Motorbikes are superior to horses.

P1:ResponsibilityPros 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:EmotionI 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:FliesHorses 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 & MatchThe 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: DiseaseTo 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:TimeCreate - '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:GreenPro 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: ManeuverabilityThe 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.