The Instigator
KingDebater
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Sox
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Motorbikes are superior to horses.

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 2 votes the winner is...
KingDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2013 Category: Technology
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,463 times Debate No: 31961
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

KingDebater

Pro

Resolution: Motorbikes are superior to horses.
I will be arguing that motorbikes are superior to horses. My opponent will argue that horses are superior to motorbikes.

Clarifications
The following qualities will be considered greater-making properties, properties that make one superior to another if one has more of x property than another:
Causing less harm, pain or inconvenience.
Being beneficial or convenient.

Introduction
I've decided to debate this topic because I personally find it interesting. Me and my friend have this debate in real life, but we both are in favour of motorbikes so one of us has to play the devil's advocate. Playing against someone playing the devil's advocate would be okay, but I'd rather debate against someone who wasn't.

Structure
Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2/3/4 - Arguments and Rebuttals
Round 5 - Rebuttals

Rules
1. No arguments are to be made in the first round.
2. No new arguments are to be made in the fifth round, with the exception of them being logically necessary to refute previoudly made arguments.
3. No insults.
4. The burden of proof is shared.
5. No semantics or trolling.
6. Failure to obide by the rules shall result in an embarrassing 1-point loss.

Sox

Con

I accept KingDebators argument and will be arguing that horses are superior to motorbikes. Given the choice I would choose motorbikes but I feel an inexplicable need to defend these four legged beasts. Thus I shall defend them to the death!
Debate Round No. 1
KingDebater

Pro

Arguments
P1: Responsibility
One of the commonest reasons a parent may not let their child have a horse is because it's a big responsibility. Comparably, there isn't nearly as much responsibility in owning a motorbike. You don't have to feed it, you don't have to clear up its mess, you don't need to buy a big stable for it to live in etc. This means a motorbike is more convenient, and convenience is what people tend to like.
P2: Emotion
It is not very common to get emotionally attached to a motorbike, but it is very common to get emotionally attached to an animal or pet such as a horse. This means that when the horse dies/ the motorbike gets crushed by a bus, for example, the owner of the horse be affected emotionally whilst the motorbike owner will just buy another motorbike, whereas the owner of the horse probably won't want to get a replacement for the horse because they don't think that another horse will be able to replace their perfect pet. Most people don't like experienceing negative emotions, so motorbikes are therfore better in this aspect.
P3: Faeces
Where there is a horse, there's regular production of faeces and the vast majority of people don't like getting near faeces. This causes hassle, whereas a motorbike does not reguarly produce faeces, so motorbikes are more convenient and therefore better in this aspect.
P4: Flies
Horses attract flies, whilst motorbikes do not. Horse owners probably want to see their horse and get close to their horse but this causes hassle, whilst motorbike owners have no problem here, so motorbikes are better than this aspect also.
P5: Mix & Match
No matter what part of a motorbike stops functioning, you can just buy another one, whilst with a horse this is not true. If it loses a vital organ, a limb, a heart or a brain etc, that's the end of that horse, and you have to buy a whole other horse, whereas motorbike owners will not have this problem, so motorbikes are better in this aspect also.
P6: Disease
Unlike horses, motorbikes don't catch diseases. Curing a disease is a lot of hassle so in this aspect, motorbikes are also better.
P7: Customizable
Motorbikes are customizable, meaning that you can paint it and put accessories on it and nobody cares. If you try to do this to a horse, the horse will care, people will care and animal rights people will care. A lot of people like choice and like to customize something, so motorbikes win in this aspect also.
P8: Time
To create a good horse, it takes years and years of breeding to get it, and even then, it takes a really long time to make more good horses. Whereas with motorbikes, you just find out how to make a good one and then you can make lots very quickly. This is a very significant advantage that motorbikes have over horses.

There, I have given eight whole scenarios in which motorbikes are superior to horses.
I'm intrigued to hear Con's response.
Sox

Con

Pro has made some good arguments towards motorbikes superiority. I will counter these by proving my horses superiority by ascertaining its usefulness, beneficence and overall qualities.

Arguments:

Multi-Purposed.
A horse is a very useful creature. It can act as a: Lawnmower, compost producer, tractor, war-machine, and personal transport. It can carry lots of objects on its back.

Kill/Death Ratio.
According to a study done by the CDC, between 2001 and 2008 there were over 34000 motorcyclists killed and over 1 million people were treated for motorbike related injuries in the US alone. Now this means that if you are riding a motorcycle you have more chance of dying than killing someone. This is not beneficial to the rider. Now horses were used in war because they gave the rider greater killing ability. This means that if you own a horse you have a greater Kill/Death ratio. This is beneficial to the rider because you have the potential to come out better than your opponent in a fight. Even if you leave your horse at home the benefit comes with you. How many horse owners die annually compared to motorcycle owners. This all boils down to in a fight between a biker and a rider, the rider will win because of superior horse ownership.

Green.
Horses are greener for the environment. Low on fuel and lower than motorcycles on emissions. Go Green, Go Horse.

Maneuverability.
A horse can be parked anywhere. It can also swim, climb over rocks, jump over objects, and eat its way through dense vegetations. It is an all-terrain, amphibious vehicle.

Status.
Horses are associated with nobility, wealth and high standing. Making them superior in status.

Features.
Horses have built in earthquake sensors, voice command, object detection, collision avoidance and reproductive organs allowing it to produce another of its kind.

Rebuttals:

P1:
A motorcycle requires greater responsibility than a horse. There is no age limit on a horse. You do not need a riders license to ride a horse. You can ride a horse drunk. With a horse you are responsible for the horses well-being. On a motorbike you have a responsibility to every other driver and yourself. Which means you have a responsibility to a few billion people. Also allowing a child to ride a motorcycle is irresponsible of the parent.

P2:
You are stating that the fact that your motorbike does not invoke emotions in the owner makes it superior. This is only the case if you say that not loving or feeling attached to your motorcycle is far better than feeling emotions such as joy, understanding, sympathy, love etc. towards your horse. This is like saying its better to feel nothing at all than to experience the grief of losing a loved one.

P6:
In this case can rust not be considered as a disease? It is harmful to the condition of the bike and spreads as each layer of metal becomes exposed to oxygen.

P7:
If I customize my bike by painting words that are offensive like "All Jews must die". Then I can guarantee that people will care. A horse is so superior that it does not require any additional modifications or accessories to increase its elite level.

I look forward to pros reply.

Debate Round No. 2
KingDebater

Pro

P1: Responsibility
Con says: A motorcycle requires greater responsibility than a horse. There is no age limit on a horse. You do not need a riders license to ride a horse. You can ride a horse drunk. With a horse you are responsible for the horses well-being. On a motorbike you have a responsibility to every other driver and yourself. Which means you have a responsibility to a few billion people. Also allowing a child to ride a motorcycle is irresponsible of the parent.

You have all those responsibilities on a horse too. If you're riding it on the road, you need to look out for other people. Also, riding a horse drunk and the fact that there is no age limit on a horse just prove that horses are more dangerous.

P2: Emotion
Con says: You are stating that the fact that your motorbike does not invoke emotions in the owner makes it superior. This is only the case if you say that not loving or feeling attached to your motorcycle is far better than feeling emotions such as joy, understanding, sympathy, love etc. towards your horse. This is like saying its better to feel nothing at all than to experience the grief of losing a loved one.

I can guarantee that you feel as much positive emotion as you do negative emotion, this is because you have standards. This makes it equal either way. Also, you conceded my point about the owner not wanting to get another horse, whilst the motorbike owner won't have this problem. Therefore, motorbikes are superior in this aspect.
P3: Faeces
Con drops this.
P4: Flies
Con drops this.
P5: Mix & Match
Con drops this.
P6: Disease
Con says: In this case can rust not be considered as a disease? It is harmful to the condition of the bike and spreads as each layer of metal becomes exposed to oxygen.

Okay, you've listed one thing on a motorbike that's like a disease. Now match this [1]. Exactly, motorbikes are superior to horses in this aspect.
P7: Customizable
Con says: If I customize my bike by painting words that are offensive like "All Jews must die". Then I can guarantee that people will care. A horse is so superior that it does not require any additional modifications or accessories to increase its elite level.

But if you painted the words 'All Jews must die' on a horse, the horse would care, people would care and animal rights people would care a lot. As for your last point, motorbikes don't need it either, it's just another thing that makes motorbikes better than horses. It's an add-on, you know, and it's an advantage and people like advantages. So, motorbikes are superior in this aspect.
P8: Time
Con drops this.

C1: Multi-purposed
Con says: A horse is a very useful creature. It can act as a: Lawnmower, compost producer, tractor, war-machine, and personal transport. It can carry lots of objects on its back.

You have to put lots of training in if you want it to be a successful lawnmower, it's the same case with tractor, and for personal transport, as for war-machine, one bullet and that's the end of the horse. I really don't see why you'd want to buy a horse just to be a compost producer.

C2: Kill/Death Ratio
Con says: According to a study done by the CDC, between 2001 and 2008 there were over 34000 motorcyclists killed and over 1 million people were treated for motorbike related injuries in the US alone. Now this means that if you are riding a motorcycle you have more chance of dying than killing someone. This is not beneficial to the rider. Now horses were used in war because they gave the rider greater killing ability. This means that if you own a horse you have a greater Kill/Death ratio. This is beneficial to the rider because you have the potential to come out better than your opponent in a fight. Even if you leave your horse at home the benefit comes with you. How many horse owners die annually compared to motorcycle owners. This all boils down to in a fight between a biker and a rider, the rider will win because of superior horse ownership.

Con only asserts that motorbikes are more dangerous than horses. Also, horses being killing machines isn't good as murder is wrong, murder makes people sad and sadness is inconvenient for the vast majority of people.
C3: Green
Con says: Horses are greener for the environment. Low on fuel and lower than motorcycles on emissions. Go Green, Go Horse.

That won't necessarily be true forever, though. Hydrogen-powered motorbikes are a possibility, and they're completely green. That's the good thing about machines, you can modify them. While motorbikes are green, horses will still be pooing everywhere.
C4: Maneuverability
Con says: A horse can be parked anywhere. It can also swim, climb over rocks, jump over objects, and eat its way through dense vegetations. It is an all-terrain, amphibious vehicle.

The thing is though, there's no point in it being able to swim, climb over rocks, jump over rocks or eat its way through dense vegetations as it doesn't do anything for us. Without humans, horses are just useless beasts. Without humans, motorbikes wouldn't exist. I think it's a tie for motorbikes and horses in this aspect.
C5: Status
Con says: Horses are associated with nobility, wealth and high standing. Making them superior in status.

Just because they're associated with it, that doesn't make it so.
C6: Features
Con says: Horses have built in earthquake sensors, voice command, object detection, collision avoidance and reproductive organs allowing it to produce another of its kind.

Lots of animals have those sorts of things. The difference being that it's better to have a smaller animal because small animals won't cause a lot of destruction in their path once they think there's an earthquake, for example. Motorbikes are better in the aspect of reproduction because if the motorbike is a pile of junk, you can learn from that and make a better motorbike.
Sources
[1] http://www.petmd.com...

Conclusion
- I give eight whole arguments supporting my case, Con drops half of these and gives poor responses to the others..
- Con only gives six arguments supporting his case, with a lot of them showing faults.
Sox

Con

P1:Responsibility
Pros argument does not hold any substance.
Pro says: Also, riding a horse drunk and the fact that there is no age limit on a horse just prove that horses are more dangerous.

Does this mean that because I don't need a license to play on a jumping castle it is more dangerous than riding a motorcycle. Are we to assume that all safe things require licenses and anything dangerous does not require one? No, you do not need a license to ride a horse because it is safer and there are no laws preventing drunken horse riding because the risk of accident is far less likely.

P2:Emotion
I did not concede that the owner would not want to get another horse, in fact it is the opposite. A horse owner grows to love horses as a species and will buy another one.

Pro says: This means that when the horse dies/ the motorbike gets crushed by a bus, for example, the owner of the horse be affected emotionally whilst the motorbike owner will just buy another motorbike..

This is improbable because if the motorcycle gets crushed by a bus then it is probably with a rider on top of it. This means that a0 The rider will be dead and cannot buy a new bike or b) The rider is so traumatised that they will never ride a bike again. A horse however will die of old age or disease as pro conceded, meaning the rider will be alive to replace the horse. a pet owner rarely owns one pet because they have love for animals in general not just their individual "perfect pet".

P3:Faeces
I dropped this argument because it had no weight, however it seems that you regard it highly and I will state my case. Faeces can be used to make compost, this is beneficial to the owner as the benefit of a lushous lawn, fresh vegetables and in some cases food on a table outweighs the smell. If the smell bothers you that much then enduring it will build character.

P4:Flies
Horses attract flies while flies attract motorbikes. I can guarantee you that a motorbike will collect more flies on its windshield and on the riders goggles than horse could ever have on its nose. If bugs and flies do not appeal to you then do not purchase a motorbike.

P5:Mix & Match
The fact that a horse can breed makes the Mix & Match argument redundant as I could then argue that while you have to buy new parts every time your bike breaks down I can reproduce an entire horse, new organs and all from the previous one.

P6: Disease
To cure disease requires medicine. To fix rust would require taking the entire motorcycle apart, sandblasting, repainting, oil change etc.

P7: Customizable.
So you are saying that the reason a motorcycle is better in this regard is less people would care. That makes it superior because less people care about it? An okay then, if I wrote "All animals must die" Animal rights activists would care about the bike as well. So I do not see how motorcycles are superior in this regard.

P8:Time
Create - 'Cause to come into existence'. This includes design. A horse was not designed by anyone or if you are religious it was designed in a day. This leaves production. A horse takes 11 months to be produced. A motorcycle took years to design and even longer if you include important inventions like motors. If you are breeding horses you will always have a ridable horse at hand and a continuous supply which means that time to produce a ridable is instantaneous because one is always available.

C1: Multi-Purpose:
Pro says: You have to put lots of training in if you want it to be a successful lawnmower, it's the same case with tractor, and for personal transport, as for war-machine, one bullet and that's the end of the horse. I really don't see why you'd want to buy a horse just to be a compost producer.


A horse requires no training to eat grass. It instinctively moves to longer grass making it a successful lawnmower. In the case of training the fact that a horse can be trained makes it superior to a motorcycle. You don't buy a horse JUST to be a compost producer. That's why I used the word "multi-purposed".

C2:Kill/Death Ratio.
Pro says: Con only asserts that motorbikes are more dangerous than horses. Also, horses being killing machines isn't good as murder is wrong, murder makes people sad and sadness is inconvenient for the vast majority of people.

Pro does not argue that they are safer than horses conceding my point. Pro attempts to appeal to voters moral value by saying murder is wrong. I agree with Pro completely murder is wrong. I merely stated that in a self defence situation it is preferable to stay alive. This is beneficial to everyone unless they are suicidal. Seeing as Pro did not argue anything in the first sentence and used the second sentence to tell us that murder is bad which is off topic and agreed upon by both sides. Horses are superior in this regard.

C3:Green
Pro says: That won't necessarily be true forever, though. Hydrogen-powered motorbikes are a possibility, and they're completely green. That's the good thing about machines, you can modify them. While motorbikes are green, horses will still be pooing everywhere.

This is not factual. You are saying that because future motorcycles might be hydrogen-powered they are greener. Motorcycles are not hydrogen-powered presently and are therefore not greener. In the future horses might possibly fly but I cannot use that to argue that they are superior. Also poo is good for the environment as poo fertilises trees and trees produce oxygen.

C4: Maneuverability
The fact that a horse can swim and a motorcycle can't means a horse is superior because is has greater Maneuverability(X) than the motorcycle.
If Maneuverability is pointless then what is the point of having two wheels instead of four?

C5:Status.
Pro says: Just because they're associated with it, that doesn't make it so.

Actually it means that superior members of society chose horses because to them it is a superior option. Even today wealthy members of society ride horses because it is "associated" with status.

C6:Features.
Pro says: Lots of animals have those sorts of things.

Animals yes, but motorcycles do not, making all animals superior to motorcycles. However this debate is focused on horses.

Pro says: Motorbikes are better in the aspect of reproduction because if the motorbike is a pile of junk, you can learn from that and make a better motorbike.

As for reproduction you can learn how to breed a better horse so I do not see how this makes motorbikes superior.

Furthermore:
Pro believes that because I provided less arguments he should be hailed as the victor (preferring quantity over quality).
I will attempt to satisfy him by providing two more arguments.

Noise:
Motorcycles are noisy and various studies have been done on the negative effects of noise pollution via vehicles. A horse makes much less noise. This is beneficial to the owner and society.

Exercise:
Riding a horse exercises your muscles more than riding a motorcycle.

Conclusion
I have provided 6 arguments which still stand after Pro attempted to find errors in them or call a tie between motorcycles and horses.
I have pointed out flaws in all of Pro's arguments.
I have provided 2 more arguments to match pro's 8 as that is what his conclusion lead up to.
Debate Round No. 3
KingDebater

Pro

P1: Responsibility
Con fails to respond to other half my argument here, and he also fails to prove that horses are safer than motorbikes.
P2: Emotion
I find Con's arguments here extremely weak. First, he fails to respond to my arguments here and instead provides a poor response to something I said in the round before. He states that the horse owner would grow to love the species and want another one, but it's known in reality that what actually happens is the owner grows attatched to the horse and then doesn't want another one because (s)he doesn't think that anything can match the horse (s)he had. The reason this is different with a motorbike is because a motorbike cannot interact with you. Con then takes something and takes it literally when he knows what I mean. That was just an example of where, say, a motorbike would no longer be able to function, which is comparable to the death of a horse.
P3: Faeces
Regular production of faeces causes inconvenience. Not just to the owner, but to passers by.
P4: Flies
Horses would also collect flies when their on the road, as well as when they're standing still. Motorbikes win in this aspect.
P5: Mix & Match
You may be able to produce a horse, but to produce a decent horse that will take years and years of breeding, which is one of my points.
P6: Disease
Not all disease simply requires medicine. It can be much more complex than that for things such as infections. Con also ignores the big list of diseases a horse can get that I provided.
P7: Customizable
Con misses the point here. The point is that you can customize a motorbike to make it look good and make it 'look like your own'. You cannot do this with a horse and people like to do this, so motorbikes are better than horses in this aspect.
P8: Time
Granted, but once you know how to make one motorbike, you can make lots. With a horse, it would take much longer. Also, you could take into account the millions of years it took to evolve into what it is today.
C1: Multi-purposed
Con claims that a horse takes no training to eat grass, but first you have to show him the grass, and then you have to get him to eat it, note the phrase 'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink'. To do this would take so long that I may as well use a pair of scissors, or perhaps a sharper part of a motorbike.
C2: Kill/Death
One thing that would make a horse more dangerous is the fact that it has a mind of its own. It COULD just decide to go off on a rampage. However, with a motorbike this is very rare. Con fails to give us any reason at all to think that horses are safer than motorbikes.
C3: Green
Green motorbikes are something of the near future though. It's quite simple. You get a layer of platinum a few atoms think, use it to coat some common cheap metals and then use it as a catalyst to transfer the hydrogen into electricity. Con ignores poo that goes onto roads and paths, etc. This causes inconvenience and hard work.
C4: Maneuverability
Maneuverability has no value if the sorts of things X thing can do are pointless. Con has yet to think of a use for a horse's ability to swim.
C5: Status
Con fails to refute my claim here. Whether people think horses are superior is irrelevant, it's about whether horses are actually superior.
C6: Features
Here, Con ignores my argument stating that horses are so big that they'll probably do some damages when running away because it detects something like an earthquake. Next, Con responds to my point about motorbikes being better in the aspect of reproduction because if the motorbike is a pile of junk, you can learn from that and make a better motorbike. He responds with the point that you can also just breed a better horse, but this goes back to my argument that says that when you find out how to make one good motorbike, you can just make lots.
C7: Noise
Again, we go back to the previous point about pollution. Motorbikes that make no noise are again, a thing of the near future.
C8: Exercise
I can't see how that would be true, on both of them you're just sitting down.
Sox

Con

Sox forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
KingDebater

Pro

Con's account is no longer active. I extend all arguments.
Sox

Con

Sox forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 4 years ago
Misterscruffles
KingDebaterSoxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF'd But you can't cuddle a baby motorbike.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
KingDebaterSoxTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.