The Instigator
sammybow
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
intellectuallyprimitive
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

turkey at christmas

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...
intellectuallyprimitive
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 894 times Debate No: 65213
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

sammybow

Con

Christmas is the biggest day of the year. so why do we ruin it by have turkey for dinner. turkey is dry and tasteless. lets replace turkey as the traditional Christmas meat with some other meat
intellectuallyprimitive

Pro

Thank you for the debate. Allow me to address what Con has stated in their first round, but before I proceed to address his statements, allow me to clarify the resolution. Con disputes that Turkey is an acceptable item to include during Christmas dinner, and I favor Turkey at Christmas. I shall be defending the inclusion of Turkey during Christmas meals.

"Christmas is the biggest day of the year," my opponent states. The definition of big is ambiguous in this sentence, however in this context, I can interpret "big" as denoting the most celebrated or anticipated day amongst the calendar. I contest this claim. It is the most celebrated Christian holiday of the year, hence could be considered the biggest day of Christianity to celebrate. It would appear that New Years is the most celebrated and anticipated holiday in American calendars.

"So why do we ruin it by having turkey for dinner," my opponent ponders. He then mentions why turkey is considered to ruin dinner, according to his vapid statement, "turkey is dry and tasteless." I will deem this as his central focus of attack.

There are several methods of preparing a turkey for a meal. Turkey contains a white meat, and a dark meat. The white meat is what tends to be more dry. Lets examine a few methods of preventing dryness during the preparation phase of the turkey. The most prominent reason as to why turkey is considered dry is because the most methods of preparing the bird extract moisture from the meat. Retaining the moisture is crucial, and below are a few subtle approaches to preventing excessive dryness:

Avoiding overcooking the turkey is essential to preventing the meat to becoming dry and rough.
Most turkeys are not pre-seasoned or dressed with sauce. Adhering a glaze or a sauce places emphasis on the degree of moisture in the bird, and can assist in preventing dryness.
Abstain from penetrating the bird with a fork or knife before completion of the cook.
Allow the turkey to sit devoid of carving for 20 minutes to allow the bird to retain as much moisture and juice as possible.

Con's claim that Turkey is tasteless is, for the lack of better words, perplexing given that either his taste receptors are malfunctioned, and/or he lacks access, or refuses to implement, various substances that enhance the flavor of turkey, such as cranberry, brining the turkey, which also simultaneously prevents dryness, buttering the turkeys skin, and the abundance flavors that can be injected.

"Lets replace turkey as the traditional Christmas meat with some other meat," my opponent then promptly concludes his round with. This is mere conjecture, which is appropriate but contributes no value to his argument. It would appear that Con has not adequately demonstrated why Turkey should not be included during Christmas diner.

Con, you have possession of the metaphorical floor.

http://zestycook.com...
http://bbq.about.com...
http://urbanext.illinois.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
sammybow

Con

thank you for accepting the debate Pro.

First of all, Pro points out that Christmas isn't the biggest day of the year for everyone which is of course true. But to a lot of people including many non religious people it is. Christmas is a huge commercial event these days rather than simply another religious holiday. For people who do consider Christmas as their biggest holiday of the year, why is it so often taken for granted that the dinner always has to be turkey? If your a lover of turkey as Pro seems to be then thats fine. But I know many people who always have turkey at Christmas and are too set in their ways to have something different but the rest of the year they hardly ever have turkey for dinner at all (we don't do thanksgiving here in England). Some people have even said to me their not particularly keen on turkey but always have it at Christmas. Why do so many people insist on having a meat they don't really enjoy for their special meal of the year.

Secondly, Pro has suggested numerous methods and techniques of preparing the turkey without considering the possibility that the bird itself could be the issue. I spend every Christmas with my family and they always cook a turkey. They don't cook it badly as Pro has suggested. Its just that I'm not a fan of turkey. Personally Id much rather have pork or lamb for my Christmas dinner.

Unlike the rest of my family I'm not a traditionalist. I'm the same with birthdays and other events. I like to mix things up a bit instead of doing the same thing year after year. Turkey at Christmas is a Traditionalist thing to do. To always stubbornly stick to the old traditions is to make big events such as Christmas routine and therefore boring.

Right, think that covers everything for now, over to you Pro
intellectuallyprimitive

Pro

For people who do consider Christmas as their biggest holiday of the year, why is it so often taken for granted that the dinner always has to be turkey?"

This is speculation and an assumption that turkey is imperative, which it is not but merely an item to include to diversify a meal. There is also a reason turkey is prevalently included in large meals because it is a healthy protein, is able to be flavored, and many enjoy the taste regardless of Con's perspective.

"But I know many people who always have turkey at Christmas and are too set in their ways to have something different but the rest of the year they hardly ever have turkey for dinner at all (we don't do thanksgiving here in England)."

You should consider that the reason they continue to include turkey in their meal is because of the satisfaction it brings them, hence the reason it would continue to be included. If turkey was as you proposed, dry and tasteless, turkey would become a less prominent item during Christmas and Thanksgiving.

"Some people have even said to me their not particularly keen on turkey but always have it at Christmas. Why do so many people insist on having a meat they don't really enjoy for their special meal of the year."

If this is true, then the people who continue to include turkey at Christmas despite their dislike for the turkey, they are not particularly bright. This is akin to driving route B, whereas route A is quicker and less miles, but the driver continues to drive route B but dislikes driving route B. It appears that you are opposing the tradition of including turkey, rather than turkey itself.

"Secondly, Pro has suggested numerous methods and techniques of preparing the turkey without considering the possibility that the bird itself could be the issue. I spend every Christmas with my family and they always cook a turkey. They don't cook it badly as Pro has suggested. Its just that I'm not a fan of turkey. Personally Id much rather have pork or lamb for my Christmas dinner."

There is not much to address here. The issue is the bird according to you, albeit I fail to perceive why others continue to include turkey year after year during Christmas if the bird wasn't an issue. This is merely your opinion of turkey.

"Unlike the rest of my family I'm not a traditionalist. I'm the same with birthdays and other events. I like to mix things up a bit instead of doing the same thing year after year. Turkey at Christmas is a Traditionalist thing to do. To always stubbornly stick to the old traditions is to make big events such as Christmas routine and therefore boring."

You are again opposing the tradition of including turkey and not the turkey. I can infer that turkey is not the issue you have with directly, but the adherence of a tradition at Christmas to include turkey.

Summarization:
Con's previous round demonstrated that he opposes the tradition of including turkey, and provides limited reasons of why turkey should not be included. He has offered, aside from his opinion, no reasons as to why turkey is inappropriate during Christmas. The only attempt of an argument he advanced to demonstrate that turkey is not desired was his statement, "Pro has suggested numerous methods and techniques of preparing the turkey without considering the possibility that the bird itself could be the issue." He then remarks," Its just that I'm not a fan of turkey. Personally Id much rather have pork or lamb for my Christmas dinner." He is proposing that as a result of his dislike of turkey, others should adopt a similar perspective, which is what I disagree with. If others are content with the inclusion of turkey at Christmas, they should continue to implement it.

Health benefits:
I favor turkey because it is a healthy protein; lean and provides a complete source of amino acids, and also is a low calorie food. 4 ounces of turkey contains an exorbitant 34 grams of protein, which as I mentioned is complete regarding amino acids. Turkey also contains a multitude of vitamins and minerals such as; vitamin b3, phosphorus, selenium, zinc, and vitamin b12. These are a few of the many vitamins and minerals found in turkey. Turkey is also very low on the glycemic index, denoting that turkey is an appropriate choice for those with diabetic or insulin problems. considering that turkey is a high protein, low calorie, and low fat (the fats found in turkey are not linked to heart disease or excessive cholesterol), this bird is also appropriate for those with cardiovascular problems. Not to mention if you are a fitness practicer or athlete, this bird is also tremendously advantageous for recovery and development of muscle tissue. These health benefits represent why I favor turkey at Christmas, and if possible, as frequently as possible.

http://www.whfoods.com...
Debate Round No. 2
sammybow

Con

"This is akin to driving route B, whereas route A is quicker and less miles, but the driver continues to drive route B but dislikes driving route B."

So Pro admits that route B(turkey) is not necessarily a better choice than route A(something else).

Pro writes a long paragraph about the health benefits of turkey. "Turkey also contains a multitude of vitamins and minerals such as; vitamin b3, phosphorus, selenium, zinc, and vitamin b12. These are a few of the many vitamins and minerals found in turkey."

Sorry Pro but who thinks about vitamins and minerals at Christmas? Christmas is a truly special day for those who celebrate it. A day which people spend filling themselves with candy, chocolate, champagne, beer and unfortunately turkey. A day where diets and normally strict health routines should be thrown out of the window(unless its dangerous or life threatening to do so of course). Have you ever wished anyone a healthy low calorie vitamin filled Christmas? I certainly haven't. Christmas is a day of happiness and fun where problems, rules and diets are forgotten. I think the health benefit argument is invalid where Christmas is concerned.

For me the day of fun, happiness and love must include a truly great main meal. A meal to be thoroughly enjoyed. The unwritten rule that so many people blindly adhere to is potentially holding us back in the quest for a truly memorable Christmas dinner. Its time to forget the rule. Christmas should have no rules. Lets throw the rule and the turkey in the trash can once and for all.

VOTE CON
intellectuallyprimitive

Pro

Con suggests that the health benefits are a superfluous reason to include turkey during Christmas. He supports this with his proposition that Christmas is a day for the gluttonous consumption of various substances, such as chocolate, and alcohol. He makes the unwarranted assumption that people don't include turkey at Christmas which is implicit through his rhetorical question, "Sorry Pro but who thinks about vitamins and minerals at Christmas?" He provides no evidence to actually negate my health claim rather than assert his opinion. I never mentioned that the health benefits of turkey is the main influence of why people include turkey, I mentioned it to enhance why I favor turkey for Christmas, and why it should included in Christmas dinner.

"Some people have even said to me their not particularly keen on turkey but always have it at Christmas. Why do so many people insist on having a meat they don't really enjoy for their special meal of the year."

This was one of Con's claim in round 2. He insisted that individuals have shared with him that they do not enjoy turkey at Christmas, yet then subsequently claims that many people continue to include turkey, a meat they really don't enjoy. My example was to demonstrate stubbornness with the individual A and B scenario and was rebutted with the following; "So Pro admits that route B(turkey) is not necessarily a better choice than route A(something else)." I did not concede there was a better choice, I was demonstrating the stubbornness of those who dislike turkey yet continue to include it because according to Con, many people dislike turkey yet continue to eat it at Christmas. This is stubborn. This is additionally hearsay and has failed to provide evidence to support his assertion.

Abridgment:
Con argued Turkey was dry and tasteless, thereby claiming it was an inappropriate item to consume at Christmas. I responded with various methods to enhance the taste and prevent dryness. Con asserts that the implementation turkey is becoming antiquated, yet asserts his opinion of why and never actually demonstrated that turkey was a traditional item to include. I provided some health benefits of turkey, to demonstrate its value and contributions during a day of consumption. Con attempts to negate this claim with the assumption that all who celebrate Christmas do so in a gluttonous fashion.

Conclusion:
Turkey is a tasteful bird, has numerous methods of preparations, deeming it a diverse meal, and is a healthy choice. I have provided substantive reasons as to why turkey should be included at Christmas, while my opponent asserts his opinion. Con has not sufficiently defend the proposition under consideration.

Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
You live in a country where you can eat anything you choose. You can have thanksgiving groundhog if you choose.
Posted by rich123 2 years ago
rich123
whoever cooked it didn't know how to cook a turkey. My turkey ALWAYS comes out tasty and juicy and every year the family wants me to cook a turkey well a couple of times a year.
Posted by sammybow 2 years ago
sammybow
I don't actually cook it. I just find turkey to be dry and bland. personally Id rather have pork or lamb
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Not going to accept unless requested... Basically you're doing a terrible job cooking the bird if it's dry and/or tasteless. Try injecting it full of red wine, or even deep-frying it.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
eh.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
butterfly your bird, they cook it, it to cook even faster. And it stays moist inside.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
sammybowintellectuallyprimitiveTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never really presented a compelling turkey alternative--he never contrasted his suggestion with turkey, or indicated how it would be better. His attacks on turkey, without the context of an alternative that solves that which he complains about, aren't compelling. Pork is often dry, as well, particularly in chop form. As Pro noted, a lot of it has to do with how it's cooked. I'd also like to note that ham is also a traditional dish--I think in the US it's more common, though I'm not certain. I suspect that's because of the proximity to Thanksgiving. Regardless, Con didn't offer a compelling counterplan, and Pro defended against the complaints offered. Part of this might have been a resolution issue--one of his complaints was about tradition, but if turkey is really replaced, then that's just a new tradition. Overall, more interesting to read than I thought, but arguments to Pro. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.