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

'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.