Ought be a Legal Right to Dueling
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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.
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.
Both Pro and Con gave good arguments, with Con having a slight edge.
I gave conduct to Pro since Con forfeited 2 rounds.
Pro argues that humanity is overpopulated, and that dueling can be a productive way to enforce population control. (No evidence is given for the planet being overpopulated or that dueling is effective, but this argument is droppped by Con so I’ll ignore it.)
Pro brings up that dueling is a good way to preserve one’s honor and that too many people get away with disrespect and consensual dueling can be used for accountability. If the offender refuses the duel, then they will be ostracized the rest of their life. Conversely, dueling can be used to defend your reputation or friends and family. Pro also states dueling and civilization can co-exist, as they clearly have in the past. What Pro needs to do is elaborate on what kind of dueling? Sword fight or bare-knuckled brawling to the death? Or gun fight?
Con counters by mentioning religion and saying a person doesn’t have a right to their own autonomy, citing God as the ultimate authority. Without proof, I consider that argument void. Con does bring up a valid point about how dueling can’t be consensual because people who try to commit suicide are overwhelmed by emotion and not in a place of stability to make such a permanent decision.
This retort is very poorly delivered, however. As Con uses legality as their defense. Pro cleverly dismantles this argument by pointing out the government is overstepping their boundaries by enforcing restrictions on a person’s choice of what they can’t do with their body. Con’s statement about lethal-based combat because of an offensive comment is disproportionately absurd.
Pro also implies that pleas to insanity as a basis to deny consent is an illusion. Because every human is emotional and all decisions are driven by emotion. They are still responsible for their own actions.
Con disrespect Pro by stating he is incapable of comprehending the law and wrongly attacks his grammar. So conduct to Pro.
Spelling & grammar was decent and consistent on both sides, so it’s a tie. Pro using an obsolete, formal style of writing is not poor grammar. Nor should it be considered such.
Both sides also provided enough sources, so it’s a tie.
Frankly, I’m disappointed by Con’s performance because this is such an easy debate to win against Pro.
40% forfeit. But I'll give a brief RFD.
Con drops the entire affirmative case near the end. Pro's points on Honor, population, and freedom remain essentially uncontested once Con stops participating. This debate comes down to consent near the end, and while Con makes some decent points early on, Pro argues that this is outweighed by freedom and that emotional decisions can still be consensual. Maybe these points are flawed, but we never find out, because Con ditches the debate halfway through.
I do not understand why a debater would choose to forfeit.
'Many groups of people alternatively legalize then illegalize, then legalize actions. And so on.
Though I admit I myself, for a fondness of using the crowds actions to gauge my own.
Still, that we're doing something 'now, doesn't itself make an action good, to my thinking.
Still, I am glad for the feedback and the vote.
It was a good debate.
Con's slight edge to me was the view that dueling had been legal , and is now illegal in 48 states.
Thanks for voting, I admit since I ended up losing to Sir.Lancelot,
I hope a bit to lose all three of these duel debates,
As a sometimes all or nothing person,
Also be a bit funny to see no wins in my profile.
What would you say Lightbringer69's edge was?
I admit I view the debate as a fair bit subjective towards voters,
While dueling may encourage or discourage this or that value,
What the voter might lean towards is 'their own value, and whichever debater in their arguments encourages it.
If I were Pro, I’d probably drop the Overpopulation argument completely.
I feel it’s irrelevant to the discussion of dueling and would require more work to defend when there are better constructive points to use.
When I finish up one of my other debates, I can recreate this one and make myself Con!
Thanks for voting,
What are your thoughts on dueling?
Given your vote that Con is the easier side,
It would look that you consider dueling as a proposition has massive holes in it.
Overpopulation,
If humans cause the extinction of many other species,
Because of how many places and in such density as we live,
I view us as overpopulated,
Mind you, this thought is more for the view of exploitation, than care for the other species.
Can't exploit something if it's gone.
I also view the lack of free land available to be picked from, for people,
As another sign of too many people,
Though admittedly that also requires a change in society/government.
And true I didn't make any justifications, sources, for Earth being overpopulated or not,
And maybe even my above aren't convincing.
Dueling Type,
There being such a wide variety of dueling,
I didn't think it a vital aspect of the debate,
Compared to what I assume most people object to,
The killing and the death.
Maybe the injury, lack of workers, peer pressure,
But I assume it's mostly the perceived murder/killing, loss of potential life lived, that bothers people.
Consent,
I 'do think the argument of people being overwhelmed is decent,
But I'm not fully convinced myself, hence the emotion tied to decision argument,
Currently a gray/unsure area in my thoughts.
Sir.Lancelot,
"The member has reached the maximum allowed number of active debates"
It looks that I can't challenge you to another debate, currently.
Mind recreating this debate?
I’d like to be Con.
I get the point on freedom, but I've got reservations about letting individuals make permanent decisions that they're likely to regret later. That said, I think you did well here.
Thanks for voting,
I wasn't even going to ask for votes on this debate, as I felt I stumbled about so much in it,
But I appreciate your voting.
I'm curious though,
Of your thoughts on dueling?
To me,
Seems if one places Freedom and Self determination highly,
The 'damage it might cause to the participants is mitigated.
Of damage to family,
Mitigated by laws 'regulating whose allowed to duel.
Of society,
Mitigated by valuing Freedom and Self determination above it.
. . .
I wasn't highly convinced by the Honor Killings argument of Con,
Because different cultures 'have similar institutions, but run them different,
Some prisons are torture prisons,
Some are nice,
Makes prisons more neutral than good or bad, by the bad.
. . Unless there was some strong argument of the good near always turning bad, maybe.
The argument I found hard from Con,
Was their stating the stupidity or jerkishness of dueling in some cases,
Such as spilling coffee on someone, minor insults, think skin, so on.
But to me that seems more a question of whether the individual 'ought do it,
Than whether they should be 'allowed to do it.
And updated.
Thanks. My bad to ask, but are you also able to increase the character limit by around 5k more? Just realized my rebuttals might exceed.
Other than that, i'll be able to accept.
--
Yeah, its alright. I'm testing a few things out and it might develop into a strong opinion but its not quite there yet.
I would,
Though I tell you beforehand that I'm not debating this topic out of a strong belief in it.
https://www.debateart.com/members/Lemming/qualifications
Says I still don't have enough debates to vote.
I also find the idea interesting, and wonder how people might have/would justify such laws,
Whether in history or fiction.
I suppose I could read some old debates in history about when dueling was argued for or against, but they're not always easy to find,
And I keep forgetting, get distracted by other stuff.
If I'm disagreeable with RationalMadman, it's because I thought he was insulting me, though I could have acted better.
If I'm disagreeable with Lightbringer69, it's because we're debating,
Though maybe he was a bit insulting in round 3, 'that made me happy, as it only hurts his chances of winning (Conduct) Though his conducts not so bad, directions you know.
I've not tried to insult him myself, though I suppose pointing out some difficult times in Bulgaria, might be considered insulting, I don't mean it that way.
One of my main points has been meant about American politics,
If I mention Bulgaria, it's out of curiosity and the personal element, people respond differently when they are more related or familiar with a subject.
I don't mean the personal element to 'bother him, but I 'am curious of other people's views, other people's countries.
Anyway, jah, I'll send you a debate challenge.
Now that I think about it, would you be willing to do this with me?
Same parameters, description and resolution. Unless you want changes.
If 19-21 is the fail degree you can achieve, I'll applaud you. Keep telling yourself you could fail though, that's a good way to never go anywhere in life.
If I beat you up bloody and made you cry now, would that make me appear better or worse in your eyes? Exactly. (Rhetorical)
Think again about your premise and get a grip.
(Grin)
I 'think I could do as well as you did, (Fail),
Maybe even better, (Win),
But it's not an interest of mine.
I think people skills are a valuable asset, myself.
I am not running in the next one, I'll be busy irl and have no intention to stay on this site after I end my debates and either the semifinal or final of the tournament I'm in. This site is dying, I have no intention to stick around here, it's full of trolls who can't debate for shit.
I definitely don't know or care about how to work the public. That's for fake bitches who need their approval.
Those who voted for me voted for a genuine campaign, those who voted Wylted voted out of a braindead urge to stand against me. He literally had no campaign other than that he doesn't want me to win.
If that is the public of the site, or the majority of it, I don't want to win them over. They don't deserve me. You don't seem to get that, you couldn't run and win if you tried though so idk what insult you're trying.
Eh, All I'm going to do is talk a bit, hear you talk a bit,
Maybe let my irritation get a - nah, no I won't.
Well, no, I'm not going to beat you up,
We're communicating online, how 'would I? (Rhetorical)
Heh, I've never been in a physical fight in my life.
Eh, evolution, Evolve to be violent, evolve to be peaceful, either one's an evolution,
Though I suppose some people might say 'devolved,
I'm not sure devolution exists from a scientific viewpoint.
Heh, you sure do know how to work the public though, (Sarcasm, Darn I did let my irritation get the better of me)
Truly my mind looks forward to the next DART Presidential election.
What you gonna do? Beat it out of me?
I'm snarky, sneering and you have to handle it, welcome to the real civilised world where bitches disrespect us and we have to not hurt them. Well done, you evolved.
Some people learn the hard way in life,
I didn't say it was good, or glorify it, nor did I state it's purpose to be 'terror.
Sure it's not you on the high horse?
You 'sound mighty sarcastic and sneering, to my ear.
you were glorifying beating the shit out of civilians to instil terror in them.
Don't you dare get on a high horse.
Well, you can encourage prison violence if you like,
Not my angle in this debate though.
Why would they overflow? They can just duel each other to cull the population. :) Oh how great a way of life.
Until the prisons overflow.
Alright, send those animals to prison, then they can be among the savages they wish to be. Cheers.
@RationalMadman
I've known some people in life,
To say a caveman experience, was a a valuable moment when they learned what can happen when not respecting others.
(They got beaten up for some type of behavior I mean)
I'm not saying it's 'good to beat other people up, especially if not both agreeing to it,
Just the thought I had after reading your post.
@Barney
Fair point on wording,
Alas, too late, I just got back from work.
Well, I wouldn't say right to force someone into a duel,
But right to challenge and accept, or refuse, be what I 'meant.
Lots of rights have caveats though, or legal strings,
Like bearing arms, can't bear arms in some places.
I advise changing the topic to something like “Legalize Fatal Dueling.”
Making it a right is much harder to prove. We have the right to life and freedom from organ harvesting, the right to force someone else into a duel seems absurd.
It is for some parts, though, both sides and the represented on their behalf ought to sign a form to accept the terms and conditions.
Cavemen mentality
I should have known it would be legal in Texas.
Consent to do something that has been suggested by another person.
Abe demands Bob apologize for some situation, or accept a duel,
Bob is able to decline, with no consequences other than people thinking him to have lost honor,
However Bob states that he 'agrees to the duel.
The two individuals then follow the legal dueling procedure,
Whatever it be, informing the authorities beforehand, using seconds, or whatever etiquette may be.
. . .
Well, 'agree would mean, yes I consent to duel you,
Maybe the dueling culture has it that the challenged party is able to choose the weapons used, time, place, to what extent the duel is to be fought,
I might have to re-read on duels, if someone debates a certain way.
. . .
"Since Lincoln was challenged by Shields he had the privilege of choosing the weapon of the duel. He chose cavalry broadswords "of the largest size." "I didn't want the d—-d fellow to kill me, which I think he would have done if we had selected pistols," he later explained. For his own part, he did not want to kill Shields, but "felt sure [he] could disarm him" with a blade. At six feet, four inches tall, Lincoln planned to use his height to his advantage against Shields, who stood at a mere five feet, nine inches tall.
The day of the duel, September 22, arrived and the combatants met at Bloody Island, Missouri to face death or victory. As the two men faced each other, with a plank between them that neither was allowed to cross, Lincoln swung his sword high above Shields to cut through a nearby tree branch. This act demonstrated the immensity of Lincoln’s reach and strength and was enough to show Shields that he was at a fatal disadvantage. With the encouragement of bystanders, the two men called a truce. "
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/abraham-lincolns-duel#:~:text=Since%20Lincoln%20was%20challenged%20by,pistols%2C"%20he%20later%20explained.
Define "agree" and I might accept.
And by agree you mean agree to just go to that location?
"Washington and Texas are the only two states in the United States where mutual combat is legal. In Washington, the mutual combat must take place in a public place, and both parties must agree to the fight. Additionally, the altercation must not result in serious bodily injury, or participants can face charges."
https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/mutual-combat-states/#:~:text=Washington%20and%20Texas%20are%20the,or%20participants%20can%20face%20charges.
Also edited my debate to say be able to duel, even to the death.
I believe in Seattle it is legal. I saw that one RLSH do it in front of a cop.
Yes.
Elaborate?
Are you saying there should be a right to duel?