It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Source
Recent (2005-2006) surveys conducted by both the American Youth Horse Council and Penn State University have found that equine activities develop life skills such as decision making, communicating, problem solving, goal setting and empathy. In the AYHC Study, a significant positive relationship was found between total horsemanship skills development and life skills development.
1) Can you bestow affection on your bicycle and have it returned?
2) Will your bicycle help take care of itself and you while you are riding it?
3) Does owning a bicycle provide daily physical benefits for the whole body (not just the legs while riding) as a horse does?
Yes. The uses are: Sports. Entertainment. Fun. Transportation.
4) Can your bicycle be used for anything other than riding, as a horse can?
Horses are trained and ridden for practical working purposes such as in police work or for controlling herd animals on a ranch. They are also used in competitive sports including, but not limited to dressage, endurance riding, eventing, reining, show jumping, tent pegging, vaulting, polo, horse racing, driving, and rodeo.
I dont require my means of transportation to bestow affection on me. I just need it to get me from point A to point B.
No. I can take care of myself just fine
4) Can your bicycle be used for anything other than riding, as a horse can?
Yes. The uses are: Sports. Entertainment. Fun. Transportation.
And as for travel in the countryside: We have Mountainbikes.
Source
the total calories used per hour by a 150 pound person during horse riding were similar to those used during jogging (6mph) and cycling (9mph) (315-480 calories per hour).
To conclude, horse riding is a wonderful form of exercise, which stimulates the cardiovascular system as well as all the body systems. Although riding is a strenuous exercise, it is perceived as enjoyment, therefore the rider has increased tolerance and motivation to lengthen the period of exercise."(excerpt from article by Lisa McFarlane, Senior 11 Physiotherapist, British Horse Society)
the topic is whether a horse is superior to a bicycle from a human point of view, not the horse’s point of view.
2. The only relevant comparison between horses and bicycles is as a means of transportation, recreation, relaxation, and exercise. These are not moral issues, nor ethical ones.
An individual’s relationship with their horse, and the positivity or negativity of the experience
The fact remains, however, that the horse’s senses are superior to ours
Off the top of my head I can recall reading about several incidents where bicycle riders were injured or killed by wild animals
The great majority of people, however, CAN ride a horse
whether one rides a bicycle or a horse, it’s still quite possible to eat too much
hich means you simply allow the rein on the opposite side from the direction you want to go to touch the horse’s neck.
In fact, I don’t even own a whip or a pair of spurs.
comparable to the cost of a good bicycle
As an exercise, horseback riding uses the following muscle groups
Another aspect of horse ownership is what the horse teaches the human.
Some behaviors and activities are widely condemned as abusive by people within the horse industry, even if not illegal as a matter of public law
organizations that sanction various events spend a great deal of money testing horses for illegal drugs. Some specific training or showing practices are so widely condemned that they have been made illegal at the national level and violations can incur criminal penalties. The most well-known is soring, a practice of applying a caustic ointment just above the hooves of a Tennessee Walking Horse to make it pick up its feet higher.
However, in spite of a federal law...
the practice is still widespread and difficult to eliminate
These are not moral issues, nor ethical ones.
the topic is whether a horse is superior to a bicycle from a human point of view, not the horse’s point of view.
Well thank you very much. Even if we look at transportation only
If this has no bearing on the debate, as you claim, why do you keep bringing emotional factors up? I didnt start with the emotional factors, you did.
Several? I dont recall a single one.
more people ride bikes than horses. Why might that be?
I have yet to see someone who rides bicycles as a professional sports who is overweight. But I have seen plenty of professional horse riders who are overweight. Thats the point Im making.
From what I`ve observed this is more of a slapping than touching.
the accumulated costs of owning a horse are in no way comparable to owning a bike.
When debating horse vs. bicycle I would think we have to take all aspects of horse riding into consideration, no?
the majority of modern society has chosen to stop riding horses
Remember our analogy of the "superior" ET-race that is domesticating and riding us? How would you feel if they said "The human point of view does not matter"?
A survey done in 2003 found that only 5 percent of bicycle riders use their bicycle primarily for transportation. 41 percent use them for exercise and health, and 37% use them for recreation. Source For recreation and relaxation, the psychological and emotional factors are certainly relevant.
How other people treat their horses has no bearing on my (or any individual’s) experience of having a horse
What other people do with their horses has no relevance.
July 24, 2007 - cyclist killed by black bear in Calgary.
Jun, 2008 - cyclist injured in collision with black bear in Boulder, CO
May 15, 2006 - A black bear chased down and mauled a cyclist in Alberta
Jan 9, 2004 - A mountain lion attacked cyclists in California; one was critically injured
The same animal is believed to have killed another man who was found next to his bike.
more people live in or near cities and towns in areas where they are not allowed to keep a horse?
I must have missed the detour sign that took us into professional sports.
Yet another reason the horse is superior - one doesn’t have to be in great physical condition to ride one.
to claim that physical cues are injury or abuse is a serious misrepresentation of the facts.
Many bikes are in the mid range, costing a bit more or less than $2,000. Once again my opponent is misrepresenting the facts.
That doesn’t change the fact that the horse is superior to a bicycle any more than you not being able to afford an expensive top quality car changes the fact that it’s a better car than the one you can afford.
Yes, people abuse horses
most horses are far better off in their partnerships with humans than so-called “free” (wild) horses.
What do we need horse-carriages for nowadays? Fun, recreation, relaxation, and novelty.
his is also the basis for EAGALA and other methods of equine-assisted psychotherapy.
My opponent continues to dance around the central issue, taking us on detour after detour
Owning and riding a horse has many more benefits than owning and riding a bicycle.
After a few weeks, riding a bicycle for exercise and relaxation often becomes as tedious and boring as many other forms of exercise.
You, barreling straight down a double-black-diamond ski run at 40 miles per hour. On a mountain bike. You might say it's stupid. Or crazy. Or stupid crazy. We call it genius.
Put the science of stress-busting to practical use and you can change your life
Exactly. Bikes are good. And much easier to have than horses.
***But it does have bearing on this Debate*** This debate does not concern your personal private life but horses in general. In Debating "Horses vs. Bicycles" we hope to gain on overview of ALL its aspects
evidence that shows us, animals should not be abused as means of transportation or personal entertainment.
And why are they not allowed to keep a horse?
This not being a debate about your private life, sports also factors into horse-riding and bike-riding.
You dont have to be in great physical condition to ride a bike either. Its just that a bike gets you into a better physical condition more quickly and efficiently.
not to mention the stuff you call "physical cues".
...the reason for this being that humans have domesticated horses and taken ownership of most of the land. Its ironic isnt it. First the human makes the horse unable to be free and then he stands there and grins: "See? Horses are better off with us".
I like that. Rather than pitting bikes against horses for entertainment or travel, have horses serve an entirely different purpose: Animals we can build a relationship to.
You, barreling straight down a double-black-diamond ski run at 40 miles per hour. On a mountain bike. You might say it's stupid. Or crazy. Or stupid crazy.
Put the science of stress-busting to practical use and you can change your life
the treatment of horses other than the one a person owns or is riding by other humans has no bearing upon that.
horseback riding is safer than bicycle riding
Roy Kinnear (1934-1988), British character actor, bled to death due to a broken pelvis sustained by a horse fall
Christopher Reeve (1952-2004), actor, paralyzed in 1995 from the neck down following a fall from his horse while riding cross-country in a 3-day event.
Maureen Connolly (1934-1969), tennis star, career ended in 1954 by injuries suffered in a collision between her horse and a truck
Cole Albert Porter (June 9, 1891 – October 15, 1964)
American composer and songwriter. In a 1937, a riding accident his legs were crushed leaving him in chronic pain, largely crippled. His right leg was amputated in 1958 as a result of the injury.
Professional sports is an entirely different venue
I don’t have time for that
The stuff horse trainers, horse owners, and horse riders call physical cues.
Benefits of horses
12. Improves overall mood and attitude
6. Increases coordination
7. Increases reflexes
9 . Increases communications skills and self-awareness
13. Improves social and life skills
10. Increases self-confidence
horse ownership gives you a ticket to trail rides, riding clubs, equestrian camping, roundup clubs, riding in parades, and other events and social groups that revolve around horses.
Heike/Skyfloating
First I would like to say congrats to both fighters. It was a great read.
Heike started very well. Detailed opening with lots of personal experience added. I felt that she clearly took the first round, SF's opening lacked a little although he did frame his side well. The one issue I kept coming back to was Heike's attempt to make the debate more personal. I thought she started out with this idea well and SF early attempts at directing it way from this weren't strong to start. I actually found this to be the deciding factor, based on the strength of the argument's.
I was torn between Heike's hands on knowledge of horses and SF's broader issue of animal cruelty as it pertains to horses. They also both rebutted well. SF lost a couple of marks for forgetting the link to his external material. Tracking it down though, it was an interesting read.
I went back to the debate title and re read it. Then read the debate again with just that in mind, no strength of arguments, no point/counter point as I had already would have called it a draw if that was the case. After this exercise, I would have to say that SF did the better job of sticking to the title of the debate. Had it read "Owning a horse is better than owning a bicycle" Heike would have won hands down but in the general broad sense in which the question implies, SF had the better argument.
If Heike had taken the time to elaborate on the financial gains possible from owning horses as compared to bikes, I think the debate may have went the other way. It was that close.
Decision: Skyfloating
Thank you Heike and Skyfloating for a wonderful debate!! I want you both to know that this was a very difficult one to judge! Both of you present arguments that are convincing, and you both debate with passion. These qualities make for a very close debate. With that said...
Heike,
You have an unbridled passion for horses, pardon the pun!! It's reflected in your argument. That being the case, you present an argument based on your own experiences, and a very strong one, I might add. It seems, however, that you took some of Skyfloating's comments a bit personally, when he was just trying to make a point for his argument. This being said, you remained strong, and continued to provide a very reasonable argument for the rest of the debate.
A couple of things that stand out in your argument that I'd like to comment on are:
1) You said, "What other people do with horses has no relevance."
In the case of this debate, the actions of others with their horses most definitely has relevance with whether or not the horse is better than the bike. As can be attested to by many a horse-owner, the way a horse is treated is reflected back onto the owner by the horse. You yourself say this later on in the debate. So, how can your quoted statement above be rectified?
2) You call riding a bike going down a hill both stupid and crazy. While I know that Skyfloating used these words prior to your using them, I'm still left to wonder why you would think such a thing. Some people derive pleasure from other things, and still for others, it takes more than riding a horse to get their adrenaline moving. I think this comment hurt you a little.
Overall, on a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give your argument a 7. Very well-thought out, well-presented, and very informed. The few weak points above lower the score a little, but we can't be perfect, can we?
Skyfloating:
Your argument was very interesting and informative. You make a very strong case for bikes being superior to horses, and you provide good sources to back up your argument. This being said...
Your argument supports the claim that bikes are superior to horses, but there are a few areas that horses have a HUGE advantage over bikes, and you seem to just glaze over those as if they don't have any relevance.
With this quote:
Rather than pitting bikes against horses for entertainment or travel, have horses serve an entirely different purpose: animals we can build a relationship to.
you seem to acknowledge that the horse does better than a bike in this case. This substantiates what Heike says...right??
Next, I'm not sure if the above quote was a serious statement though, because at the beginning of your opening post, you say that the only thing you'd willingly ride would be a woman, should she be willing. In the opinion of this judge, that was a poor opening. It seemed slightly unprofessional, but I didn't mark anything off for this one. Just something to remember for the future.
Throughout this debate, your stance has been one of not subjugating "sentient creatures", yet you ask Heike why she doesn't just get a dog instead of a horse. This doesn't make sense, as your entire argument revolves around the freedom of animals. How can we accept the enslavement of the dog, yet not that of the horse, under your argument? Why would subjugating one be any better or worse than the other? Some things to think about.
Overall, your argument makes one want to go out and buy a bike, knowing that it is cheaper and more efficient than any other form of transportation. While these statements are all true, sometimes a horse is preferable, because their perception IS better than that of the human, and that's something that even science accepts.
A well-researched topic, well-presented, and well-rebutted gets you a 5 from me, followed by another point for the added relevant humor. All of this for a total of 6.
You make a convincing argument, but I'm afraid that Heike has you on this one by a nose.
In true horse-race style, this debate was a photo finish!!
GREAT JOB to BOTH sides!!!
Heike -vs- Skyfloating “Horses Are Far Superior To Bicycles”
Judgment; Skyfloating wins.
Opening arguments;
Both debaters here open with emotional appeal and opinion. The topic “Horses Are Far Superior To Bicycles” is incredibly broad, and does not lend itself well to debate as it stands. For example, could horses be superior intellectually to bicycles and inferior as means of getting around a city? Strategically, I would have expected one or both debaters to attempt to define the debate in opening, but neither did. Appeal to emotion can be a valid and useful tool in winning an argument, IF it is introduced strategically within the context of a clearly defined structure. Alone, it is a risky approach at best.
Round One;
Heike continues much in the same vein. It does induce warm sentiment when reading it, but as a reader I am still lost as to how to evaluate the "superior/inferior" question. Clearly Heike is assuming that we are considering the question as he/she is, and that it goes without explanation. His/her answers to Skyfloatings questions illustrate the problem nicely. Heike agrees that in a city a bicycle is better, but assumes that we are not considering that. Heike also dismisses the question about abuse as "not germane to the topic" but at this point ANYTHING regarding horses or bicycles is "germane to the topic" to steal a phrase. Heike still has no desire to define the subject. Heike is assuming what he/she feels is self evident and that there could be no room for debate. Which is a really bad assumption in a debate. So far, Heike is actually saying that horses are both superior and inferior depending on the context. Unfortunately, we still have no context.
Skyfloating begins to define the topic,
But nowdays I dont require my means of transportation to bestow affection on me. I just need it to get me from point A to point B.
Unfortunately, Skyfloating does not really continue to narrow the topic, which would have been a very good move strategically.
Skyfloating mistakes his/her own answer to Heike's question as Heike's agreement in regard to exercise;
Please also take note that my opponent as already admitted that bikes train more muscles, bikes are easier to maintain, bikes are better to abuse and bikes are better to get through town with.
Heike agreed to no such thing as yet, though Heike did agree to the abuse, travel in cities, and maintenance issue. Skyfloating closes with questions that at least offer him/her the possibility of continuing to tighten up the debate.
Round two;
Heike finally becomes aware of a need to define the topic. However, where Skyfloating offered very narrow one, (transportation) Heike insists it be more broad;
2. The only relevant comparison between horses and bicycles is as a means of transportation, recreation, relaxation, and exercise.
Even the phrasing indicates that Heike assumes that there really IS only one way to view the topic. His or hers. We will just have to see if Skyfloating lets than one fly.
Skyfloating kinda sorta does let it fly. He/she does bring us back to the transportation issue, but does also entertain the other notions, and the issue of the horses feelings are by now a continuing part of Skyfloatings argument. Both debaters are by now aware that the topic is too poorly defined, but neither seems to know how to deal with that effectively. Skyfloating is so far ahead in building a case that this issue is about transportation primarily. Heike is not yet firmly guiding us to an opposing definition, nor making a strong argument that in terms of transportation alone horses are superior.
Skyfloating also brings in the argument that more people in fact do own bicycles than horses which is a very good point. He/she does leave out a link to some external information on horses though, which did not allow the reader to verify the information for themselves.
Round three;
BOTH debaters engaged in a rather challenging bout of "fractional quoting" where they took very small portions of an earlier reply by their opponent, (often not even the complete sentence) and then rebutted it. It was a very frustrating round to judge as it is not easy to refer back to portions of sentences in a long post. It required endless re-reading or skimming of the entire post to locate the context which should have been provided by the debater in the first place.
Heike again attempts to reassert his/her broader definition. It is much less desirable to define the topic this late in the game. For the whole of the debate thus far, we have had in effect two arguments running, one, "are horses and overall a more pleasurable thing for a human to own than a bike" and two, "bicycles are cheaper transportation and they do not care if you use them." Since the debaters are not arguing the same topic, nor does the topic itself give instruction this is rather two running monologues rather than a dialog or argument.
Skyfloating[/b[ is making a better attempt to actually maintain an argument, rather than an exposition, but really this round was not helpful to either debater in terms of case building, and persuasion in any logical fashion.
Closing;
Unfortunately, the closing arguments are not conclusive, but they are instead the crashing together of two very different debate topics. Both parties lay out a list of benefits and drawbacks, but, even these are not very helpful in judging.
Conclusion;
Beginning with an ill defined position, neither party really moved to assert a definition early on. Heike assumed one, and he/she maintained that position throughout, however he/she never stated a position. Skyfloating did eventually state a position, but then entertained Heike's position as well. Both conceded to the others position, Heike conceded the superiority of bicycles in some instances, (cities, etc.) Skyfloating acknowledged the superiority of horses in others, (affection, etc.) There was really poor CASE building on both sides. Heike was a very good story teller, Skyfloating provided information on many aspects, but neither brought a quality case to the table.
As a judge, this is challenging. As this is debate, I am going to have to award in favor of Skyfloating. Of the two his/hers looked the most like a case and the least like a biography. In addition, the one point that both did seem to agree upon, (that humans were the judge of "superiority") best supported his view. More people do in fact own bicycles than horses and in this case I am going to let the majority rule.
Judgment; Skyfloating wins.