The Instigator
TheCommonMan
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
JacobAnderson
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

There Is A Small Chance of Being Murdered in Most Large Cities

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...
TheCommonMan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2013 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 798 times Debate No: 41323
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

TheCommonMan

Pro

Debate Title: There Is A Small Chance of Being Murdered in Most Large Cities

Purpose: To give data, personal experience, and reasoning to show that living/being in large cities/ghettos doesn't necessarily mean you will be murdered.

Rules:

The burden of proof is on both pro and con.
First round is acceptance.
Second round is arguments.
Third round is rebuttals, re-arguments, and conclusions.
JacobAnderson

Con

I accept your debate. May the best debater win.
Debate Round No. 1
TheCommonMan

Pro

Argument Number One:

As I have stated, I must show that there is a small percent chance that in most large cities, you will be murdered. In my first argument, I will show the statistics of murder for a few of the largest cities in the US.

New York, NY

http://www.city-data.com...

In 2011, 6.3 out of every 100,000 people were involved in a murder in New York City. That means that only .0063% of people in New York City were murdered/murdered someone else.

Los Angeles, CA

http://www.city-data.com...

In 2011, 7.7 out of every 100,000 people were involved in a murder in Los Angeles. That means that only .0077% of people in Los Angeles were murdered/murdered someone else.

Chicago, IL

http://www.city-data.com...

In 2011, 15.9 out of every 100,000 people were involved in a murder in Chicago. That means that only .0159% of people in Chicago were murdered/murdered someone else.

Houston, TX

http://www.city-data.com...

In 2011, 9.2 out of every 100,000 people were involved in a murder in Houston. That means that only .0092% of people in Houston were murdered/murdered someone else.

Average Percentage of All Above Murder Percentages: .009775%

Argument Number Two:

In argument number one, I showed that even the biggest and most dangerous cities in the US still have only .009775% of people who are involved in murder. However, the cities that I have given data for above are the biggest and most dangerous cities in the US. There are many other smaller and less dangerous cities that have lower murder rates. That means that the murder rate of all large cities combined is even smaller than the rate that I have provided.

Argument Number Three:

I have been/lived in large cities/ghettos in the past. I can tell you from personal experience that most murders can be avoided quite easily by nout upsetting people on a consistant basis. For example:

http://www.all-about-forensic-psychology.com...

"Jesse sets up six categories: murder for gain, revenge, elimination, jealousy, lust of killing, and from conviction. The last category covers homicide by the state - capital punishment."

While some murders can"t be avoided and have no cause, most murders occur for the reasons above. Four of the reasons in particular are revenge, elimination, and jealousy. Half of the main reasons for murder are caused by the victim doing something to upset the murderer. Therefore, half of all murders in large cities can be avoided by not upsetting or disturbing people left and right. In doing so, your likeliness of being murdered is slimmer.

Summary:

My first argument established that the murder rates for the largest and most dangerous cities are very small. In my second, I explained that the murder rate for all large cities combined is likely to be even smaller. My third argument showed that the chances of an individual person being murdered can be lowered. Overall, I showed that the chances of being murdered in a large city/ghetto is slim to none. In the 2nd round, my opponent must show that people have a large chance of being murdered in large cities/ghettos.
JacobAnderson

Con

JacobAnderson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheCommonMan

Pro

Since my opponent forfeited, I feel like there's nothing I need to say.
JacobAnderson

Con

JacobAnderson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
TheCommonManJacobAndersonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Due to the fact that pro was the only one to make an argument, he wins. He also wins conduct due to forfeit.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
TheCommonManJacobAndersonTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF