Running is a better exercise than biking

The Biking Indoors ExcuseMy opponent has tried to lessen the weight of the motor vehicle/cyclist accident rates by offering the fact cycling indoors is a much safer alternative. While this appears to be true, it doesn't refute anything. My opponent is representing cycling as a whole, so he cannot just point to the gym, to only one part of cycling, and call it good. While some cyclists no doubt do prefer the gym for its safety, there are still many who do not, and many who get injured or killed whilst doing their cycling activities outdoors.Those Who Bike For TransportationMy opponent has tried to say that someone who uses a bike for transport is not necessarily a cyclist, and therefore shouldn't be considered. But since this is a debate over cycling as a form of exercise, we should recognize these people. Yes, they are using bikes for transport. But they are also exercising as they transport themselves. You cannot deny that the two are connected, and thus connected to the confines of this debate.The 700 NumberMy opponent has tried to narrow down the number of people who actually count in the 700 number, an attempt that I refuted in the above section. But let's pretend my refutation didn't happen. The fact that some of those in the 700 weren't biking to work out doesn't really matter. Think about it. No matter your reason for being on the bike, you are still just as likely as the next person on a bike to be hit. It's not like cars are somehow attracted to non-training bikers, and therefore you have lesser odds. A person on a bike is a person on a bike. Every person on a bike has the same odds of being killed. Saying only a fraction of the people on bikes are actual exercising cyclists doesn't matter. It's the same concept as whether or not a boy or girl will be born. Even if there's more girls in your family, the next baby to be born still has a 1/2 chance to be a girl. Just ask your biology teacher. Not only that, but people who bike to train are likely to spend more time on the rode than their transportation bikers, and are therefore increase their risk of being hit and killed.Percentages"So, who is to say that the percentage of deaths or injuries of runners is not higher than the percentage of deaths or injuries of cyclists?"The percentage of deaths for cyclists is higher than percentage of deaths for runners[1][2][3]. If we look at the odds under the logic in my third section, you are 8,125% more likely to die on a bike, or if you prefer, 81 times more likely to die on a bike. If you use the false logic my opponent suggests, you still are a staggering 1,413% more likely to die on a bike, or if you prefer, 14 times more likely.Poor EvidenceMy opponent cites some facts as evidence for his side, and I would like to show a few that very poorly support the points he tries to make with them."Running too much is bad for your health, while in most cases there is no such thing as "cycling too much". (running.competitor.com)"The article in question is titled "How Much Running Is Bad For Your Heart?" The fact that the article title is a question should be telling, and hints at a major theme throughout the article. The theme being, "We don't know." The researchers have admitted they don't know how much running is actually harmful for you. They only speculate that if you do a ton of marathons per year, you may have issues. Needless to say, marathons are a rare event for runners, especially multiple marathons per year. The best this article can do is show that if you're a top echelon runner, you might have problems with your heart. My opponent also makes the claim that you can't cycle too much. However, viewed next to the article he has linked, you clearly can. The people in question in this running article are in question because of their hearts. The researchers believe that too much work hurts the heart. For my opponent to use an article like this and then claim that you can't over-cycle is like him saying that cyclists don't use their hearts to pump blood. Just as top echelon runners may have overworked their hearts, so too may top echelon cyclists have overworked their hearts.menshealth.co.ukHere my opponent cites the fact that there are more injuries per 1000 hours for runners. What we're not considering here is the quality of those injuries. With a bicycle, we could very easily be talking about a bicycle crash. Those suck. Whereas with running, we're talking about an overworked muscle, which generally is something you can feel coming, and stop running on before it becomes extremely painful. With a bike, the extreme pain will come in a split second as you fly off and hit the ground. It's the quality of the injuries that matter.Further On The Idea That Running Is Bad For YouOn top of the fact that the article about heart health my opponent used is iffy, especially when applied to the majority of runners, there is plenty of good that running indisputably provides. Runners are no more likely than non-runners to get arthritis, and actually develop stronger knee cartilage[4]. In conclusion, I'm just going to go through the Pros and Cons. Pros in bold.Running: Less Deaths, Superior Calorie Burning Ability (as admitted by my opponent first round), More Injuries, Cycling: More Deaths, Inferior Calorie Burning Ability, Less InjuriesBy a score of 2 to 1, I declare running the winner. I hope you do too. Thanks for reading, and L.D, thanks for debating. Sources:[1] http://firststridesvermont.com...[2] http://www.statista.com...[3] http://ccooper.typepad.com...[4] http://content.time.com...