feed on krill and squids."
That means your argument invalid for many species of penguins. It also assures that they will not go extinct as you said, but rather become weaker while other species stay the same.


As for bears, I have already argued that. They can eat other fatty meat also, such as rabbits or mice. Plus, vegetation can provide the strength they need to get through the winter.

As for Ancient Egyptians, it is ludicrous to say that they would've died off without fish. Sure, they may have become somewhat weaker, but not die. Ancient Egypt is known for it's great soil and vegetation DUE to the Nile River (10). We even find many statues of Egyptians who are well overweight from eating too much. Without fish, is it possible that they could've lived longer due to being a better weight? Possible.

The last thing that I would like to point out is that fishes have decreased 90% over the past 50 years (11), and I don't see any big effects besides more people eating sushi and fish when they really don't need to.

(9) http://seaworld.org...
(10) http://www.touregypt.net...
(11) http://www.workman.com...


Rebuttal 4a: Dissecting my opponents' arguments.

In his fourth argument, he states human health and what fish can do. He states that it can lower blood pressure, and do two other things for your health. While this is true, there are also dangers of eating fish as I will point out. He did tell you what was in the link, but did not actually make an argument but rather told you what was in it and to read it.

Rebuttal 4b: Arguing my opponents' arguments.
Despite the fact I think that this is the opponents' most stable argument yet (good job) I still find a rather easy way to refute it.

For the things that you listed that fish help you with, I will say you are correct. But those are only medical circumstances, not regular. How often does a fish actually save you from the fatality of a heart disease? And fish is just one of many, many ways to lower your blood pressure. As for making you healthy, I will say that it is healthy to eat fish.
However, horses are equal to helping you stay in shape. Riding provides great exercise and helps your muscles such as your core muscles, back muscles, and your leg muscles (12). Not to mention you must use your brain to ride, as you control the horse, so it isn't exactly a joyride for most untrained people. When you get trained, it's like walking on clouds, trust me.

I have already stated that undercooked fish can cause parasites and food poisoning.

(12) http://www.classicaldressage.co.uk...


Rebuttal 5a: Dissecting opponents' arguments.
Apparently, my opponent has two fifth arguments, so I will dissect and argue them at the same time. Both of these two arguments follow the same post: that fish are better pets. However, as I stated, you must prove that they are WAY better based on what you said.
Anyway, you state that fish are low-maintenance while you concede to the point that some are higher maintenance and it depends on the breed. This is the same for horses, as I will later point out.
On his second argument, he shows one sentence and adds a link for you to read. That is not debating, but I will argue it anyway. It will not be efficient since I barely have any more room to write.

Rebuttal 5b: Arguing opponents' arguments.
First off, you have already conceded to the point that fish can be high maintenance. Horses do somewhat tend to be high maintenance, but there is a solution to that. Wherever you keep your horse, there will be someone willing to take care of it and exercise it (13). And since they love the job, they usually don't cost a ton of money.
As for your next arguments, they aren't really refutable because I would have to click on every single link and read it to refute it. Due to the fact I have no words left, my opponent can either let me do it in the forth round or skip the argument.

(13) http://www.horsegroomingsupplies.com...


Thank you for reading. Your move!


Cooldudebro

Con

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!
Debate Round No. 3
dtaylor971

Pro

I would like to thank CON for his time and effort put into this debate.

Ok, wow. You have paid absolutely no attention to my arguments.

Also, he says a stable costs 600 thousand dollars. Since I can't post any rebuttals, I can't post any of his arguments.

My opponent has failed to prove that fishes are WAY better than horses, as he stated. He did not meet his share of the BOP.

My opponent never attacked any of my arguments specifically, and scarcely referred to any quote specifically. He also dropped numerous arguments, while the ones he claimed I dropped were in fact things that I DID say.

I used the wikipedia link to show the faults in that link.

To sum up, here is what my opponent did:

-He did not argue very well, as most of his "arguments" were not said specifically, but rather outlined and not detailed. The "details" he had were in the link.
-Did not organize his statements well
-Had false information on the dropped arguments section, while dropping numerous arguments HIMSELF

Now I will respond to each of the dropped arguments he said I had.


1.He failed to deny that watching fish reduces stress and anxiety.

But I reacted with a counter-argument that riding horses can free up time, thus making you more relaxed.

2.He failed to deny that to a lot of cultures in olden times depended mainly on fish.

I had a whole section on Egypt. You did not say the specific names of cultures besides Egypt (which I refuted) in your argument. What do you want me to do, put a search on what ancient civilization relied only on fish?

3 My opponent failed to refute that under population and over population are likely to occur if fish became extinct.
I did not attack that in particular, but I showed diets of specific animals and showed that they would be O.K without fish.

4.My opponent failed to refute that some species of penguins would die off because of fish.
I had a whole section, AND A QUOTE, on the penguin species on my rebuttal 3b. Check for yourself.

5.My opponent failed to refute you need a specific environment to care for a horse properly.
Yeah, because I did not feel it was worthy of being in my rebuttal section because I was running out of wording. Fish need a specific environment to survive, also.

6.My opponent failed to refute that injury can occur when caring for a horse.
I asked you at the end of my argument if I could do that in this round. You did not respond, and as I specifically said, neutralizes your argument:
"Due to the fact I have no words left, my opponent can either let me do it in the fourth round or skip the argument."

7.My opponent also lied about the information I presented.
I do not feel I did and you have no evidence for that.

8. my opponent failed to refute that fishes had an impact on culture may it be positive or negative.
I showed that it did have an impact on culture, you're right, but led to discrimination due to the low status of fishing.

Now for your dropped arguments:
MY WHOLE ROUND TWO ARGUMENT! YOU NEVER ARGUED AGAINST IT, JUST MY REBUTTALS! YOU DROPPED MY WHOLE ARGUMENT!

Ladies and gentlemen, He dropped every one of my main arguments.

Thank you for reading.
Cooldudebro

Con

KEEP IN MIND THIS DEBATE iS ABOUT WHICH ANIMAL IS BETTER (FOR THE ECO SYSTEM AND PETS!)

Ladies and gentleman, my opponent knows his back is against the wall, so he is attacking my debating skills. My point was to show you life would be effected dramatically if fish were not in the Eco system. We concluded this through my statements:

Horses cost more than fish
Fish can be used for stress therapy and anxiety therapy for people that get anxiety attacks.
Horses can be replaced.
Horses are only a symbol now where fish are in our diet and many other animals.
Removing fish from the Eco system could cause what I call a ripple effect (read last round)
Horses mean more responsibility.
Fish feed many countries and people and is a major part in some country's economic growth.
You are very likely to be injured from a horse.
You have a more variety in traits, behavior, color, and size
Horses in the old days could have been replaced by donkeys or camrels.

This is all I have proven over the course of this debate. I have disproved all of the opponents round 3. The opponent also accused me of not answering rebuttle 2

This is his rebuttal for round 2 and 3

In his next argument, he states that fish are a very important food. He states stuff about the food chain and the ecosystem. However, he does emphasize it so it seems like fish are the only things whales and dolphins eat. He also says that bears would be effected, but I think they would simply evolve into more of herbivores than carnivores.

My opponent then went on to put a link without actually putting on the debate site what the link contains. He merely said "if you scroll down to their diet..." without actually listing the diets of the bear. The last thing he says is that very few species are not dependent on fish. That is not true. If anything, very few species are entirely dependent on fish.

Rebuttal 2b: Arguing my opponents' point.

For your very few species don't rely on fish argument, that is not true. Almost no land animal ever, EVER depends on fish. Plant life usually don't depend on fish. Microscopic organisms would throw a party if fish were extinct, as small fish eat plankton. No herbivores eat fish. Not even most carnivores eat fish.

After dissecting the argument, some problems surface with the way he emphasized it. First off, whales usually eat krill (3). While some do eat schooling fish as a part of their diet, they do not become dependent on it. They could live without it, and diet mainly on krill and bottom-dwelling creatures such as worms.

As for dolphins, their diet is consisted of fish, squids, shrimp, and other bottom dwelling creatures (4). Since dolphins can depend on two other things for food, the fish absence does not make it as big of a problem as you think and display. This is the same as saying that the horse, who is pray to exactly three animals (same as your argument) would kill off all wolves, mountain lions, and bears (5).
You may also argue that horses are not prey. Yet they have eyes on one side of head, eaten by predators, don't walk in straight lines, and also eat grass and are vegetarians (6).

As for humans, we don't NEED to eat fish. Not at all! It could actually be better if we didn't eat fish (7). We have a diet of pretty much anything that tastes good.
Fish can have parasites, and if undercooked, infect us and cause food poisoning and even death. As for your sushi argument, we can easily make sushi out of crab, cucumber, shrimp, and boy, I've even eaten a octopus meat sushi. Since we really only need rice and seaweed to make sushi, your argument is invalid here.

The last thing I would like to point out is that bears are actually MOSTLY HERBIVORES. Plants make up 90% of their diet (8). They could live on just vegetation. Also, they can hunt other animals besides fish, you know, Maybe a nice jungle critter once in a while. If fish were out of the bears diet, it would be like pasta coming out of our diet. We lose a healthy and rewarding snack, but we can live without it.

In his next argument, he turns to the Eco system, which was actually almost his argument before. This time, he uses penguins, bears again, and humans. He also says "off of the top of his head." That makes empty arguments supported by nothing whatsoever. He also says "I think." He also states that countries would've died without fish. I will go on to argue that.

Rebuttal 3b: Arguing opponents' argument.
Right now, it seems like you are acting like each animal depends on fish and fish only. However, this is not true, not even for the penguins.

Yes, the penguins do eat fish. But you failed to recognize that they also eat krill and squids (9). I will quote from the website:
"The smaller penguin species of the Antarctic and the subantarctic primarily feed on krill and squids."
That means your argument invalid for many species of penguins. It also assures that they will not go extinct as you said, but rather become weaker while other species stay the same.

As for bears, I have already argued that. They can eat other fatty meat also, such as rabbits or mice. Plus, vegetation can provide the strength they need to get through the winter.

As for Ancient Egyptians, it is ludicrous to say that they would've died off without fish. Sure, they may have become somewhat weaker, but not die. Ancient Egypt is known for it's great soil and vegetation DUE to the Nile River (10). We even find many statues of Egyptians who are well overweight from eating too much. Without fish, is it possible that they could've lived longer due to being a better weight? Possible.

The last thing that I would like to point out is that fishes have decreased 90% over the past 50 years (11), and I don't see any big effects besides more people eating sushi and fish when they really don't need to.

End quote

Round two is basically him saying animals diet would not be effected if fish became extinct. This is my response

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.

End of quote

As you can see I answered his rebuttal two question. In rebuttal one, I also answer His Egypt statement in rebuttal 1.

As you can see, fish are overall better pets, more cost efficient, a benefit to society, and that without fish certain species would become endangered and there would be termoil in the animal Eco system. This is why I think you should vote that fish are better than horses because overall, fish are more important for a steady Eco system!
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Cooldudebro 3 years ago
Cooldudebro
Yup me too friend
Posted by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
...Posting a whole rebuttal sec- you know what, I'm just gonna put this in the voters' hands.
Posted by Cooldudebro 3 years ago
Cooldudebro
And you are not allowed to add any claims so I guess we are even
Posted by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
CON WAS NOT ALLOWED TO REFUTE MY ARGUMENTS IN ROUND 4! It specifically states that it is just for polishing up!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by miketheman1200 3 years ago
miketheman1200
dtaylor971CooldudebroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: No one gets conduct because they were both naughty. Pro saying that horses helped in warfare does not prove they are better, just that they were used in a horrible fashion. Whereas fish have been beneficial and relied upon for sustenance. Con, his job was not to address your arguments, just to give his BOP. And he did. Easily. He shows that fish are better because of society's necessity for them over the ages. He also proves that as pets they are less costly to maintain. From Cons points it can be seen that fish are generally better than horses.