Colorado is better then Arizona
Debate Rounds (3)
Not only does Arizona have the Grand Canyon, it has such interesting places to visit as Saguaro National park and Hoover Dam. I could go on all day about the beauty of Arizona's mulitude of national parks or the major feat of engineering that is Hoover Dam, but you can read the article below.
There are many less attractions in Colorado. This is not to say that there are not any beautiful sights in Colorado, but they don't have an equivalent to the Grand Canyon or Hoover Dam.
There are also plenty of rednecks in Colorado. They have a Facebook page below.
Routt County of Colorado even has its own redneck Olympics.
But neither of the above things alone can prove Arizona is not worse than Colorado. Having a few rednecks doesn't make a state bad. Arizona has some great attractions, and is more interesting than Colorado. This is one argument, but not one that can alone determine which state is better. Colorado has a few exceedingly bad qualities that make it a far worse state than Arizona, whose only bad qualities seem to be the heat and a few rednecks.
1) Colorado has extremely high suicide and depression rates. This is thought to be linked to the low oxygen levels in Colorado, especially in cities such as Denver and Colorado Springs. "At 6,000 feet (above sea level) suicide rates increased by approximately 70 percent." said one researcher.
2) There have been a LOT of major shootings in Colorado. It cannot be considered a safe place to live.
3) There is also quite a bit of drug use in Colorado. This was, of course, exacerbated by the legalization of recreational Marijuana.
In conclusion, Arizona is more interesting, more safe, and overall a better state than Colorado. It cannot be proven worse than Colorado. Back to you.
murders 40 239
robbery 1130 1838
assault 2321 6023
arson 90 285
auto theft 3465 1596
obviously colorado is safer then arizona oh ya and these things are through government documents
Well, it seems my opponent has dropped most of his arguments in favor of one refutation. I take this to mean that he has conceded his two original points to be invalid. Arizona is definitely more interesting than Colorado and rednecks appear in both states. This is a win in these categories for Arizona.
My opponent also seems to concede the suicide rates in Colorado. In this case, the physical, unchangeable aspects of Colorado are a detriment to it. The low oxygen levels, an unchangeable aspect of Colorado, have been linked to suicide and depression. This is a pretty big point for the pro to just drop. I take this as a concession of quite an important point.
The pro also, once again, did not rebut my argument concerning drug use. Marijuana can have some negative effects on society. It causes a lack of motivation and has been linked to work accidents and lower success in the classroom.
The only point that pro attempted to rebut was my point of the large amount of mass murders that have occurred in Colorado. It seems very interesting that such a large percentage of the nation's biggest tragedies have occured in Colorado. I'll admit this point was a bit weaker than my other arguments, as it only implies correlation and not causation. However, this point was NOT invalid. If you read the source I found about the massacres in Colorado, almost all of the killers committed suicide. In normal criminal situations, in which one person is killed, suicide is not often an act that follows. It is possible that the physical attributes of Colorado could be producing more mass murderers than other states. Another possible explanation for this was given by David Lohr, a criminal journalist:
Typical mass murderers are usually conservative, middle-aged, white males from relatively stable, lower-to-middle-class backgrounds.
These individuals usually aspire to more than they can achieve, and when they see their ambitions thwarted, they blame others for their failures. They feel exclusion and develop an irrational, and eventually, homicidal hatred of anyone they consider a hindrance to their own aspirations. Quite often, they choose to die in an eruption of violence directed at these perceived oppressors.
This middle aged white, economically stable male demographic represents a decent amount of the Colorado population, more than other states in the US.
My opponent brought up a few numbers in order to rebut my above argument. However, those numbers were completely incorrect. It took me quite a long time to find his statistics on Arizona in the article he provided. They're on page 62, and you have to add the rows up to get his numbers. I see nowhere that states that this is a rate per 100,000 at all, it seems to just be the number of arrests for each type of crime in Arizona by age and sex. This was also a 2012 article. His other article used stats from a different year, 2013, and actually wasn't even about the state of Colorado. It was entitled: "Crime in the city and county of DENVER based on UCR standards." These two articles cannot be compared at all, as obviously Denver represents a lesser demographic than the entire state of Arizona. He also decided to use a different year than the one used in the Arizona article because 2013's stats for Denver befitted his argument better. This is also not to mention that the auto theft in the city of Denver is actually HIGHER than the auto theft in all of the state of Arizona according to his sources. He actually used this self-depreciating argument in his rebuttal.
Therefore I conclude that the pro not only did not prove that Arizona is worse than Colorado, he did not even make a single valid argument, or even attempt to rebut most of my arguments. Arizona has been sufficiently proven, in all areas surveyed, to be better than Colorado, and not, as pro's resolution stated, worse than Colorado. Vote con. Thank you to voters in advance, and thank you to pro for the debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dropped too many arguments in his last round to get a win. And the argument he did provide is unclear. Are those murder rates a percentage per thousand people, or are they a sum? Either way, Con addressed Pro's arguments far more than Pro did his, and in the end I believe Con argued far more effectively.
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.