Horses Should be Used Widely in the US
Debate Rounds (4)
I hate doing this, but I accept the Burden of Proof during this debate. First Round is for Acceptance.
Definition of Horse:
Before I begin, I would like to make a certain clarification.
This debate is NOT titled "Horses Should Replace Cars in the US". It simply says that horses should be widely used, regardless of whether or not cars are also used.
That having been said, I will begin now.
Advantages of Cars over Horses:
-Cars move faster than horses. And when a horse does reach a speed of about 25 miles, it cannot maintain that speed for more than a mile or two. Then it has to rest.
-Horses, as living creatures, do not always do what their rider wants them to do. They can be frightened or just plain stubborn.
-Horses can be dangerous.
-Horses get sick or old and they die.
-Some people may be allergic to horses.
-To accommodate horses on roads, new roads/paths would have to be built, which is expensive.
-While Cars Can be Manufactured with Ease, horses have to be bred and raised.
This list would probably be the bulk of my opponent's arguments, though I cannot know this for a fact.
So why should horses be used instead of cars?
1. In Absence of Fuel, the Horses Rule
There is a very real scenario where oil reserves run out. This is known as "Peak Oil".
If the oil runs out, countless vehicles will come to a grinding halt and become completely useless.
Also, in the 1970s there was something called the 1973 Oil Crisis, which caused oil prices to spike due to an oil embargo by Middle Eastern oil producing nations.
Something like this happening again would skyrocket already high gas prices beyond the range of what the average American could afford. And all it'd take would be a single decision in the Middle East which makes the Arab nations mad, or another major war in the Middle East.
Speaking of already high oil prices, oil prices have been steadily rising during the past few decades.
Soon enough oil will be too high for the average American to afford pumping gas into their car regularly.
So what's the point in pointing all this out? Well, what I'm trying to say that cars that run on fossil fuels will soon be rendered useless.
You will need an alternative to gas-powered cars.
So then you might say, "What about Ethanol?" After all, Ethanol fuel is the perfect alternative to gasoline, right?
Well, not really. In truth, cars do not generally run on 100% ethanol. The probable reason for this is that Ethanol Fuel is not as efficient as gasoline.
Also, many cars are not designed to run on 100% ethanol.
But here's where the real problem kicks in: the world population is rising, at a rapid rate. As this happens, farmers will not be wasting precious food reserves on making ethanol. Also, as ethanol is basically alcohol, some Muslim nations may have a problem with producing alcohol, which the Quran is against.
Thus, you won't be able to import ethanol from certain nations, as they won't be producing it.
So why isn't it grown here? Well, farming is hard work. The number of farmers has decreased in recent years and decades.
Expect this trend to continue as the urbanization of America continues. The point is, Ethanol is not a viable substitute for Petroleum.
Then, my opponent may say, "What about Solar Power?" After all, cars can run on solar power, right?
Well, that's true, but Solar Power is not a viable solution to the energy crisis either.
You see, Solar Powered vehicles are not commercially available in most places. A very small minority of vehicles run entirely on solar power. Also, they are inefficient.
I would go on, but by this point you probably understand why solar powered cars are not the future either.
Having explained why these many types of cars either will not survive or won't replace mainstream cars, I now move on to...horses.
Horses need several things to survive.
In Western nations water treatment is not a problem. Either way, horse water doesn't have to be quite as sterile as human water.
This one obviously is not a problem.
C. . Food
Grass is everywhere, even in big cities. Though some leaves are toxic to horses, many other kinds of leaves are perfectly edible to horses. And since trees are also everywhere, so are tree leaves, meaning that horses have a very common and replenishing "fuel". And you don't have to chop the trees down to take their leaves.
So in regards to fuel, Horses are ultimately superior and they may even be needed one day.
2. The Four Horses of the Apocalypse
So let's say that you manage to develop a common and replenishing fuel for cars and you have a car paradise. Well, that'll all come crashing down the second some hostile nation uses an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) generating weapon, which would eliminate the effectiveness of almost all technology, including cars.
You may scoff and say, "That is an utterly ridiculous thought! EMPs my left foot!" Well, actually, such a thing is possible with current levels of technology.
In fact, there are even internet sources that'll tell you how to make one.
Besides that, there's such thing as a Nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse.
Guess what: North Korea hates us and they have a nuclear program now.
So, if the cars fail because of an EMP, then it's either horses, bikes, or walking. Other than that I don't know of any additional methods of transportation in this situation. Horses, if properly trained, are the best out of these three options, as:
A. They go faster than a person can walk or run (unless perhaps you're Usain Bolt)
B. A bike can get stuck in the mud. Also, it's difficult to use a bike going uphill.
3. Horse Paths
Horse Paths can be made out of dirt, in contrast to Asphalt roads for vehicles. Making a dirt road isn't all that difficult. Also, they can run through the woods, providing a more scenic route.
4. Horses and Popular Sentiment
Here's the way it is: people usually like horses. Movies for young prepubescent girls are made about horses. A TV Show about cartoon ponies is quite popular among young girls and gay men of all ages.
5. Poop is Good
Horse manure can be used for various purposes.
6. Danger of Horses is not as Severe as Danger of Cars
Average Weight of a Horse:
1500-2000 at most
Average Weight of a Car:
A lot more than a horse.
It's reasonable to conclude that if a horse and a car collided, the car would not be as badly hurt as the car.
Also, while horses misbehave at times, cars malfunction while you're driving them and sometimes they'll set on fire and even explode!
7. Horses are Cheaper than Cars
Average Price of a Horse:
If it's not a racehorse or a thoroughbred horse, about 300 dollars or so. Counting things like the Saddles, around 2000-3000 dollars, I'd guess.
Average Price of a Car:
About 30,000 dollars for a new car.
Conclusion: Hopefully I have shown that horses could still have use in today's United States for practical purposes. I await my opponent's response.
I'd like to start by quickly clarifying that "Peak Oil" does not refer to when oil runs out, but when oil will begin to diminish. As there are ongoing debates about whether this has already occurred, and if not when it will occur, we can assume it will be relatively soon, and we will need an alternative to petrol.
Although an alternative is needed, there are better options than horses. For instance, all-electric vehicles like the ones currently being produced, which will only get better with technological advances. Currently, the best selling cars in the United States are midsized sedans, one of the most popular examples of which is the Toyota Camry.
When you compare the performance, MPG, and operating cost of the Camry to the best-selling all-electric vehicle, the mid-sized Nissan Leaf, you see numbers that favor the Leaf in several categories. First, the starting price of the Camry and Leaf are just a few hundred dollars apart. Second, the MPG of the Leaf is far superior to that of the Camry, with 126 city, 101 highway, compared to 25 city, 35 highway. Annual fuel cost for the Leaf is approximately $550, as opposed to the Camry's $2000 a year. My opponent mentioned the top speed of a horse at about 25 mph, and clearly the Leaf can go much faster, up to about 93 mph.
My opponent also mentioned EMPs rendering any type of cars useless, however the chance of an EMP being used is far less than the chance of a severe drought, during which grass and food for horses would be severely limited.
I'll now move on to briefly discuss allergies to horses. According to the Allergy and Asthma Association of America, 15% to 30% of Americans are allergic to animals, and according to Everyday Health, horses are the third worst animals to cause allergies.
In addition to the slower speed of horses, horses also do not provide protection from weather, and riding and raising them requires extensive training and skill, unlike driving.
My opponent mentioned that additional paths would need to be created for horses, to allow for the continued use of cars, but doing so would cost tax payer money, and those that do not know how to ride horses, and certainly those allergic to them, might not be willing to pay these.
Finally, I'm going to bring up animal cruelty. Currently, one of the most well-known uses of horses in the United States is horse-drawn carriages in major cities such as New York. In recent years, more and more people have chosen to stop supporting these, and it is likely that they would be an integral part of transportation for those that are not familiar with riding horses, should they be used more. Due to long working periods, hot temperatures, painful concrete, and heavy loads, many horses have died in New York City, and many handlers have been convicted of animal cruelty.
He mentioned electricity-powered cars, many of which are commercially available and fairly cheap.
But here's where his argument falls short: electricity needs to be generated by something else.
According to these statistics, the large percentage of electricity in the United States is supplied by non-renewable energy sources, such as natural gas and other fossil fuels. Only a small percentage of electricity is produced by renewable sources, such as hydroelectricity, wind power, and solar power.
So really, if the fossil fuels run out, electricity will run out in a lot of places too.
My opponent mentions the fact that a drought (which could kill horses) is much more likely than an EMP Attack (which would wipe out cars). I admit that this is true.
HOWEVER, a drought that covers the entire United States would be needed to wipe out all horses. And even then, if Americans were not all killed off by the drought, then they could share the water with horses. However, also considering that there are underwater sources of water which we have the technology and resources to access, this wouldn't be much of a problem anyway.
Let's contrast an EMP and its widespread effect on vehicles. Perhaps 3 or 4 EMPs (or less) being used on the United States could incapacitate the entire nation, excluding certain military devices that are designed to withstand such attacks.
Interestingly, this article also mentions geomagnetic storms being capable of having the same effect. Such a (minor) storm happened in 1989, leaving 6 million Americans and Canadians without power for 12 hours. A considerably bigger storm like this one could completely wipe out power for millions of Americans.
Then, my opponent mentions allergies to horses.
This is true; not everyone can ride a horse. But I didn't say that everyone should ride horses. I'm saying that they should be used as a backup, for a small percentage of the population until disaster hits (then they'll be used on a larger scale).
However, since you brought the subject up...
Some cars have leather seats.
Many cars are made out of plastic.
Sometimes that "New Car Smell" can be deadly.
My opponent turns proceeds to bring up the fact that horses do not provide shelter from the rain.
I will just say this: getting a little wet or being outside in fairly high temperatures usually won't kill you. It'll provide discomfort, but if it actually does provide a health hazard, you can just get back inside your car.
As stated before, horse paths would actually be quite cheap to make. I live near a woods and I can make a small dirt path in those woods by kicking straw to the sides and uprooting some small plants. It's easy, really (or at least compared to building an asphalt road).
Finally, animal cruelty:
A. A path in the woods will likely be shaded.
B. Horses walk on concrete during parades, so they can withstand walking on it to an extent.
C. The horse paths would be in the woods anyway.
D. There are horses that are bred for carrying heavy loads.
Or, you can use a mule for that.
E. Most of these places where horses are used would be away from big cities like New York.
Oh, and here's another thing about horses which I forgot to mention last time: They are environmentally friendly.
No sources needed to back up that claim.
As this percentage is only getting larger, and coal will not run out at the same time as oil, the chance of America losing power is slim.
Although my opponent was correct in stating that a drought that covers the entire country to kill all horses would be unlikely, this does not mean that a large number of horses won't be killed in a smaller drought, and the cost of transporting horses from unaffected areas makes that also unlikely. My opponent mentioned that humans could share water with horses to keep them from dying, however if there was only enough water to sustain one life, most humans would not choose the horse. Finally, my opponent mentioned that the chance of a major drought is unlikely thanks to underwater sources of water, but if this were the case, the extreme water shortages in California like the one mentioned in the article would not occur.
While an EMP such as a nuclear explosion in the atmosphere would be crippling to some of the United States, the chance of one being successfully used is unlikely. The most likely type of EMP would come from a nuclear bomb of missile, something that could be detected early, and shot down by the National Missile Defense program.
Large geomagnetic storms are very unlikely, and the only one that would post a severe problem to modern civilization occurred in 1859.
In response to my point about allergies to horses, my opponent said "I didn't say that everyone should ride horses. I'm saying that they should be used as a backup, for a small percentage of the population until disaster hits," however using horses as a backup does not go along with horses being widely used. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of widely is, "to a great extent : a lot," or, "by a large number of people."
It would not be possible to suddenly "produce more horses" after cars are rendered inoperative, and having that many horses just as a backup is not feasible.
Although some people are allergic to leather and plastic, there are plenty of options for the small percentage of people that are allergic to these materials when purchasing a car, unlike horses.
My opponent was obviously correct in stating that getting wet while riding a horse will not cause health problems, but it would not be comfortable, and in such a developed country, most people will not want to ride a horse if they will get wet.
In response to my opponent's points about animal cruelty, paths will not always be in the woods, as there are not woods everywhere, horses routinely walk on concrete, but this does not mean it's good for them, horses might be bred for carrying heavy loads but the provided evidence does not support that claim, and mules do not fall under the definition pro provided at the beginning of this debate.
Finally, while horses are clearly environmentally friendly, so are electric cars.
1. Nuclear Power is not renewable energy.
2. A nuclear reactor meltdown, as has happened multiple times during the Nuclear Age, can be devastating to an effected environment.
Conclusion: nuclear power isn't a good source of electricity, nor is it sustainable.
With coal, natural gas, and nuclear power (which according to my opponent's provided source provides more than 80% of power in the U.S.) ultimately destined to fail, the other sources of power simply won't be able to provide for the whole nation. Pre-Industrial sources of power and transportation (including horses) may have to be brought back.
Now, let us see what the worst drought in U.S. history was.
And it was...probably the Dust Bowl, an environmental disaster of the 1930s. 7000 people died.
Now, back then in the 1930s they weren't as well equipped for fighting drought as we are today. So it'd make sense that if a drought of such a large scale was repeated in the United States today, very few people, or horses for that matter, would die of starvation or thirst.
ACTUALLY, this talk of drought and famine helps my case, because desperate people can eat their horses in order to survive. It's happened many times in history. Consumption of horses is actually pretty common in some nations. In fact, here's a website dedicated to eating horses:
My opponent (probably) debunked the idea of a nuclear EMP attack. But non-nuclear EM Pulse Weapons can be made by anyone who learns how, as one of my earlier sources has shown.
Then, my opponent made the claim that horses serving as a "backup" is inconsistent with the debate resolution that horses should be used widely.
Well, consider it. If 3% of the population used horses, that'd still be over 9 million people, meaning that horses would still be used "widely". Also, oil prices are already high enough that we can find ways to use horses for commercial purposes. I mean, they can ride in the grass and drink from whatever lake you find, or perhaps "pitstops" for horses can be set up along their established routes, providing food and water for horses. Already they have the potential for being used commercially and widely. And in 5 years oil prices will be higher, making the use of horses even more appealing.
Horses cannot be mass-produced instantly. That's why we need to start now.
And actually, people can develop immunity to allergies to horses.
Also, riding on a horse provides a sense of oneness with nature and a joy that doesn't come from riding a car. No source needed.
Then, my opponent said that riding horses can be uncomfortable. I will just say this: Americans are too comfortable anyway.
As for areas where there are no woods, dirt paths can still be made and hay can be brought with you on your trip, as can water. But anyhow, I admit that there are places where horses cannot be used effectively. But that shouldn't negate their potential in areas that are ideal for their use.
Finally, the environment friendliness of electric cars is overhyped. Besides the fact that their power comes from polluting power plants, Electric Car batteries produce Sulfur Dioxide.
Sulfur Dioxide is harmful.
"Solar cells" in Electric Cars produce Sulfur Hexafluoride, which has 23,000 times as much global warming potential as CO2.
Consider this argument a reason why solar power cannot be used in Electric cars, and why solar power is just plain bad.
Therefore, all this being said, one can rationally only come to this conclusion:
1. There are no viable substitute power sources out there that are currently known/utilized.
2. Electric Car are not the solution to the downfall of vehicles by means of depletion of their fuels.
3. Horses are not as bad an idea as people think, and they come with many benefits as well.
Vote for Pro! Thank you and have a good night.
Nuclear energy is a safe, environmentally friendly, and efficient,
My opponent mentioned that in case of a drought horses could be eaten, however not only is the thought of eating horses unappealing to many Americans, but the slaughter of horses has just been banned again in the United States! The website my opponent has provided is simply not correct.
Not only is the chance of an EMP reaching the US unlikely, but making them requires a high level of skill and a considerable budget. Sure, anyone can make a device that emits the same pulse, but not at the level that will disable sophisticated electronic equipment.
Calling Americans "too comfortable anyway," is an arbitrary statement, and while it is true that Americans are very overweight and "comfortable," this only damages your case, as it will be difficult to convince Americans to ride horses.
My opponent went on to suggest that solar cells produce Sulfur Hexafluoride, however solar power is not used in electric cars. I'm rather confused as to where my opponent got this idea from.
In conclusion, my opponent has failed to show adequate evidence for horses being widely used in the United States. Although he has suggested several uses for horses, he has not been able to defend them, and his points regarding alternatives, such as electric cars, were not valid. For these reasons, I hope you vote con.
Thank you to my opponent for a fun debate, and thank you to the readers and voters.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
|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:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.