It depends. I do not agree to challenges without more information. To do so would be, in my opinion, irresponsible. Sort of like using blanket statement to make some point.
For me, it seems to come down to phronesis: what's available, and what's worth doing?
Take, for example, the car to the right. It was built to get you from point A to point B over land or water. It seems to be an effective means of travel, and it could probably beat most regular modes of transportation in a race that involved a combination of land and water. But there are times when it would not be the best choice in a race. What if the race was all on land (or all water)? The best method of transportation depends on the conditions.
The ability to choose from a variety of methods came to mind today as I read The Faulty Logic of the 'Math Wars' (here). In the fourth paragraph, Crary and Wilson write:
The most efficient algorithm for addition, for instance, involves stacking numbers to be added with their place values aligned, successively adding single digits beginning with the ones place column, and “carrying” any extra place values leftward.
If I understand their assertion correctly, then I would like to challenge them to a race. First one to compute the following sum wins. They can use their efficient algorithm and I'll use some other method.
999,999 + 41,562