<p>It’s a strawman argument because the original discussion in debate was the crime rate in Berkeley versus the crime rate at UCLA, and he reduced my argument by stating that every city has crime and therefore the discussion of crime was irrelevant and changed it to a discussion of people being ignorant and leaving their valuables in plain sight. </p>
<p>It’s also a hasty generalization because he’s assuming crime exists everywhere. Yeah that’s true, crime does exist everywhere. Do you download music from the internet? Well guess what, crime exists in your room because you committed it. But there’s a difference between low crime rates, high crime rates and definitely a difference between high and low property crime. </p>
You’ve been going on and on about making hasty generalizations and then you brashly go about making your own.</p>
<p>To expand;</p>
<p>Regarding LA:
a) Some departments at Cal are superior to those at LA. Some departments at LA are superior to those at Cal. However, this difference is mostly quantifiable at the graduate level. Whereas at the undergraduate level, in both universities you have TAs supplementing instruction, running discussions, and grading papers and exams. Couple that with the fact that both schools have over 25,000 undergraduates and a 20+:1 student-to-teacher ratio, it all becomes clear. If you truly believe there is a difference in academics between the two schools (at the undergraduate level) then the basis for your beliefs are highly subjective (much like the rankings of USNews, which is what you’re probably going off of). Both Cal and UCLA are excellent schools for academics, and when deciding between them for your undergraduate studies, you should not consider the “difference in academics” (notice the quotes) in your final decision.
b) This is EXTREMELY subjective. What is hot to you may be “warm” for another. Or are you insinuating that your definition of “really hot” is absolute and all other definitions are invalid or not well-defined in comparison to your own?</p>
<p>Regarding Cal:
a) Once again, extremely subjective. See the reasoning in b) above.
b) ^. Though I must say out of all your generalizations, this is biggest load of crap out of all them.</p>
<p>Crime rates are subjective? Wow. I’m not even going to bother arguing with you. Anyone that says crime rates are subjective is clearly the most irrational person to even attempt to argue with.</p>
<p>I never said UCLA was in the ghetto. lol I think you might be getting me confused with someone else?</p>
<p>And to be honest, I think the problem with your guys’ arguments is that you disagree on the definition of “ghetto.” For example, in the very beginning, I said that Cal and UCLA are not in ghetto areas. That’s because Berkeley has a very high median income per family. And if you drive to Oakland, you’d see that the general “look and feel” of the cities are completely, completely different. (The difference between people actually walking around and nobody being in sight.) So that’s why I said it’s not “ghetto.” When I think of a high crime rate, I think of something inherent with an urban area. When I think of gang violence, high rates of heavy drug use, horrendous high school graduation rates, etc, etc, I think of a “ghetto.”</p>
<p>I really think the only difference is that Essenar’s idea of a ghetto is mostly just based on general crime rate… So, I kinda think you guys both agree that Berkeley has a high crime rate. So, hasn’t enough been said?</p>
<p>“Anyone that says crime rates are subjective is clearly the most irrational person to even attempt to argue with.”</p>
<p>I’m not part of this argument, but you said “clearly” which means little or no effort in knowing. I’m just wondering how A is clearly B, in a 19 word sentence with zero evidence to support the claim for those who do not see so clearly. If its clear, show us how or why. Otherwise your version of clear is only clear to one person, you. Crime rates, if you think about it, can be subjective depending on the crime. If you say crime in general, you are probably assuming that violence is the worst kind of crime that affects the most people, but in reality wouldn’t white collar crime affect more peoples quality of life? A murder only changes a group of peoples lives, whereas a ponzi scheme changes many groups of peoples lives. So subjectivity is almost necessary when painting broad strokes about crime in general. If you narrow crime down with certain rules of looking at the affects, less subjectivity is necessary.</p>