The Instigator
tuffpuff99
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
OverLordSandwich
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Are small town areas more wild and/or dangerous than urban areas?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
OverLordSandwich
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2014 Category: Places-Travel
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 682 times Debate No: 64975
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

tuffpuff99

Pro

Use your first argument to accept this please. I am excited to see how this debate unfolds.
OverLordSandwich

Con

I accept. Let's see how this ends up.

Cheers! :)
Debate Round No. 1
tuffpuff99

Pro

In smaller areas which I will define as being any concentration of population that has less than 5,000 people (it really varies by opinion but for myself that is what I consider being a small area) seems to have more danger or trouble with the law that goes undetected. It may be because there are fewer police officers that may be spread out over a large area due to the lack of a significant population in a nearby area. In the case of a community near my hometown there are only 4 police officers spread out over an area of about 5 miles. Other larger communities around the community occasionally patrol and respond to 911 calls in the area. It may not seem like much, but it is difficult to control crime over an area that size for that small number of officers. Underage drinking, smoking, underage sex, drug use, and drug trafficking are large problems in this community of approx. 1,500. These are issues present in larger cities as well but more often than not, people get away with it in small towns. In larger cities it seems the threat of going to jail deters a few more criminals than it does in a smaller town where people know the chances of getting caught are fairly low. Usually people partake in illegal things because they feel they can get away with it, in smaller communities this is not the case most of the time, most criminals, vagabonds, and general rule breakers play these odds knowing they have the upper hand.
OverLordSandwich

Con

I see where you are coming from.
I will agree that in smaller regions the crime rate:population ratio is higher than that of urban areas/large communities. If that is your definition of more dangerous/wild, then I can compromise.
However, given a larger area and more people, it is only logically that crimes occur more often; as it is in Los Angeles, Detroit, etc. Which means that if you are in a urban/large community, crime is much more numerous than in smaller regions.
In my conclusion, I feel this argument relies on the definition of "dangerous/wild": whether it is quantity or ration.
Debate Round No. 2
tuffpuff99

Pro

tuffpuff99 forfeited this round.
OverLordSandwich

Con

I will not be posting another argument seeing how I refutted your points earlier and you forfieted the final round.

Great Debate!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by tuffpuff99 2 years ago
tuffpuff99
Yes I will be.
Posted by That1User 2 years ago
That1User
Are you going to be arguing that small town areas are more dangerous than urban areas? Just clarifying.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
tuffpuff99OverLordSandwichTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff, hard to decide winner due to lack of definition of "wild" or "dangerous".