The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

If you could only eat one food forever, chicken would be better than beef in terms of taste

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2015 Category: Funny
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 634 times Debate No: 77816
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Hello there. I would like to thank those who have provided the tools that we can use here on 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.

Now, as can be seen in the proposition, I believe that if you can only have one food for the rest of your life, chicken would be better than beef in terms of taste.

Now for the debate. Although it may be argued that chicken has less falvorful fat than does beef (1) and thus is more bland, think about it this way: Is blandness really a bad thing? If you eat meat without any seasoning, sauce, etc., then I'd say "Yes." However, since we season our food, it's better not to use beef, since its flavor has naturally been defined. It's easier for chicken, however, to be made to taste sweet, sour, salty, etc. And if you only can have one food for the rest of your life, you'd want one that could have a variety of flavors from a gustatory (taste) point of view. Think of it this way: Would you rather make a painting with white paper (one that is customizable, since it doesn't favor another color), or with blue paper?




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?

Debate Round No. 1


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.
Debate Round No. 2


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).
2. The leaner beef is, the more savory.
3. Beef also can be bland if it's less lean.
4. Herbs, spices, and sauces are different foods; thus one cannot have them in the proposition's scenario.
5. People eat more hamburgers than chicken sandwiches (except Pro).
6. There really are not any good websites about chicken but are for beef.

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.

In regards to Point 4, neither herbs, spices, nor salts qualify as "foods" but as things that can be used on them.(3) Thus, they may be used.

For Point 5, it doesn't really matter for this debate whether people eat more chicken sandwiches or hamburgers. Even if used as an indicator, statistics showing more "beef" or "chicken" being eaten, as I've done, is better than specifics like "hamburgers" or "chicken sandwiches." Remember the proposition.

Point 6 doesn't prove the proposition right or wrong.

Thank you for your time. I hope that the evidence for and against will be thoroughly investigated, not just Con's upcoming last word.





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?
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Kilk1 1 year ago
I agree that you didn't have enough time to read everything at the beginning and that it is because of my rushing you to accept before someone else does. However, my opening post does imply that seasoning can be used on the meats, so I'll allow the voters to decide on this.
Posted by Ethan14 1 year ago
Kilk1 accidentally made this debate an open debate so and he wanted me to accept as quick as possible so I didn't get to read the his first argument but only the proposition. Seasoning doesn't count because the proposition doesn't say it does. If he Kilk1 disagrees he could make a comment that says so.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Tough debate, especially because the resolution never said whether you could add sauce or additional little seasonings on top. However, as pro had noted in round one. "we usually eat meat with seasoning", inferring that the previous two could be used. Con quit using sources after round one, so that point is to pro. His arguments grow shorter and shorter as pro shows more americans eat chicken [negating con's argument concerning hamburger VS chicken sandwhich] as well as showing that chicken have more variety of flavors compared to beef's so-called "savory". Close debate.