The Instigator
theawesomeguy2
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
theawesomeguy
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

fish are important to the world

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
theawesomeguy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 623 times Debate No: 52691
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

theawesomeguy2

Con

First round is accepting the definition and debate. Second round is first point. Third round is 2 new points and NO rebuttles. Fourth round is rebutting and summarizing your points.
theawesomeguy

Pro

I accept the debate, and the definition.
Debate Round No. 1
theawesomeguy2

Con

BTW, the definition is that fish is from anywhere in the world, except for household pets. For my first point, fish are completely useless. All they do is overcrowd the world and when theres overfishing, which is good, people get all hysterical and its just pointless. Why would you care about some little useless sardines? This is a easy win.
theawesomeguy

Pro

For my first point, fish help the economy. According to economy websites, in one year the economy in the world is raised by 10 billion dollars just by fish. This is a great help to people, and without economy the world would be dead. Fish help the economy by so much.
Debate Round No. 2
theawesomeguy2

Con

For my next two points, we don't need fish because if every fish in the ocean and seas died, we could take out all the water and make land for generations to come for humans. This is useful because everyone knows that humans are going to overpopulate. We could of also found MH-370 if there wasn't water. For my second point, if you eat fish, they have 70,000 bones in one single fish. The non boned fish however costs way more money. Good luck in refuting theawesomeguy!
theawesomeguy

Pro

Hello. For my next two points, my first point is that fish affect the food chain. Think about it. Without any fish what-so-ever, what will dolphins, shark, and just about 300 more animals eat? Fish are one of the most important species in the world. For my second point, fish are important because they positively affect us. Full of protein and other good stuff, these little fish can make us healthy and strong. It is for these reasons why I must win the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
theawesomeguy2

Con

Hello. Time for me to post my rebuttal's and win. For my opponents first point, they stated that fish help the economy. Sure they do, but the economy wouldn't change that much if we lost the fish in the world. If it does, the government can just print of thousand of billions of dollars and give it to everyone. For my opponents second point, he stated that these fish help the food chain. Sure, but sharks and dolphins don't just eat fish. It's not like there going to die if there isn't fish. For my opponents final point, he stated that fish make the human healthy with protein and strong. Well, vegetables can give almost all of the good stuff you need. Also, eggs give you protein. Steak gives you fat. Fish are not important to the human. Now to summarize my points, I said that fish do absolutely nothing, except for swimming around and eating things. What happens when there's "over fishing?" People are like "oh no, no more fish," when they should be saying "Yay, no more useless fish!" For my second point, if there isn't any fish, we could suck up the water and use the land for future generations, because we all know that humans will run out of land in like, 20 years. For my third point, Fish have billions of bones. Bones are especially dangerous, considering my friend almost CHOCKED eating a bone filled fish. And the non boned fish like salmon are a heck of a lot more expensive. Dear friends, it is for these reasons why this resolution must, most definitely fall. Thank you, and make sure you vote based on who you think won, not by personal opinion.
theawesomeguy

Pro

Hello, I will now finish off theawesomeguy2 and win the debate. BTW, that guy copied my name, and he's a friend, so yeah. For my rebuttal of his first point, he stated that fish are completely useless. Not true! Fish help the economy, they help animals and the Eco-system, they help everything almost! So when my friend states that people are stupid when there's over fishing, they have a point to be hysterical! Why would we care about sardines? Because they taste good (not for some people) and they help the economy. For his second point, he stated that if there were no fish in the world, we could suck up the water and use it for future generations. This was one of his demises. First off, if you do suck up all the water, you have to realize that the elevation is about -700 feet and above! How are you going to get down to your house? We can't all use helicopters to get ourselves out of our home. For the second rebuttal again, it's not only fish that live in those seas. Dolphins, sharks, squids, octopus, plants. And they will all die because you sucked them up in this machine, which leads to my other rebuttal point. How do you suck up all the water in the world? No technology is advanced enough to suck up all the water in the world and spit it out. And where will that water go? To Mercury? To our moon? And then he said that we could of found MH-370 if there wasn't any water. But imagine this. Another plane comes flying along, and then it breaks down right on top of the Atlantic ocean. Even if we could get all the water out and houses in, the plane would go splat on these peoples houses! Then my opponent stated that fish have 70,000 bones in them. Then he stated that non boned fish cost a lot more money to buy. Well, if your friend almost died on a fish bone, would you rather die chocking on a bone or spending that extra 2 dollars on some non boned fish?? Another problem with that point is that is has nothing to do with the topic. Our topic is that fish are important to the world. Does stating that fish have 70,000 bones prove there not important to the world?? Not at all. To summarize my points, fish help the economy, fish impact the food chain and they are healthy to the human body. Dear readers, this is why Pro must most definitely win. Thank you, and my friend, it was fun challenging you to the debate! Thank you everyone who read this and commented!
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by GMX 2 years ago
GMX
There are alot of dumb debates on this site, this has to be one of the worst I have seen!
Posted by theawesomeguy 2 years ago
theawesomeguy
Dear readers, theawesomeguy and theawesomeguy2 will have a best out of 3 tournament. Hope you guys read!
Posted by theawesomeguy2 2 years ago
theawesomeguy2
This is an obvious win to Con!!!! VOTE CON!!!!
Posted by theawesomeguy 2 years ago
theawesomeguy
Dear Liberallogic101 and Ethics philoshiper, thank you for stating why this resolution must most definitely go to Pro.
Posted by LiberalLogic101 2 years ago
LiberalLogic101
Okay, this debate is rather weak at the moment...

Let me just say.

Fish are CRUCIAL. Do you know how many species and populations depend on fish?

Birds. Many of them - king fishers, ibis, blue herons, bald eagles, California condor, I could go on FOREVER.
Mammals. Grizzly bears, fishing cats, river dolphins, otters, minks, sea lions. Seals! Penguins!
HUMANS! Have you ever eaten fish? Well, I'm sure you have. And maybe you don't depend on it, but THOUSANDS of people have jobs centered on fish. Thousands of people all over the globe live in areas where fish are the only hope they have for survival.
Our world is a delicate ecosystem, and by killing off fish, the world would literally stumble. It MIGHT recover, but probably not.

AND DID YOU SUGGEST THAT WE SUCK OUT THE OCEAN?! We are not sucking out the ocean! I have never heard anything like that... ever. Because it's... lets just say not smart.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DarthKirones 2 years ago
DarthKirones
theawesomeguy2theawesomeguyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides gave very little information to support their cases. Con obviously has never heard of inflation, governments can't just print out money! Pro seemed to make a bit more sense than con.