The Instigator
Brian123456
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Detective Case

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 622 times Debate No: 67156
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

Brian123456

Pro

(Sorry about last debate, I made a simple error)
First round is acceptance only

Rules:
I will provide the case next round and Con will solve the case within the following rounds.
If Con fails to solve the case then I pro will win over the resolution.

Goodluck and have fun
Wylted

Con

I accept under the stipulation my opponent gives me a fair chance to win this. If the voters find this debate unfair, they are urged to award me all 7 points. I respect my opponent and think he'll be fair but I just wanted that to be clear before beginning.

With that aside. This sounds fun and I look forward to it.
Debate Round No. 1
Brian123456

Pro

Before I begin my case I would like to present some ground rules.

Rules
- Objective: Detective Con's objective is simply to come to one of the 4 conclusions (resolution) I will display in a minute and of course one of the four will be the right resolution.
- However, Con cannot come to a conclusion until round 3.
- In round 2 must be used as a evidential round and logical reasoning for the conclusion.
- Pro (I) cannot create in logical rules in round 2,3, and 4 that would thwart Detective Con's reasoning.
- Detective Con will have 3 assistance, meaning con can at any rounds ask for assistance from pro and pro is required to give a clue, whether it may be small or a critical one: it's up to pro.
- Con may not ask for assistance from others to solve this case.
- Con must have at least 3 evidence to come to a conclusion.
Case
August 1st 2019,
The police have finally come to the a decsion that the recent murders consisting of 58 deaths (March 1st-August 1st) are all related, therefore dealing with a serial killer. All the deaths were female, and were hung from telephone antennas, after being stabbed multiple times in the heart (according to forensic research) Now as of March 21st the killer who roamed the streets of the state Wyoming, has suddenly stopped killing, but some speculate that the killer, known as X may come back to kill sooner or later. The victims fell within the hours of 12 a.m and 6 a.m according to consistent data from the depart of police investigation team. No ransom notes were ever found within the two dates, therefore the police have assumed that this mass murderer is not writing ransom notes or any wants from the police. On July 7th police officials had 4 suspects:

1) Police man, John Gow.
Reason: Suspected of being the serial killer because he was MIA throughout march 1st-21st
Alibi: John states that he was on a trip to Spain for summer time
2) Janitor from New york, Empire state building.
Reason: Suspicoun of coming to the state of Wyoming from March 1st-August 1st
Alibi: Janitor states that he was on an important business trip to attend at Wyoming.
3) High School Student, Yobi Jobs
Reason: Suspicoun due to some past criminal acts, such as robbery of toy stores and bullying and tends to go an extent of be sexual.
Alibi: Went to Disneyland in Wyoming, during one of the victims death
4) Construction Worker Rob Yake
Reason: tends to stay overtime during work and has a strong sense of sexual harassment
Alibi: Rob claims that he was sick during the time of deaths and time of discovering for the first 23 victims.

However before the police could do real investigation in their alibi, the chief investigator brought detective con to the job.

Now it is up to Detective con to use the files of evidence and speculation from the case and solve the remaining mystery of this case.

Note: If Con fails to solve the case and find the culprit, I pro will use the last round to solve the case, for the win of this debate.

Goodluck have fun.
Wylted

Con

My reasoning is very limited. I had a clue that the criminal likes to lie in a PM, everyone looks just as guilty.

I request another clue from my opponent, if he is willing to give one and if I come up with some reasoning, I'll present it next round if my op allows. For now my reasoning is that each person has a 25% chance of being a criminal.
Debate Round No. 2
Brian123456

Pro

I would like to give con two clues, but the two clues will be in riddle format
Clue #1: I am rhyme and reason that contain corruption of betrayal , I am the culprit.
Clue #2: I am a figure cloaked in shrouded fog, I am the innocent, yet I intend to be the culprit.

May I remind Con that the next round must provide his conclusion, but if con really and I mean REALLY needs an extra round, I will come with an idea of how to settle the situation.

Good luck and have fun.
Wylted

Con

The Guilty party is number 3 Yobi Jobs.

Evidence

1. Hint that the suspect likes to lie. He went to Disney in Wyoming according to his alibi but Disney isn't in Wyoming.

2. The murders all took place in mostly summer months and likely on weekends since the number of days when divided by murders in the months adds up to be about one for every weekend day meaning even though a few murders happened at the tail end of the school year, they likely happened on weekends so the boy could rest up for school just fine.

3. Another clue stated the word innocent in a riddle I presume that to be a hint about the culprits age.
Debate Round No. 3
Brian123456

Pro

Well it seems like Detective Con was right on

As presumed, I inserted the information about the student being in Disneyland Wyoming was a false information in which I purposely placed in to see whether or not con would notice and define the investigation through real life means.

Con's deductive ability is spot on, as I once again intentionally placed the information about the months of the deaths and it's ended mark. Impressively con was able to deduct that the dates was related to summer time and thus connected it to the activity of the culprit

In any case,
Con has won this case and I may ask to give con the points of victory.
Wylted

Con

That was fun, thanks for doing this.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Give me points please!!!
Posted by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
With the crime solved, are all points awarded, or some points or...?
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Brian is supposed to tell us in the last round
Posted by Pfalcon1318 2 years ago
Pfalcon1318
How do we know what the correct answer is? It seems we can't vote accurately without knowing that.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
Your "detective case" is Fraudulent, Unconstitutional, Lying, Stupid, Garbage.
"Crimes" , "criminals" , "crime scenes" , "illegalities" , "felonies" , "misdemeanors" , etc. ,
don't exist.
Such concepts Violate BASIC Legal & Constitutional Principles, such as
Presumption of Innocence, Legal Due process, etc.
(Since people are Presumed to be Innocent of "crimes" ,
there can't be any such things as "crimes" . )
Posted by Jocie 2 years ago
Jocie
disneyland in wyoming..?
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
How do I request a clue?
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
cool.... I'd love to see Roy in one of these. :D
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Brian123456WyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con solved the case.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
Brian123456WyltedTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Solved the case, and the best I can determine as that they should all be awarded. Pro acted in good faith, though, so.. it looks like this caper has been solved. Con had Cracked the Case, now.... Where in the world is Carmen San Diego?
Vote Placed by XLAV 2 years ago
XLAV
Brian123456WyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Very interesting. Congrats Con for solving the case.