Are small town areas more wild and/or dangerous than urban areas?
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
tuffpuff99 forfeited this round.
I will not be posting another argument seeing how I refutted your points earlier and you forfieted the final round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: ff, hard to decide winner due to lack of definition of "wild" or "dangerous".
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.