Recurve bows are better than compound bows.
Debate Rounds (5)
The reason is because they are used more, and in more important activities. Recurve bows were used in ancient times for hundreds of years, proving its reliability in its field, combat. Comparing bows, from the Huns to the Korean bows, they all have the relative similar design of the recurve shape.
Even though compound bows may be more advance and modern, it faces many disadvantages. As we can obviously see, the recurve bow is used in the Olympics, not the compound. The compound bow is too easy to use, while the recurve requires real skill. An example of this is that compound bows can be found in typical stores, such as Toys R Us.
Another disadvantage is that the compound bows fall into disrepair after event single dry fire round, which is caused by many beginners, thus causing money to be spent.
Finally, the string of a compound bow is not easily replaceable like the recurve, and has to be repaired by experts in a shop. This costs more money
I await an opponent and an answer.
The Instigator argues that because recurve bows have been used more often than compound bows, recurve bows are superior. He cites not only historical usage by extinct empires but also modern usage in the Olympics. This reasoning is fallacious.
First, he cites historical precedent. But that great empires used the recurve bow does not demonstrate the bow's superiority. Compound bows were invented in 1966, only 47 years ago. The old empires never even had an opportunity to use compound bows. To say that recurve bows are better because old empires used them is akin to saying that horses are better than tanks because Alexander of Macedon used horses, not tanks, to conquer the world. Nonsense. Alexander did not have access to tanks, so there's no way of knowing whether their use would have been more effective than the use of horses. In order for the Instgator's argument to have been sound, he would have needed to cite examples of empires which did and did not use recurve bows and would have need to compare their effectiveness.
Second, he cites modern usage. This reasoning is also fallacious. That the recurve bow is used in the
Olympics does no demonstrate its effectiveness over compound bows. It is likely that recurve bows are used only because they are easier to standardize, not because they're inherently superior. Compound bows could provide certain users an advantage, due to the intricacies of the bow design.
Finally, the instigator also says that because recurve bows are harder to use, they are superior. This is fallacious reasoning. Ease of use does not make one thing necessarily better than another. It is easier to type an essay on a computer via a word processor than on a typewriter. Are typewriters then superior to computers?
The instigator also argues that compound bows are fragile and are expensive to repair. This is the only non-fallacious point that the Instigator makes, but it is nevertheless unconvincing. Compound bows contain several movable but replaceable parts. While compound bows are not indestructible, their design allows to them to be repaired. Money may need to be spent, but that is completely irrelevant. When a recurve bow breaks, you also need money in order to repair it. Furthermore, the nature of the damage, not the type of bow, determines the repair cost.
Please debate according to the topic. You have not set a valid case against my arguments. You clearly do not have any true knowledge about bows, and is just here to contradict each statement. I am sorry but I will have to report you for overly insulting me and spam.
Since you have not provided a valid case, and I have nothing to debate about.
It is sufficient to counter a claim by demonstrating that the supporting evidence is unconvincing. The Instigator has asserted that recurve bows are superior to compound bows. To that, he has provided evidence. I have demonstrated why the presented evidence is unconvincing. If the Instigator is unable or unwilling to rebut my points, he must concede defeat.
If your compound bows are so reliable, then why weren't compound bows invented in older times? If complicated weapons such as guns could be made, why not compound bows?
Listen, if your compound bows are so modern why not use them in the Olympics, where all the rules are modern? There is a reason why people use recurve bows in official sports, and not in the mindless killing of during hunting.
Really? Compound bows are hard to repair? Unconvincing? I gave enough evidence. You obviously do not know anything about archery, since it is true. Why don't you go onto some reliable websites to find out that one dry fire ound on a compound bow CAN ruin it. This proves that it is fragile. Since you say that their design needs to be repaired, have you read my argument?
Compound bows cannot be repaired by the average user. They can only be repaired by the occasional long ride to a hunting store or gun shop. This costs gas and fuel. And a few more hundred dollars of replacing the parts AND the bow getting fixed by dealers. Even though a recurve bow may need to have parts replaced, that's it. Replace the parts yourself, instead of spending hundreds of dollars into a shop. I think somebody would rather buy a recurve bow, where you can easily fix it in your own home, without the cost of it getting fixed at a bow dealer.
Now, please rebut my points instead of hiding behind one of your "fallacious" comments that you love so much. And try to be a little more courteous.
First, he reasons that because compound bows are reliable, they should have been invented earlier. This is fallacious. Mesoamerican society never developed wheels. Are wheels therefore not reliable? Of course not. The Mesoamericans failed to develop wheels, not because wheels are unreliable, but because there was little impetus to do so. Unlike the Mesopotamians, who serendipitously developed the wheel in response to possessing pack animals, the Mesoamerican brand of agriculture did not depend upon pack animal and so the Mesoamericans lacked incentive to develop the wheel. That doesn't mean wheels are unreliable, only that Mesoamericans had little reason t develop the wheel.
The same can be said of bows. By the time guns were developed, armies realized that guns are militarily superior to bows. As armies began using guns, they ignored bows and so few major archery developments were made. Military scientists focused their efforts on firearms. Without incentive, archery technology stagnated until archery became a popular sport. It's not that people lacked the skill to develop bows; it's that they had no incentive to develop the compound bow until archery became a popular sport.
Second, the Instigator fallaciously reasons that because the Olympics has modern rules, it should have modern weapons. This is an incredibly poor point. It's like asking, if the Olympics is modern, why are there horse races? Shouldn't they use cars instead? Cars are modern, but horses aren't.
Finally, the Instigator concedes that all bows are breakable. However, he insists that recurve bows are easy to repair while compound bows aren't. There is no presented evidence for this claim; he asserts it as being true but has not shown why it is true. In order for the Instigator's claim to hold weight, he needs to provide statistical information suggesting that, on average, bow users can more efficiently repair a recurve bow than a compound bow.
Um, exactly, that's my point, they use horses instead of cars. They are using bows not compound bows?
Finally, you are contradicting your own statement. I believe you put the Wikipedia address below. Um, the information you think is "wrong" came from your beloved wikipedia. Happy?
I sort of want to stop debating, since you clearly have no knowledge about bows, and I doubt you have even touched one,
Screw you COUNTzander
more like N00Bzander
Let the voting begin.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Oromagi 3 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:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets points for conduct since Pro refused to address multiple fallacies convincingly demonstrated by con. Pro quickly descended to ad hominum and attempts to derail. Although Con presented little argument in favor of compounds, Pro neglected to require an argument round. Pro's arguments were eviscerated by con's effective reasoning, leaving little to persuade voters to either side of the debate. Con wins the argument points for ably demonstrating Pro's faulty arguments.
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.