If you could only eat one food forever, chicken would be better than beef in terms of taste
Hello there. I would like to thank those who have provided the tools that we can use here on debate.org so that this debate can happen. This is my first debate here, and to be honest, this debate is more of humerous practice than anything else.
Well, for one, just because beef has more flavor than chicken, doesn't mean it unable to be "customized", how about you think of this way: Beef has higher base flavor than chicken, which means it has a higher potential flavor than chicken. It depends on the leanness of the beef on how much of the savory flavor the beef has.
Americans eat around 50 billion hamburgers a year and eat about three each week(1), but we hardly even see people eat chicken sandwiches other than you, Kilk1. If that many hamburgers are eaten each year, then why would anyone want to live on chicken for the rest of their life?
There is an entire website called Beef - It's What's For Dinner(2), what kind of websites support chicken?
If I were to summarize Con's response into a few points, I would come up with this:
1. Food has a base flavor. If meat A's flavor is higher than that of meat B, then meat A has more overall potential as to how gustatorily pleasing it can become.
2. Americans eat an average of three hamburgers per week. Chicken lacks such statistics.
3. The fact that there is a website known as "Beef - It's What's For Dinner" further verifies that people prefer beef over chicken.
If I left anything out and/or misrepresented you, Con, please let me know. Although these points may appear good at first, I will reference a wise saying from long ago: "The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him."(1)
In regards to the first point, I disagree with the concept of base flavor. Rather, my view is that there are various different flavors that give food a manner of uniqueness. For example, there is sweetness, savoryness (the category beef falls in), saltiness, etc. Instead of having just one of these great flavors, with chicken, one is able to, by means of creativity, allow chicken to fall into all these categories, a feat more difficult for beef to accomplish. Why have only one flavor when you can enjoy them all?
As for the second point, your reference had no mention of chicken, only how much beef is eaten. Statistics actually reveal that people do eat more chicken than they do beef in the US now.(2)
And for the third point, citing websites supporting beef and chicken is somewhat subjective, but very well. Not only is chicken liked, but there is a website showing it to be beginning its own religion.(3)
Thank you for your time, and I await your response, Con.
(1) Proverbs 18:17. Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
You can't prove chicken is like paper, though. And like I said, the leaner the beef is, the more savory it is. So if you want you beef more bland, get less lean beef.
If you only have one meat for the rest of your live, then you wouldn't be able to have herbs, spices and sauce because they wouldn't count as the same food and would count as vegetables.
This entire debate is about an opinion anyways. So there is no way to prove which meat is better. Beef is more expensive too so it would not be bought as much. I never said Americans eat more chicken. I said only that Americans eat 50 billion hamburgers each year. Americans don't seem to eat that much chicken sandwiches except you. Regarding the website, they are not really any good websites for chicken, but they are several good websites supporting beef. That religious chicken website is small and looks generic.
This is what I see is a summary of Con's last argument:
1. Pro (myself) cannot prove that chicken is like paper (in the sense that it is more customizable).
In regards to Points 1–3, look at it this way: Foods can have various flavors through seasoning. (As to whether seasoning can fit into my proposition's scenario, we will see later.) And lean meat contains "little or no fat"(1), making it less flavorful, not more.(2) And even though some beef is more bland than other beef, they both still would have more, "preinstalled" flavor than chicken. Since there are different flavors (savory, sweet, salty, etc.), it's harder to change something that already has some flavor dictated. It's that simple. For example, it would be difficult to make an apple pie taste salty, savory, etc.; doing such with chicken, however, is considerably easier.
Okay, lean means lack of fat, but you haven't proved that 100% lean beef would have would still have "preinstalled" flavor. But it doesn't matter weather or not beef has "built in" flavor because the proposition doesn't say outside foods or spices are allowed, it just says chicken would be better than beef for the rest of ones life in terms of taste. So it would be beef with no seasoning versus chicken with no seasoning. Since beef already has flavor (assuming the fat isn't removed), beef has savory flavor while chicken is just bland and flavorless. Which flavor would you rather have for the rest of your life more, bland or savory?
|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:||5||0|