Instigator / Pro
7
1468
rating
6
debates
33.33%
won
Topic
#4387

Legalize Dueling

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Lemming
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1524
rating
51
debates
75.49%
won
Description

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.

-->
@Lemming
@Bella3sp
@the_quiet_poet9

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: the_quiet_poet9 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con
>Reason for Decision: Both addressed all of the arguments given by each other pretty well, but pro kind of blew over how dueling would effect society as a whole. I liked the quotes given by con.

>Reason for Mod Action:

In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
**************************************************

-->
@Lemming

I stated which arguments were countered by what. In the end, I did the final conclusion. I dont like bringing my own opinion into the vote. I just write down things and see what counters what.

-->
@Best.Korea

Thanks for voting.
Seems clear that you read everything, weighed everything, by stating what was said,
Only thing people might say, is you don't say 'why Pro or Con saying this or that, was a better or worse argument.

Still, I appreciate your reading and voting.

-->
@Best.Korea

Thanks.

-->
@Lemming

"I 'expected her to give examples of militaries banning dueling, due to officer death during war,"
I was going to, but I wanted to spread out (test the waters) and not focus on examples of it being banned in other areas for whatever reason.

-->
@Bella3sp

"And I think the point leads to, just because we allow smoking, doesn't mean we should."

That is about safety, yes. I would like if that was dealt with more in the debate itself.

The only thing that I find is generally:

1. You - There is a safety issue. Freedom should be limited because safety.

2. Your opponent - Freedom should not be limited because safety, because we already allow dangerous things and people approve.

So I am not really seeing yet any side outweighting the other on this issue specifically.

Thats why I said I will probably have to judge on other things, such as benefits and honour.

-->
@the_quiet_poet9

I didn't think Bella3sp game any strong examples or logic of societies wrecked by dueling,
But still, appreciate you voting on the debate.

I 'expected her to give examples of militaries banning dueling, due to officer death during war,
Though I'd have argued many military takes a lot of rights away from people, doesn't mean the freeman should have those rights taken away,
Additionally I'd have argued dueling simply could have followed different rules (Some historical examples of such), or been suspended temporarily during war.

-->
@Best.Korea

I think about freedom, I tried to stress the fact about how freedom should be limited.
Not only limited, but this debate dealed with basically, "We should/shouldn't legalize dueling".

And I think the point leads to, just because we allow smoking, doesn't mean we should.
So, using that example still applies. Even though we allow smoking, we shouldn't, same goes for dueling.
We shouldn't allow smoking, and we shouldn't allow dueling.

But in any case, i'll appreciate the vote.

I might vote on this. On the first read, I think Lemming won this mainly due to honour argument being mostly unchallenged. I dont see any real challenge to it.
About freedom, adults are allowed to do things which kill them, such as smoking.
About safety, Bella won on that point, but I feel like it might be outweighted by honour and freedom. I will need to read it a few times to be able to vote.

Not as confident as I was before with this, looking back, but whatever. Bump.

-->
@Lemming
@Bella3sp

Arranging to vote on this later today.
Looking forward to it, guys.

Just read Round 1.
Bella3sp did a fantastic job.

But I definitely know what rebuttals Lemming will use in Round 2.

-->
@Intelligence_06

I 'think wars are usually nonconsensual.

Pretty sure this is already made "legal", 'though not 2 individuals, but two armed forces 100,000 and over each with a firearm in their hands and dull multicolored suits on them.

-->
@Bella3sp

No worries on the 2 weeks wait,
If I minded, I'd make a shorter time period.

-->
@Lemming

Yeah, thanks. I've been working on it for around half an hour.
My bad for the two week wait.

-->
@Bella3sp

Just a reminder, in case debate has been forgotten.
You seem to have quite a few on your plate.