Resolved: That "b*tches ain't sh*t but hoes and tricks" (2)
I will be arguing the affirmative on Dr. Dre's famous proposition "b*tches ain't sh*t but hoes and tricks" as heard in his 1992 album "The Chronic" . The proposition will henceforth be referred to as "Dre's Law." First round is only for acceptance and/or definitional issues, and I accept the burden of proof on this contentious matter.
[bich] Show IPA
a female dog.
a female of canines generally.
a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, especially a woman.
b lewd woman. 
For the rest of the definitions I had to consult an alternative source (Urbandictionary.com) to account for the unorthodox phrasing present in Dre's Law.
1. A skank
2. A woman that is too loose in the booty.
3. Woman or man that f*** anything with two legs.
4. A promiscuous person. 
The fourth definition most likely encapsulates the concept the best.
Term directed more toward females most commonly used for women who play with your head in the sense of acting like they want you one day and hardly noticing you the next 
In plain English the proposition loosely states "A malicious, unpleasant woman is nothing but a promiscuous individual and/or "teases."
For the purposes of debate, I am perfectly willing to accept my opponent's translation of Dre's law as "A malicious, unpleasant woman is nothing but a promiscuous individual and/or "teases.". However, since procrastination through pedantry is a speciality of mine, I would like to make a few notes on some of these definitions.
My opponent chooses to spell "hoe" as a homonym of the handy yet potentially deadly garden tool that we all know and love. Although this spelling looks right to anyone with a good grasp of English and despite the fact that slang is bound to vary in spelling, I would like to annoyingly and nit-pickingly assert that "ho" is a more appropriate choice of alphabetical representation for this term.
It is after all generally recognised to be a contraction of "whore" http://www.thefreedictionary.com... and in its most literal sense to refer to an actual prostitute. However, Pro is completely correct to assert that it is often used in reference to any promiscuous woman.
Regarding "trick", I'm happy with the definition for this debate, but would like to go on a brief tangent to explore another possible interpretation of Mr Dre's claim. Although "trick" is often used in the way my opponent describes, it is even more often used to describe a prostitute's customers (as in "turning tricks".) This is acknowledged in Pro's own source.
So what I'm suggesting as a possible alternative interpretation, (purely as an unnecessary side note) is that Dre could actually be saying that "bitches" are entirely sexual and monetary objects; onecan either spend money on them, or earn money from them. This fits in with the classic pimp ideology, as espoused by such ghetto legends as Iceberg Slim. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Anyway, as I said I'm totally down with my opponent's definitions for this debate, so with such irrelevant hypothesising out of the way, I look forward to a rigorous and stimulating debate on the matter at hand.
Since DDO is not kind to profanities, I have simplified the corresponding terms in the proposition to their first letters. So clearly B would be b****, T is trick, and H is ho (can I say that one?)
I have been wrestling with this resolution for a few days now. I can immediately conclude that Dre’s proposition reflects a subjective judgment that has essentially formed into a component of Dre’s worldwide. Arguably, B containing properties T and H could be said to be part of Dre’s objective reality. Sociologically, this idea has credit. In their 1966 book The Social Construction of Reality authors Berger and Luckmann describe how for socialized individuals objective reality is molded by social facts and institutions: “By ‘successful socialization’ we mean the establishment of a high degree of symmetry between objective and subjective reality” . Additionally, Dre’s conception of B is certainly a social fact given his roots from the poorer, inner cities of Los Angeles and Compton. Philosophical mumbo-jumbo aside, Dre operates directly under this premise in his environment and this subjective judgment has been effectually molded into his worldview.
Any attempt to frame this debate in traditional universal terms will certainly fall flat. Language is a tool we use to convey our sense of reality. Dre has his conception of B, and Con has his. So, are we at a deadlock? Perhaps, but regardless of one’s views on this subject it is true that Dre stated a factually correct claim that objectively purveys his notion of reality. It is useless for Con to attempt to debunk Dre’s proposition given that his own interpretation is simply his own attempt at defining reality – namely through his own “lense” (genes, upbringing, luck, etc.)
 The Social Construction of Reality, p. 129.
'Tis an intriguing and entertaining attempt at argument by my pseudo-youthful, pseudo-female opponent. It is as unconventional as it is engaging.
Basically, Pro opens his argument by acknowledging that the resolution is an entirely subjective judgement, and later confirms that it is objectively false: "Any attempt to frame this debate in traditional universal terms will certainly fall flat."
Surely that is a blatant concession? Never before in all my days of trawling through debates on this despicable yet beloved website have I witnessed a debater assert the objective falsehood of his resolution in his opening argument. Props to JBF.
Pro also concedes that all of his philosophical arguments are mere "mumbo-jumbo"; an assessment that I can certainly drink to and agree with.
In any case the mumbo-jumbo seems to rest on some incredibly flawed assumptions, asserted as fact with no supporting evidence.
Firstly Pro asserts that Dre's law is actually Dre's perception of reality, rather than merely a lyric to a song he wrote that might not accurately reflect the man's true opinion. Pro tells us that this lyrical fragment is a faithful representation of Mr Dre's subjective worldview with no justification for this claim.
One must consider that this super producer and West Coast rap icon is now and was then, above all, an entertainer and a business man. Dre spent years producing dance floor friendly boogie electro hop with The World Class Wreckin' Cru, (check him out here in his spangly suit: http://en.wikipedia.org... ) before being catapulted to stardom via the NWA project. After achieving success through records glorifying violence and exploitation of women with NWA, which way do you think he's likely to go on his first solo album?
I would assert that in all probability as an intelligent, creative and successful individual, Dre probably doesn't truly believe in his heart of hearts that all unpleasant, malicious women are nothing but promiscuous individuals and/or teases. Burden of proof is on the Pro and instigator for asserting that this is Dre's subjective reality.
The closest Pro does come to evidence for this claim, is his reference to Dre's geographical upbringing: "Dre's conception of B is certainly a social fact given his roots from the poorer, inner cities of Los Angeles and Compton."
This seems to me to be a preposterous and prejudiced premise. Is Pro really saying that it is a social fact that all unpleasant, malicious women from these areas are either promiscuous individuals, or tease, or both? That's an extraordinary claim that will require extraordinary evidence for me to accept it.
Pro points out that "Language is a tool we use to convey our sense of reality." Bearing this in mind, he should perhaps avoid debating that a statement is true even though he accepts it as false. Language can also be a powerful tool for obfuscating what we actually mean.
Pro concludes his argument by pre-emptively dismissing anything I might say as "simply [feverish's] own attempt at defining reality". This appears to make his entire argument self-refuting, because if my subjective reality can be dismissed so easily, then Mr Dre's subjective reality certainly can too.
Dre's law is nothing more than an example of an entertainer/businessman chatting pseudo-sexist rubbish in order to sell records.
The 'Objectivity' Contention
I told Con that I had to be untraditional in the comments section, and here it is. Unfortunately, he mistakes my wording for a concession. What is an objectively false statement? If I were to say that red heads do not exist outside out the United States I would be objectively wrong. To contemplate whether B exists outside of the United States is objectively drivel, but not objectively wrong. Dre could easily maintain consistency by claiming that B only exists because he perceives it or that H and T are intrinsic properties of B. If we look at it from Dre's view and add some simple logical backing, the idea can easily be universalized once its subjectivity if accepted. Similarly, if I were to make a subjective judgment like "horses are bad" the statement is neither objectively right or objectively wrong. If I were to pose "horses are bad" as a debate topic, Con could not accurately claim that he is objectively correct in claiming Con because his claim amounts to "horses are objectively neutral or better" not merely the negation of the universal claim that horses are bad.
Does Dre really believe Dre's Law?
Dre actually cites a few cases in his lyrics in "B ain't sh1t."
We used to roll around and f**k the h0es at night
Tight than a m0ther**cker with the gangsta beats
And we was ballin' on the m0ther**cking Compton streets
Peep, the s*** got deep and it was on
Number one song after number one song
Long as my m0ther*u*king pockets was fat
I didn't give a **** where the b**** was at
But she was hangin' with a white b**** doin' the s*** she do
S****** on his d*** just to get a buck or two
And the few ends she got didn't mean nothin'
Now she's suing 'cause the s*** she be doin' ain't s***
B**** can't hang with the streets, she found herself short
So now she's takin' me to court
It's real conversation for your a**
So recognize and pass to Daz
I once had a b1tch named Mandy May
Used to be up in them guts like everyday
The ***** was the bomb, had a ***** on sprung
I was in love like a mother**cker lickin' the pearl tongue
The homies used to tell me that she wasn't no good
But I'm the maniac in black, Mr. Snoop Eastwood
So I figure n***** wouldn't trip with mine
Guess what? Got gaffled by one time
I'm back to the mothe***k1ng' county jail
6 months on my chest, now it's time to bail
I get released on a hot sunny day
My n**** D.O.C. and my homey Dr Dre
Scooped in a coupe, Snoop we got news
Your girl was trickin' while you was draped in your county blues
I ain't been out a second
And already gotta do some mothe*****1ng chin checking
Move up the block as we groove down the block
See my girl's house, Dre, pass the glock
Kick in the door, I look on the floor
It's my little cousin Daz and he's ****1n' my h**, yo
(B***** ain't sh*t)
I unc**ked my s***... I'm heart-broken but I'm still locked
Man, f**k a *****! 
Even if Dre does not believe in this proposition exactly, it is quite apparent that the mentality of Dre's law pervades life in early 90s Compton, California. If there are social facts about male attitudes towards the female's role in the inner city in Compton, this is certainly one of them. To gloss over gender attitudes would be unbelievably ignorant, as is the view that "Dre is just randomly saying it to sell records." I will stand my ground that such an attitude is an entrenched social fact, and thus an effective medium of an objective reality. Note that there are different meanings for "objective" reality and I use them in a different sense throughout this argument.
Am I dismissing feverish's attempt to defining reality?
Source in comments.
Thanks for the debate Biebs. Sorry I couldn't post this any sooner, hope you get time to respond.
"I told Con that I had to be untraditional in the comments section, and here it is. Unfortunately, he mistakes my wording for a concession. What is an objectively false statement?"
I accepted this debate on the understanding that it would be unconventional, but I can't help being somewhat of a stickler for tradition when it comes to objective truth in a debate. To my mind, admitting that the resolution is objectively false is about as clear as an acceptance of defeat can be.
"If I were to say that red heads do not exist outside out the United States I would be objectively wrong. To contemplate whether B exists outside of the United States is objectively drivel, but not objectively wrong."
I fail to see the relevant distinction between red-heads and B here, but obviously merely contemplating something can't be wrong. Instigating a debate as Pro for a resolution is not the same as merely contemplating something though; it is stating a position on the truth of the matter at hand.
"Dre could easily maintain consistency by claiming that B only exists because he perceives it or that H and T are intrinsic properties of B. If we look at it from Dre's view..."
What Dre could do or say is neither here nor there as the man is not here to represent himself; it is not possible for me or Biebs to look "from Dre's view" because neither of us is Dre (at least not that I'm aware of). Pro seems to think that he has the authority to speak for Dre and privileged knowledge of the intricate inner workings of the musician's mind. I respectably pooh-pooh this nonsensical notion.
"the idea can easily be universalized once its subjectivity if accepted."
I really don't understand this.
"if I were to make a subjective judgment like "horses are bad" the statement is neither objectively right or objectively wrong. If I were to pose "horses are bad" as a debate topic, Con could not accurately claim that he is objectively correct in claiming Con because his claim amounts to "horses are objectively neutral or better" not merely the negation of the universal claim that horses are bad."
I adamantly disagree here. If Pro were Pro to "horses are bad" I would happily take Con as he would indeed be wrong. "Horses are bad" is an absolute statement, and is clearly wrong because horses are not automatically always bad in every situation. As Con, the burden would simply be to prove that horses are sometimes good, which wouldn't be too tricky I should think.
Con quotes at length from the song from which the quote in question is lifted, but it should be noted that the second half of this extract, from after "pass to Daz", is actually written and performed by Dat N1gga Daz and can't feasibly be construed as in any way reflecting the opinions or ideas of Mr Dre. This can easily be confirmed by listening to the track or checking the sleeve-notes
As for the portion that is written and performed by Dre, even if we were to accept that it is a true and accurate reflection of Dre's subjective reality, rather than just lyrics to a song, I really can't see what this is supposed to reveal that has any relevance to my opponent's translation of the resolution.
The section of the lyrics Pro cites that are actually written and performed by Dre have almost nothing to do with women, promiscuous, malicious or otherwise. As the first line makes clear, the B in this case refers to Dre's previous partner in rhyme and business Eric "Eazy E" Wright. This is a verse about a business vendetta, not about why all malicious women are promiscuous and/or teasers.
"if Dre does not believe in this proposition exactly, it is quite apparent that the mentality of Dre's law pervades life in early 90s Compton, California."
Unless I've been unwittingly trapped by some kind of mumbo-jumbo skullduggery, I think I can safely agree that there were a lot of sexist male attitudes in that area at that time (though I think "pervades" is probably misleading hyperbole) without accepting the resolution.
I don't really get the whole 'some people think a certain way so therefore it's true' argument about "social facts" if I'm honest. Maybe I've missed something and I apologise if I've just failed to understand this central argument of Pro's. To my mind, if it's not true, then it's not true, whatever people think. I'm pretty sure most atheists and agnostics wouldn't accept the Christian God as fact, simply because they know a lot of people believe in him.
"Dre's art relates directly to his experience"
There doesn't seem to be much about his experience of rocking shiny suits at the disco in his later art. It’s perhaps worth pointing out that Dre's main creative art is his production, not his vocals or lyrics. Although he is also an accomplished rapper, it is clearly his production skills and business acumen that have made him rich and famous.
As argued and not refuted, Dre is an entertainer and a business man and makes stuff that people will buy. The main money spending fan-base for Dre's art (as well as for the art of the other three rappers he mentions here) is not inner city youth from Compton but middle class kids of all races from suburbs all over the world. This audience thinks sexism is funny and cool, probably because of their sexual insecurities and sometimes confused relationships with their mothers.
Portraying the violent, misogynistic stereotype of the urban black American young male and selling it to a predominantly white audience is exactly how Dre and a lot of other people in the hip hop industry have made an awful lot of money. It doesn't make Dre's law the artist’s reality and it certainly doesn't make it true.
"Imagine if I spoke to a cowboy in the 1800s over the use of horses, and he tells me that "horses are good." Now, imagine a conversation with an Arab trader over the use of horses in transporting objects over miles of sand and he tells me that horses are bad and needy. Who is right? How do we approach the problem if it were to be posed on DDO?"
It seems blindingly simple to me. Neither is right because horses are not universally good or bad, they are good for some things and bad for others.
If the cowboy and the Arab had the opportunity to have a little firsthand experience of each other's culture, they would both come to understand that horses are good at running fast and jumping over small obstacles on the temperate plains of the US, but, (compared to something like camels,) they are not so good at carrying heavy loads for long periods of time in searing desert heat.
"Given the non-starter of going by the standard of true philosophical objectivity...”
Pro seems to have based his entire case on this rejection of objectivity, without any real justification of why it is a "non-starter". Traditional or not, this was presumably still supposed to be a debate of some sort. The truth is not an immutable concept that we can discard willy-nilly from the arena of debate.
Dope track still.
OMGJustinBieber forfeited this round.
|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||7|