Instigator / Pro

Ought be a Legal Right to Dueling


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 3 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

By dueling I am talking about the right for at the minimum two people agree to meet in some formal way sanctioned by law and fight each other in mortal combat, even to the death, though this is not to say it could end with a first blood or no blood with both opponents honor satisfied.

Debate can be cut short, 'if agreed to by both parties in the debate comments.

Round 1
(A) Population
Is humanity not near everywhere across this globe?
Is overcrowding not an issue in places?

There being less people in the world would not necessarily be a bad thing. This does not mean to say I favor some Samuel Jackson Kingsman culling of the world. I merely note fewer people would not lead to devastation. After all dueling existed for centuries, and I do not recall hearing of it being some cause of civilizations downfalls.

(B) Honor
Is honor a relic of the past?
That peoples words overflow and dribble down their chins due to any accountability? True you could not murder a man for cursing at you and a deceased loved one of yours at a funeral. But if modern society had a sense of honor and a shame at lack of it. You could defend your families honor and your love for them. Challenge the scurvy cur who dares befoul your loved one's funeral. Challenge them to a duel! Throw you glove in their face and demand a public apology.
Should they refuse, all would know them to be even more of a base coward than their earlier actions implied.

Create in society a 'care for one's reputation,
For what care is there, without consequence,
Honor ought not be something thought of lightly, as we see in so many a politician, but near and dear, as life.

(C) Weeding and Showing
Would People over aggressive, would meet their ends sooner, rather than later,
People of blustering air and insults, would be shown to society, beyond being boors, of being cowardly boors at that.

(D) Freedom
Ought we not have consensual freedom in life?
Freedom may end before a fist hits a face,
Well, that is unless both parties 'agree to one another being 'allowed to box (Sports) one another's faces.

Dueling is illegal under the legal principle that you cannot consent to being killed. Nor to assault with a deadly weapon. Similarly suicide is illegal, same principle.
I don’t want to get too arcane, but remember that most law stems from 13th Century Saxony, where “common law” started. Some of the principle don’t entirely make sense in the modern, secular world because they stem from a religious or moral worldview.
In this case, the “owner” of your body is God. You cannot willingly cause destruction to your body because that is a sin against God. Only the Almighty is allowed to take your life.
Add to this the practical: too many young heirs were dying in duels, which among the aristocracy, is not actually an unlimited resource. Only they people of a noble birth can lead the military, run the government. Yet, because of a toxic sort of masculinity, only they (and not the common man) had to worry about the honor of their family—which could be repaired immediately after a slight via a duel. In short, you don't have to defend your own family's honor with your life, as in modern society honor is irrelevant unless you're a public figure. Likewise,  if you reintroduce honor into modern society, honor crimes and honor killings would become a norm, making good men die because they shamed your family.
“Honour” crimes defined as a “crime that is, or has been, justified or explained (or mitigated) by the perpetrator of that crime on the grounds that it was committed as a consequence of the need to defend or protect the honour of the family.” (See: 2003 reportSo-called "honour crimes," rapporteur of the Council of Europe Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men )

Honour” killings defined as “the murder of a woman by a close family member or partner as a result of (suspected or alleged) shame being brought on a family by the action (a suspicion or allegation will be enough) of the woman” (¶ 10). (See: 2003 reportSo-Called "honour crimes" rapporteur of the Council of Europe Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, Part II Explanatory Memorandum by Mrs. Cryer, ¶ 10.)

Honour”-based violence defined as that any form of violence “exercised in the name of traditional codes of honour. Where the “honour” of the family is at stake, according to the family, and the woman suffers the consequences, it is proper to speak of a so-called “honour crime.”” “Honour” crimes may be described as acts of violence against women “where the publicly articulated ‘justification’ is attributed to a social order claimed to require the preservation of a concept of ‘honour’ vested in male (family and/or conjugal) control over women.”  These definitions take into account the collective and community nature that condones “honour”-based violence. (See: Explanatory Memorandum by Mr. Austin, Rapporteur, The Urgent Need to Combat So-called “Honour Crimes,” Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, 2009 )

That basically means if your wife acted out in strange or erotic behavior in public, you could stab her, or shoot her to protect your familial honor. Kind of stupid, isn't it.
Round 2
(1) The Law
The law is whatever the people legally document the law into,
If I say X should be legal,
Saying that it is 'currently illegal, doesn't work as argument, as such is understood,
Rather I want make it no 'longer illegal, not I think I should preform such action 'while it is illegal.

Nor does the legality of something speak to it's 'rightness or 'usefulness,
Laws can be snuck in, supported by a minority, or created by a people whose morality we no longer share.

(2) Consent
I ask that you speak more on this,
If I 'refuse a duel, was it not refused,
If I accept, was it not accepted,
Is not a choice 'there.

If an individual commits suicide,
Or not,
Was there not a choice.

If your argument is that people acted according to their nature and circumstance,
Well then 'nothing is consented to, thus dueling and suicide cannot be picked out of the mass on everything non-consented.
But I do not think this is your argument, so don't think of (2) as argument on my part, but asking for clarification?

(3) Good Men Die
And bad men,
A difference being that dueling would be 'structured to go more for one than the other,
People who offend freely, in word and deed, who aggresse,
Certainly as our medicine has improved, there are more people than ever,
And what controls has the world, as humanity conquers it's dangers,
Though 'Humanity as a danger remains,
Where shall our aggression go in overcrowding, but our fellow humans,
Pressures build in Universe 25, why not create a pipe to relieve that pressure some.

(4) Ideas of Honor
Vary in society,
As do ideas of Right and Wrong,
If my arguments do not ring Right with people, then let them be discarded.
But, I'll hold to them, and argue for them their Right, until this debate ends.

There are many forms of Honor, that there are, need not mean mine suggested, be one of those we discard.

Further Mine Own Arguments
(E) Culture
A Christian society who places high regard upon turning the other cheek may not view dueling as a honorable action. That does of course require the society to all have that opinion.
Not even all of 'Christian society, given how many denominations and cultures exist within Christianity,
Given the 'history of Christian societies, which allowed duels.

As there can be a difference between war and murder,
Why not between duel and murder,
Surely a duelist is not tossing bombs upon crowded cities, or driving by a house and letting bullets fly.

(F) Society
A society where people are held socially to account for their actions,
Even if the law does not force acceptance,
The 'people see all the easier, what honor has an individual who insults freely, or wrongs others in ways they might escape hiding behind the law.

A man of high control and integrity might be lauded for ignoring his enemies behavior and actions toward himself, even seen as a type of genius should he persuade his enemy the error of their ways.
But shall individuals and groups not become emboldened by a lack of accounting in their actions,
Would not such encourage other scoundrels about, to become the same.

And even worse were the stranger to cause harm to a loved one of yours, what if they were to slap your sister.
Or insinuate in the locale newspaper that your mother was a w****.
Is it so easy to let such behavior continue unabated.
So wise to let behavior and action go unchecked.
For an inch, a foot, A foot a meter I say,
Some peoples don't let up, push boundaries until stopped.

Truth be there are other ways to curb their behavior than dueling, but dueling be one of the options and means of protecting ones social standing as well as their individual view of their own worth. I do admit this can be dependent on the society one lives in.

But No I Say! Let these other people be known as base and cowardly rogues for their actions! Unworthy to share civilized society. Let all people know that insult and harm be not accepted as acceptable! And that men of honor defend the honor of their society and life.

From what I understood from your argument, you are saying that if i insult your mother you could challenge me to a duel to the death on the basis I called your mother insert offensive slang here,  which is totally stupid. How in the hell can you think that an insult constitutes a trial by mortal combat. It is stupid, so is the idea of defending 'familial honor' when you get offended by a joke about a family member. About the slapping your sister thing, instead of dueling, you could hit him back. What you are saying is that for any offense of your honor you should fight someone to the death. 
Now, to get on to my elaboration on consent to duel.
Your emotions would get the better of you, like when you contemplate suicide, it is done simply because the given person feels that they aren't worth anything. In dueling, you could get away with murder because it's technically consensual. What if i bring a knife laced with fast acting poison, poke you in the arm and watch you die because "Haha, you fat gimp, you insulted my mother, now go meet the big man downstairs".
See, it  sounds stupid just thinking about it. You obviously get insulted when your family is insulted, it's normal, but even in medieval times when dueling was common noble practice, it wasn't mainly for honor, it was for land and wealth acquisitions. An example of this: Romulus  defeated Acro, king of Caenina for the spolia opima(The spolia opima were the armour, arms, and other effects that an ancient Roman general stripped from the body of an opposing commander slain in single combat.); the Horatii's defeat of the Alba Longan Curiatii in the 7th century BC is reported by Livy to have settled a war in Rome's favor and subjected Alba Longa to Rome. In both duels there is a strictly political reason for the duel. Even duels of honor was historically for the largest of offenses, for example: (Source: Helga was forced into an unhappy marriage to Gunnlaugr's rival, Hrafn Önundarson. Gunnlaugr and Hrafn met at the Althing and Gunnlaugr challenged Hrafn to a hólmganga or duel of honour. Dueling as you describe it would be nearly unenforceable, due to the small minimum of offense you describe. I would understand fighting someone because they stole your wife but you never say anything like that.
About your idea of law, it is not what the people want, it is what the educated people want. Education today is power. Enough about your ideas of the law tho, let's talk about your views on 'culture and society'. Culture is not worldwide, each region has it's own views, and you cannot change it overnight. Even IF dueling was to be legalized, people wouldn't begin abusing their newfound powers because it is not culturally acceptable to murder, even if it's legal. My point stands tall if you look at the relations between people with no priors and ex convicts. The ex convicts are discriminated because they committed a crime. Social acceptability is the outcome of a collective judgment or collective opinion of a project, plan or policy. The collective judgment may be positive or negative and is never set in time. It may be formed at every territorial level: local, regional or national. Society is worldwide, however, and each culture effects societal viewpoints. You can see this by opening Reddit, going to any kind of cultural subreddit (like r/Bulgaria) and posting something according to your own cultural viewpoints. You will not get good reception, even though you are in one social media outlet (Reddit). This just hammers in the point that even  if a single culture, say English culture, began accepting dueling, most other peoples would not conform, because England is not all of the world, so it's cultural views on dueling wouldn't affect societal views on dueling. It is impossible, socially speaking to make everyone conform to one viewpoint. You try to talk as if this is the 1900s and social revolutions are occurring worldwide, making everyone not tolerate any offence going their way.  My closing statement is this: Don't try to use social or cultural inequality or harassment as a point to convince people to support state sponsored murder.
Round 3
(5) Ideas of Honor
Stupider? Normative I say.
Andrew Jackson shot a guy called Dickinson, in a duel, for various insults and defamatory statements, including Dickinson insulting Jackson's wife.

Nor is there 'only the recourse of a duel,
A person can apologize,
Both people can apologize,
A person 'can refuse the duel.

Honor, reputation, public discourse,
What is modern honor, but something vague, only felt at extremes,
That allows a cesspool to accumulate in the news, in the public sphere,
How easy people in politics slur one another,
No recourse, or example at honor,
For honor is not shared, it becomes something 'personal,
A person is free to insult as many times as they wish, no fear of death, nor fear of losing the publics respect.

(6) Consent
Arguably, what decision can we take, in which our values do 'not move us,
For values and emotion intertwine,
By the value placed in something, we feel our emotions tug,
By our emotions tug, we place value on something.

Ought the Jews go humble into concentration camps and gas chambers,
What is that but emotions of fear, desire for life.

What is that but emotions of pride, desire for right behavior.

We all die, when and how,
Are questions,
Not objective answers all the same.

(7) Duels in History
Arguably duels on the battlefield against enemy combatants, are different than duels in the home country.
But even then,
Should we not expect our leaders to be honorable?
If we held honor as a higher virtue. As something one risked his life for, would our leaders not have to follow? Be it Democrat Emails or Republican Russian connections, would they not be more ashamed if honor mattered more?
Did the leaders of old who would at times risk their own lives in battle or honor not have a quality desirable?
Robert the Bruce of Braveheart fame met Sir Henry De Bohun in single combat upon the battlefield once. Though chastised by his men, is it not honorable he would risk as much as them.

(8) Culture
State sponsored murder, is the death penalty.

Of dueling, outlawed as it is now,
Is another example of government overstepping itself,
Taking away freedom from the individuals,
For not once have I advocated 'murder, an individual killing another against their consent,
A duel may be declined, may be peacefully settled.

If cultures did not accept dueling, so be it,
But there would be benefits, in those that did,
So I argue anyhow.

(9) The Law
I am unsure what you mean, when you say,
"About your idea of law, it is not what the people want, it is what the educated people want." - Lightbringer69 Con #4

Further Mine Own Arguments
(G) The justice system
Our prison system? It is a common subject I hear on this site or elsewhere on how people are unsatisfied with our corrections system. What might one say are the three points of the prison system? I would say

Deterrence so often fails,
The risk of being caught/held accountable, holding more strongly than vague punishment of years.

Where our prison acts mainly with fellow prisoners as educators,
What rehabilitation is to be had.

The prisons in America overflow I would say, Exile to prison so rarely permeant.

Do you not believe that those of violent and criminal temperament would meet their ends sooner if their swords had a well designed place to meet?
Do you think they would be so brash if they were held accountable by others for their actions.
Honor being held up as a virtue would inspire more to follow it and our social standards.


In your argument, you made not a single point while failing to accurately combat my own arguments, but nevertheless, i will further hammer them in while removing your insert viewpoints in a logical debate. Even though this isn't an emotional debate but very well.
"Arguably, what decision can we take, in which our values do 'not move us,
For values and emotion intertwine,
By the value placed in something, we feel our emotions tug,
By our emotions tug, we place value on something."
Pro here is trying to establish that emotions affect every decision man makes, which while accurate is not what my point is, my point was specifically that emotions affect negatively decision making, thus making two people unable to be left to themselves. If I was you, I'd  argue that dueling would undergo vetting by a neutral judge to determine if it has basis to happen. But that's not my job isn't it. To further hammer in my own points: The way you're talking you make it sound like being insulted is a big deal. I get insulted a lot, online and other wise , but am i going around justifying killing  that person because they insulted me. And also, you're projecting your own painfully apparent fragile ego because you cannot comprehend being insulted. If you had seriously believe being insulted is such a sin, you really don't know anything about how to handle an insult
Also, as a side point which I want to point out for voters when this is done, is that Pro sadly is not writing on par, making it hard to understand some of his points, which is quite sad.

Furthering my points
Since you clearly don't understand how law works, let me explain to you. The law wont be determined by angry man-children (most of the time), but by educated lawmakers and vetted by democratically elected leaders and politicians. There are no total democracies in the free world, as leaving lawmaking to regular citizens would evolve into pure chaos. Imagine if people like you constantly bogged down the political offices with dumb laws that by said law must be reviewed and vetted.

New Points

Dueling was made initially because it was too god damn expensive to have people duel. Imagine thousands of court issued men supervising each duel, obviously not for free. The state would have to pay millions to these men, millions which are needed for pensions.  No state would give away so much for the honour of two Joes who they could not care more about. Even without the court issued men to supervise, these duelists wouldn't be retired people, they'd be young and teeming with life (and work drive), which would be decreasing the amount of young men who are just starting to be useful by quite a bit.

Round 4
(10) Emotion in debate
So long as truth is not denied, I do not see the use of emotion as wrong.

Dueling 'already has/had numerous laws based on various countries and time periods.
Take an example of such,
And view dueling spoken of throughout histories and countries.
How could the law 'not have spoken in those times.

Included has often been,
The duel occurring a time in the future,
Other people involved in the dueling process whether as judges or seconds,
The possibility of apologies, before and rather than dueling.

(11) Insults
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

The truth of this can even be seen in modern society,
Where individuals knuckle under society, speaking not always as they believe,
Lest they be fired from their livelihoods.

A person often makes their way in their world with their reputation,
In political office, in marriage, in job searching.
But 'is reputation as it 'was,

Or is it some third rate reputation we hold,
With the number of politicians and their personal scandals, the voters overlook.
Where I ask is society that held one's oath,  word, and honor as paramount.

What are 'modern promises, but light spoken persuasion,
No meaning or hold.

Trite insults
"Usually, challenges were delivered in writing by one or more close friends who acted as "seconds". The challenge, written in formal language, laid out the real or imagined grievances and a demand for satisfaction. The challenged party then had the choice of accepting or refusing the challenge. Grounds for refusing the challenge could include that it was frivolous"

A society where people do not care about their reputation,
Is this 'good?
No I say

(12) The Educated (A bit of a sidebar)
The 'educated, seem much as the 'commoner to me.
"Every four years Bulgarians would head to the polls to give GERB and Borisov yet another term in office… until his luck ran out in 2021. In April of that year, Bulgarian voters punished GERB and Borisov’s coalition partners for years of corruption scandals and abuse of power, leaving them unable to form a government.

Since then, Bulgaria has been on an electoral roller coaster, holding five elections in two years. Neither GERB nor any other political power has been able to secure enough votes to put together a stable government."

To be educated, does not mean consensus.
And 'Democracy, means all the more, that the uneducated be free to push their opinion.
. . .

Nor are the educated more 'civil than the uneducated.
"The government used force, threats and intimidation, branding opponents of the policy as fascists and chauvinists. Some were resettled as far as Vojvodina after they had been resettled from Pirin to SR Macedonia for unsuccessful Macedonization.

Bulgaria adopted the Communist policy of closer rapprochement with Yugoslavia. Dimitrov then launched the initiative of a Balkan Federation that would range from Pirin to the Shar Mountains and reflect a Macedonian consciousness. For this purpose, he launched a policy of forced Macedonisation of the Bulgarian population in the Pirin region through conscious change of ethnic self-determination, held by means of administrative coercion and intensive propaganda."

Is it 'education or 'power, driving the law, in that point of history.
Education 'can be power, but it is not the 'only path to power.

(13 Cost)
If a duel is expensive to hold, who out pay for it but the people involved.
No need for the government to foot the bill.

If in a duel a person should find themself in early retirement,
By death or injury, then let them be paid what is expected for what they had served thus far,
No different than without a duel and retiring early.

A nation does not 'own it's people as involuntary work horses,
Were this so, all manner of activities could be banned,
That decrease an individuals life and health.
Fast food, smokes, alcohol, rock climbing, skydiving, unmarried sex.

(14 Grammar)
Unconventional I might be,
But I don't think I write in a way illegible or difficult to read.

Speak on an example of my grammar you find difficult Lightbringer69,
And my view might change.

Vote on, debate readers,
Should one side or another be readily apparent in flaw or strength.

Further Mine Own Arguments
I've spoken enough in rebuttals to satisfy me.
Round 5
Oh ho ho,
I thought you were not going to pos-
Oh, Ah well. . .
Maybe you'll be here next round.

Concluding the debate thus far.

Round 1
I make the arguments that dueling allows
(A) A paring down of the  Population,
(B) Creates Honor in society,
(C) Weeds out and and Shows individuals of high aggression or low honor,
(D) Allows people Freedom to act as they see fit without violating other's rights.

I don't recall Con addressing the (A) Population or (C) Weeding arguments,
Possibly he found them absurd,
Though I'm holding them in this debate.

Con 'did address (B) Honor and (D) Freedom)
Disagreeing that a person can 'consent to being killed.

I disagreed stating that people can consent, as can be seen by people accepting or refusing.

Con argued that our bodies belong to God,
Which I failed to address,
He then made the argument that people can be adversely effected by their emotions,
Which I 'do agree with,
'But this does not prevent a decision from being made consensually,
Our values and emotions are linked,
We hold people accountable for murder, even if they were angry,
We may lighten punishment, or send to anger management,
But emotions and value intertwine,
We get angry at morally outrageous acts, and by such take action against them,
Even if emotion can lead to bad decisions, it 'also is involved in human decisions we 'ought make.

Lastly, I make the point that duels often in history had cooling periods,
Thus emotion is lessened as an issue.
Thus I view 'Freedom as a point to me.
. . .

Of (B) Honor,
He makes the argument of Honor Crimes,
And honor possibly leading to excessive situations of death.

To which I stated that societies differ,
Societies all have many shared concepts,
Prison for example,
But 'apply those concepts 'differently,
Some societies have horrific prisons,
Some societies have nice prisons,

Introducing more honor and death into society, will not 'necessarily lead to unlawful murder crimes.

Con also makes the argument that only public figures need honor, Con #2

More than ever I say, the 'public is capable of being officials and rich people,
Thus it becomes necessary that 'all have ideas of honor,
If one becomes more a public figure, the 'higher expectations ought rise.

Con's point of honor crimes,
Such as shooting one's wife for "strange or erotic behavior in public"
'Doesn't work I argue,
As different societies have different ideas of right and wrong,
What 'ought be though, is that society 'act on their ideas of right and wrong, I argue.

I view 'Honor as also going my way in points.

(13 Cost),
Con made the argument about paperwork costing the government money,
To which I say, let the duelists pay for it.

Should they die or become injured, well give them whatever they are owed by their employers for that many years of work.

If they are injured in a duel, they don't need public healthcare for that, consequences of freedom,
But if they 'choose, it is their choice, people I argue are not 'owned by their government.

(14 Grammar)
Con made the argument my grammar is lacking,
I'd agree it might be in some parts,
An example of such would be round 1,
"That peoples words overflow and dribble down their chins due to any accountability? "
It would have been better if I said "Due to 'LACKING; and accountability"
But minor grammar problem,

While Con I note,
Begins in Con #6
Using Bold to explain his paragraphs.
Whilst I had done so my entire time in this debate,
This implies I was doing something in my style, worth emulating.
. . .

Well, that's all I have to say,
Myself and Con talked past each other in a few bits,
But I'd argue for what we clashed on,
I had more answers than they.