Resolved: That "b*tches ain't sh*t but hoes and tricks" (2)

Thanks for the debate Biebs. Sorry I couldn't post this any sooner, hope you get time to respond. Objectivity "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. Dre's beliefs 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. Defining reality "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. Thank you.