The Instigator
Jifpop09
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
daytonanerd
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

I'm a Detroit-Cleaveland Drug Lord

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 2 votes the winner is...
daytonanerd
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2014 Category: Funny
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 770 times Debate No: 49718
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Jifpop09

Pro

The BOP is 100% on whatever opponent accepts this. He/She will have to prove, with less then a 10% reasonable doubt, that I'm not a Detroit-Cleaveland Drug Lord. Additional Rules

-S&G will not count

- That's it

Argument 1: I am a Detroit Cleveland Drug Lord

Since the BOP is 100% on my opponent, I don't have to do a damn thing, so good luck on disproving that I am a Detroit Cleveland Drug Lord.

Argument 2: It is impossible for Con to fullfill the BOP,

Unless s/he comes to where I live, stalks me, and tracks my records. It is 100% impossible to prove beyond a 10% reasonable doubt, that I am indeed not a Drug Lord.


daytonanerd

Con

I will be the con to this debate, and try to prove that my opponent is, indeed, not a 'Detroit-Cleaveland' drug lord.

Argument 1: Cleaveland doesn't exist
Now, originally, when I looked at the title of the debate, I thought that maybe, 'Cleaveland' was a typo. But no, he included it in the thesis in the first round, the very thing I had to prove against. Therefore, I am forced to mean that my opponent means the City of Cleaveland, and not, say, the City of Cleveland. However, there is no City of Cleaveland. Therefore, my opponent couldn't be a drug lord in it. My opponent states that he is a Detroit-Cleaveland drug lord. With that hyphen, I am to assume that he means that he is both a drug lord in both Cleaveland and in Detroit, a hybrid of the two. But, as I have said, no such city exists. Therefore, he cannot be a Detroit-Cleaveland drug lord, as he can't possibly fill one of the two location conditions of being a Detroit-Cleaveland drug lord.

Now, I shall refute my opponent's arguments.

Refutation 1:
The title of your first argument doesn't agree with your thesis. You are trying to prove, in the first argument, that you are a Detroit Cleveland drug lord, not a Detroit-Cleaveland drug lord.

Refutation 2:
Your second argument is false, as I have just proved that it is possible to prove that you are wrong. I've never even been to Detroit, Cleaveland, Cleveland, or wherever you live, yet your argument is wrong.

I look forward to a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Jifpop09

Pro

Argument 1: Cleaveland doesn't exist
Now, originally, when I looked at the title of the debate, I thought that maybe, 'Cleaveland' was a typo. But no, he included it in the thesis in the first round, the very thing I had to prove against. Therefore, I am forced to mean that my opponent means the City of Cleaveland, and not, say, the City of Cleveland. However, there is no City of Cleaveland. Therefore, my opponent couldn't be a drug lord in it. My opponent states that he is a Detroit-Cleaveland drug lord. With that hyphen, I am to assume that he means that he is both a drug lord in both Cleaveland and in Detroit, a hybrid of the two. But, as I have said, no such city exists. Therefore, he cannot be a Detroit-Cleaveland drug lord, as he can't possibly fill one of the two location conditions of being a Detroit-Cleaveland drug lord.

Yeah, I spelled it wrong, but its one of those cultural things. Don't ask me why, but these things developep over long periods of time. This is how a lot of east coast mighiganders say it.....

"Clev - vea - lind

And how Ohio people say it...

"Kli-vlind

Example: People from Ohio often spell Detroit like "Detriot". I think this developed due to distinct accent seperations that happened over long periods of time.

I feel the need to explain this, because this seems like an obvious attack for the S&G point.

2. Yes, it is an obvious hyphen, and I don't think its neccesary to define it, but I will....



hy·phen



      1. the sign (-) used to join words to indicate that they have a combined meaning or that they are linked in the grammar of a sentence (as in pick-me-up, rock-forming), to indicate the division of a word at the end of a line, or to indicate a missing or implied element (as in short- and long-term ).


Now, as you can see, I used Detroit-Cleveland in the way I did, to join the words. This is beneficial, as it quickly shows the readers that I'm a Drug Lord that operates out of Detroit and Cleveland. The Hyphen can be used that way, to avoid having to write that all out. I hope you understand that.

Pictures of Detroit and Cleveland, just in case
---------------------------------------------------------
Detroit





Cleveland





Refutation 1:
The title of your first argument doesn't agree with your thesis. You are trying to prove, in the first argument, that you are a Detroit Cleveland drug lord, not a Detroit-Cleaveland drug lord.

I'm not quite sure what your saying. your basically just restating that my arguments are invalid due to the use of a hyphen.

Refutation 2:
Your second argument is false, as I have just proved that it is possible to prove that you are wrong. I've never even been to Detroit, Cleaveland, Cleveland, or wherever you live, yet your argument is wrong.

It's obvious that my opponent did not read the argument. It says that he must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that I'm a Detroit-Cleveland drug lord. Not that he must provide a doubt.



reasonable doubt



Web definitions






      1. Beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems. Generally the prosecution bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. ...





In translation, my opponent must prove that it is impossible for me to be a Detroit-Cleveland drug lord. I was reasonable, and gave himself a 10% allieviation on beyond a reasonable doubt. So, by the standards of the debate, if there is even an 11% chance I'm a drug lord, then my opponent fails. And going by what he has provided, it is evident that he has brought no evidence that proves I'm not a drug lord operating out of Detroit and Cleveland.

Thank you for accepting Daytona, and good luck.


daytonanerd

Con

My opponent, again didn't specifically clarify, in the last round, that indeed, he wasn't referring to Cleaveland, never stating that he meant 'Cleveland'. Therefore, I must assume that the thesis of this debate is that my opponent is a Detroit-Cleaveland drug dealer.

I shall introduce one more argument into this round, to assess the reasonable doubt of the case.

Argument 2: Race
My opponent, on his profile, states he is 16, male, and white. Keep that data in mind. In this chart(1) from Human Rights Watch, we see the rate of people, per 100,000, are sent to State Prison on drug-related charges. In Michigan, the state in which Detroit is located, for white males, it is shown that per 100,000, there are 16.3 men sent to state prison for drug-related charges. That means, that in the state of Michigan alone, there is a .0163% chance that my opponent would go to jail for a drug-related charge, and for being a drug lord, going to state prison is a very likely offense for the crimes they have done. However, let's compare this to the rate of black males sent to state prison on drug-related charges in Michigan per 100,000 people, which is 218.8. This means that it's far more likely, in fact, 1242% more likely, if I'm doing these numbers correctly, for if he were to be a drug lord, to be black, than if he were white. But since he claims to be white, the likelyhood is decreased greatly of him being a drug dealer. Since we have established that Cleaveland doesn't exist, there is no need to gather statistics on it.

So far, it has been proven that my opponent can't be a Detroit-Cleaveland drug lord, and there is very little chance for my opponent to even be a drug lord in Detroit.

I look forward to next round, Jifpop.

(1):http://www.hrw.org...,
Debate Round No. 2
Jifpop09

Pro

My opponent, again didn't specifically clarify, in the last round, that indeed, he wasn't referring to Cleaveland, never stating that he meant 'Cleveland'. Therefore, I must assume that the thesis of this debate is that my opponent is a Detroit-Cleaveland drug dealer.

Yes, I did explain. It was a spelling error. And according to the rules, S&G wont count.

Argument 2: Race
My opponent, on his profile, states he is 16, male, and white. Keep that data in mind. In this chart(1) from Human Rights Watch, we see the rate of people, per 100,000, are sent to State Prison on drug-related charges. In Michigan, the state in which Detroit is located, for white males, it is shown that per 100,000, there are 16.3 men sent to state prison for drug-related charges. That means, that in the state of Michigan alone, there is a .0163% chance that my opponent would go to jail for a drug-related charge, and for being a drug lord, going to state prison is a very likely offense for the crimes they have done. However, let's compare this to the rate of black males sent to state prison on drug-related charges in Michigan per 100,000 people, which is 218.8. This means that it's far more likely, in fact, 1242% more likely, if I'm doing these numbers correctly, for if he were to be a drug lord, to be black, than if he were white. But since he claims to be white, the likelyhood is decreased greatly of him being a drug dealer. Since we have established that Cleaveland doesn't exist, there is no need to gather statistics on it.

This argument makes no sense, and does still not prove the the BOP required to win. This is a fallacy error.

- 99% of Nazis are white, so you can't be an asian nazi

Converted: There's still the same BOP, and now you have to prove I'm not in the 1% with a 90% BOP.

Conclusin: My opponent has still not proven I'm a drug lord with a 10% room for the BOP.
daytonanerd

Con

Response to Refutation 1:
My opponent has still not said which word the spelling error was made on. It could be any word in the thesis. It could be 'Lawd' instead of 'Lord', or, hell, 'Datroit' instead of 'Detroit'. It has not been made clear on what word my opponent misspelled, and I am therefore forced to conclude that the original thesis still remains. I, as are the voters, are forced to still treat your spelling of "Cleaveland' as intentional, and still a part of the thesis of this debate.

Response to Refutation 2:
I never said that my opponent CAN'T be a drug lord in Detroit. Only, that it is highly unlikely for him to be one. With my 100% BOP, I have to prove that my opponent has a 90% chance of not being a drug lord in Cleaveland and Detroit, and I have proved that it is less than 10% likely for him to even be just a drug lord in Detroit.

CONCLUSION:
I have proved, beyond a doubt, that my opponent can't be a Detroit-Cleaveland drug lord, as Cleaveland simply doesn't exist. I have also proved that it is unlikely, less than 10% likely, that my opponent is even a drug lord in Detroit.

I thank my opponent for this thought-provoking debate.

VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Technition 3 years ago
Technition
Didn't even get to the lord part... smh
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
That picture was taken in 08
Posted by Lovely_Soldier 3 years ago
Lovely_Soldier
Wow, Detroit looks nothing like that... Well now.
Posted by daytonanerd 3 years ago
daytonanerd
I'm reaming you with 'Cleaveland"
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
I'm not an anarchist, or is that statement any bit true.
Posted by Kc1999 3 years ago
Kc1999
Drug lords aren't anarchists.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 3 years ago
MrJosh
Jifpop09daytonanerdTied
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: I think CON won on the Cleaveland thing. This is a bit of semantics, but his point is clear. The "no S&G" argument doesn't hold water, because (1) it is not clearly an S&G issue, and (2) S&G refers to awarding points for spelling and grammar, not to the changing meanings of words when their spellings changes.
Vote Placed by Dakota-Hiltzman 3 years ago
Dakota-Hiltzman
Jifpop09daytonanerdTied
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 manages to show me that Cleaveland doesn't exist.