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
Tags
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
53
debates
75.47%
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.
Round 1
Pro
#1
(A) Population
Is humanity not 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.
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.
(B) Honor
Ought honor be a relic of the past?
What care do we see in public figures of their honor,
When political scandals frequent the news,
And candidates failings are easily excused, for honor is put far down the list in our priorities.
Better to create in society a 'care for one's reputation,
And without consequence, how can care occur?
Honor ought not be something thought of lightly, as we see in so many a politician, but near and dear, as life.
(C) Freedom
Ought we not have 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.
Does it make sense, to against our consent, be drafted into wars and be forced to kill those who do not wish to be killed?
Yet not have the freedom to risk our own lives of our own consent, against other also willing to risk their own.
If drugs and obesity are allowed,
Why this cutting of our lives short, but not dueling?
Con
#2
My apologies for making you wait the entire two weeks, I end up losing motivation and procrastinating. I was getting ready to waive this round, but it looks like i'm fine. It's a bit rushed, next round will be hopefully, better.
1. Opening:
Legalizing dueling is allowing the right for at the minimum of two people that agree to meet that would be in a some formal way sanctioned by law and fight each other in moral combat. The fight can lead to death, though it doesn't need to end in death with both opponent honor satisfied. Controversially we should not legalize dueling because of the side effects and risks due to legalizing dueling. Five contentions will support that following argument that we should not legalize dueling.
2. Burden of Proof:
Shared between the instigator and the contender.
3. Questions
I ask that the pro answers the following:
- Are you suggesting that murder is alright because the victim did have a chance to defend themselves? Though, if you're not suggesting that, is it because they didn't consent? Then comes the real question, do you view murder as wrong? If you view murder as wrong, does it matter consent or not?
4. Contentions
I. Population
If everyone or most were to want to duel then what would happen to the population? It seems as though even if it didn't end in death how many would be put into hospitals? Do hospitals even have enough room for both people who are sick versus people who got into a reckless fight? What if people were not even able to get into the hospital and weren't able to get treated? Many would die even if not actually a fight to the death which could result with the population coming to a close end.
II. Immaturity
Recklessness
I believe there is too much recklessness in this world, but your position, wanting to legalize dueling is just asking for more.
Consider minor incidents such as:
- Accidentally cutting yourself with a knife
- Gambling and losing all your money
Simply, you are gambling your life. People are reckless "oh my honor!", "oh he spilled his coffee on my shirt", they want to gamble and risk there lives over stupid issues that can be easily solved. People get upset over the simplest things and make stupid decisions, we've all been there. But, to go as far as risking your life is quite extreme just for your 'honor' or something along those lines. What influence do we have on children? Should we share this recklessness with the future generation that get's the idea its okay?
Children
Children are actually majorly influenced, what if they are influenced easily and this leads to the bad irreversible choice of getting themselves killed? They can be influenced just to vape, smoke, inhale deadly materials which also leaves them in the vulnerable state of possibly dueling someone to get irreversible changes done to their body such as losing an arm or dying.
Addiction
Gambling is an addiction, can dueling be as well? Say, you guys went into a duel with who can kill each other for (x) amount of money. You get caught up in this 'game' of trying to be the best, get money, whatever it is.
III. Consent for whom?
What way are they to consent? Can they be pressured to 'consent' or forced to 'consent'.
Let me validate these a bit more..
Pressured 'Consent'
Many people are pressured into things. Pressure can be by society, "do it for your honor!" or maybe even family members. When you are peer pressured you end up making mistakes that you end up not actually wanting. I believe this is shown a lot with smoking. Someone influences the other, "hey, you'll like this man.. c'mon it's just one" or something like that.
Forced 'Consent'
What if they are forced by family members or another person that is threatening and forces their consent, or not really consent. Are we supposed to throw someone in the arena even if not wanted? How does this consent really go? Signed or verbal? Either one can be forced. Before you say it's impossible, they have a choice. Do they really? They can be punished severely, but by the choice of dueling they aren't. What do you think they would accept? Either way, were they forced?
IV. Sports - Alternative
If you are wanting to duel, there are many ways to do so without the considerable risk of death or bodily damages. You just have to duel within the sports reach.
For example, fencing is actually a great way to 'duel' someone without even hurting them, in most cases. Lightsaber dueling had become a thing in 2022 as well, almost as if using a real weapon though not one to hurt you. I personally believe fencing is more efficient, though any works without bodily harm done.
Refutations:
(A) PopulationIs humanity not 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.
Consider:
- "The Earth has plenty to offer for 9 billion mouths. And a sustained population decline (mainly due to lower fertility rates) is already becoming a realistic outcome."
- "Just as there is no such objective thing as “overpopulation,” so it goes for “underpopulation.” Population is what we make of it. The demographic trends that will set the boundaries of the future — sex, death, and migration — can seem unimaginably massive, but they are the product of billions of individual decisions: who to marry, whether to have children, where to move, and who to vote for."
There is no need for less people at the moment.
(B) HonorOught honor be a relic of the past?
"Hey man, great job killing someone today because they bumped into yah, definitely taught them now that they're gone!"
Better to create in society a 'care for one's reputation,And without consequence, how can care occur?Honor ought not be something thought of lightly, as we see in so many a politician, but near and dear, as life.
I believe there is a misconception, honor? Honor in what way? Are we to say being respected?
There are other ways to be respected without getting into a fight (or) bloody fight with another. Mutual respect can occur without fighting, I have gained some respect for TWS1405_2 on some of his views, though I disagree with other parts of his views. Has he said comments that could considered insults? Yes. Have I gained little respect for him, putting that aside? Yes.
You don't need bloody (or not) fights in order to keep your honor. That said, even if you did beat them in a duel, does that mean you have your honor? Not entirely. Just because of that one fight, doesn't mean that person has gained respect for you. Or even in general have you gained honor.
(C) Freedom
Ought we to have some maturity in our lives? You have freedom in your life, but it shouldn't be getting to the point of recklessness where people dying left are right. People get upset over criminals having life sentences, so, why should the same not apply? Is it not immoral to kill someone, agreed to or not?
We don't allow drunk people to drive because it can become harmful for the environment. We limit amounts of alcohol because we don't want reckless people wasting their lives on drinks.
In some cases our ways of all left 'peace' might get destroyed little by little.
Does it make sense, to against our consent, be drafted into wars and be forced to kill those who do not wish to be killed?Yet not have the freedom to risk our own lives of our own consent, against other also willing to risk their own.
You are drafted into Selective Service, as a man, yes. However, you are able to "opt" out along making claims.
As of which, I mention recklessness. Are you supporting a cause or are your risking your life for stupid decisions?
If drugs and obesity are allowed,Why this cutting of our lives short, but not dueling?
Obesity is not always controllable and it's not that it's allowed or not. We cannot just kill them off because they are obese. We take steps to ensure they become healthy. Obesity is something that can cause your life to become shorter, but not always on purpose.
I personally won't argue too much on the fact of drugs, though, once again usually we take steps to help with the addiction of drugs. Usually it's not left alone to an extent.
--
5. Sources:
Round 2
Pro
#3
Response to Questions (1)
Murder?
Well, I'd say two thoughts come to my mind on the subject of murder,
Consent and Law.
Definitions of murder and kill are different, (To many people)
Take self defense, person defending themself not called a murderer,
Take a soldier in war, not called a murderer unless they're killing civilians or POWs, so on.
Take mercy killings, called mercy killings, not mercy murders.
Though as I said, (To many people)
Not everyone 'agrees on my view of the above situations.
I'd say consent is a big reason for my acceptance of dueling in this debate.
'Generally speaking, I'd call murder wrong,
And yes, consent 'does matter for one individual killing another,
It being nonconsensual is one of the items that 'changes it from killing to murder.
Rebuttals
(A) Population
If everyone wanted to duel,
"Then," said Yossarian, "I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way, wouldn't I?”
- Catch 22 by Joseph Heller
Of hospitals capabilities and deaths,
Well, 'death of the overly aggressive and offensive, is one of my arguments.
Choices have consequences,
This is something we accept as free agents.
II. Immaturity
"To bet ones own existence, this is a sign of true seriousness " (From a Kaiji manga I think).
“If not for the bullet, who would fear the gun?” - JO JO ZEKE KOTDT #124
"You stand to win everything." - Chigurh (Or 'lose everything)
The tragedy of, Helios and Phaethon.
Sun God promises his son anything, son asks to drive the sun chariot, loses control and dies.
Honor 'means something,
Our 'Word and Action 'matter.
If one assumes the reckless duel more, then the reckless will die more than the prudent.
What is this chain around our necks, preventing our freedom,
But a removal of natural selection? (Rhetorical)
Would Donald Trump have been elected, in a nation that valued honor, bravery? (Rhetorical)
. . .
Children
Would learn that honor, conduct 'matters in life,
Would learn that there are 'consequences in people who act reckless.
In drugs so often, there are the 'slow consequences, not seen for years,
'Dueling at least, is 'quick to the point.
Addiction
Addictions exists, but it is our choice more than not.
Gambling exists, at least the 'state sponsored type,
Ah gambling is bad they say, except when 'we do it, tax it.
'My argument esteems the individual, puts to 'them their freedom, choice.
III. Consent for whom?
But we don't outlaw cigarettes or marriage, just because people can be pressured into them,
We discourage and legalize against 'coercion, blackmail, instigators and such.
(To varying degrees and situations, I'm not saying all forms of pressure are illegal)
There are 'many situations in which pressure can be applied,
In the end, it is 'still the individual's choice.
In the end, the action is illegal or not.
If an Aunt is only willing to pay for a nephew's college if they act according to the Aunt's morality,
It's the nephews choice.
If Charles Manson tells some other people to murder (Not kill, but 'murder),
Well, it 'was the killer's choice,
But Manson's influence was clear seen, And since it was murder, he's held accountable.
The action of 'dueling, is different than the action of murder,
Thus the encouragement is differently viewed.
IV. Sports - Alternative
See my arguments in II. Immaturity,
What is to fear or be serious about, in play fighting? (Rhetorical)
Defending my own Arguments
(A) Population
Seems to me a fact of existence,
The existence emigration, throughout periods of human history.
The existence of cities that become congested pressure cookers.
The existence of pollution.
The eradication of natural resources, in materials and organisms.
Nations have 'frequently expanded, by the people 'feeling the need to move,
That it 'could be possible to organize the people,
Does not mean that it 'is possible in a free society,
Perhaps in a society more 'unfree , than 'free.
Concrete Jungles are an example of excessive people.
Acid rain, streets of trash, are an example of too many people.
Animals, so many extinct, plants, so many extinct, oil and helium getting used up.
"Following his earlier experiments with rats, Calhoun later created his "Mortality-Inhibiting Environment for Mice" in 1968: a 101-by-101-inch (260 cm × 260 cm) cage for mice with food and water replenished to support any increase in population,[8] which took his experimental approach to its limits. In his most famous experiment in the series, "Universe 25", population peaked at 2,200 mice and thereafter exhibited a variety of abnormal, often destructive, behaviors including refusal to engage in courtship, females abandoning their young. By the 600th day, the population was on its way to extinction."
What natural selectors have humans? (Question and below are Rhetorical)
Is it better to expand until we war with one another? (Non Consent)
Better we 'forcibly regulate people's number of births? (Non Consent)
(B) Honor
Well, many people would likely just brush off being bumped into.
. . .
"Some common synonyms of honor are honesty, integrity, and probity"
People often 'respect these qualities in a person, both in their inner thoughts and outer behavior towards such an individual.
If by one's outer behavior they slander an individuals honor,
Is this lie 'not disrespectful (Rhetorical)
Is this not 'damage to their reputation, their carriage in life? (Rhetorical)
For reputation, honor, is a means by which people apply for jobs, whether even a minimum wage job, as president, or in the military.
Our 'Honor carries on, influences people's regard for us.
Our word, morality, actions, 'ought be something we treasure, 'want, respect in ourselves.
Though a person doesn't 'need to,
There are many reasons 'to.
(C) Freedom
Ought we have maturity in our lives? YES.
'Murder is 'near always a word for wrongful killing,
'Killing, not so much.
Ought Rob Roy have killed Archibald? (1995)
Perhaps it'd be better if Archibald repented, become a better person,
But it's not expected of him,
His behavior expected to continue, the world is better for losing him.
. . .
Drunk drivers are limited 'mainly due to how absurdly often they violate other's consent,
By 'killing them with their car, also property damage.
. . .
If the military 'wants a person, they'll have them,
And have them 'walk, 'slowly walk across No Man's Ground, against some machine guns,
And 'execute them if they try to refuse.
Well, risking one's life for some meaningful cause or reckless abandon,
Ought be 'theirs to make,
Else we would not allow 'many dangerous activities, like climbing Mount Everest, Deep Sea fishing (When there are other sources of food that won't kill the fishers)
. . .
'Some fat people can't help it,
Other's 'Can, especially if the government took away their freedom, 'forced them to exercise and diet.
Con
#4
I got 17 minutes to go this, yay..
I won't comment on pros responses to my questions for the time being. I will, however, bring it back onto the table later into the debate.
Voter, judges. This is past due but I have an idea for the framework. am going to go with the simple, cost benefit analysis. That is my lens. To confirm, the benefit from the opposing side should outweigh the harms. Do I believe this fits the framework for pro? I don't know. Personally, yes. Simply what is the goal? If something should be legal then it should be something that is beneficial for the greater amount of the majority. This should be the reason for it to be legal or in my case, illegal.
Defense:
Rebuttals(A) PopulationIf everyone wanted to duel,"Then," said Yossarian, "I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way, wouldn't I?”- Catch 22 by Joseph HellerOf hospitals capabilities and deaths,Well, 'death of the overly aggressive and offensive, is one of my arguments.Choices have consequences,This is something we accept as free agents
For the most part, i'm extending this. These concequences aren't getting adressed, if humanity runs at a low, we ought not to say "choices have concequences". That is the obvious. What is the issue? The issue would be dueling. So, what do we do to get rid of these dangerous consequences? Remove dueling.
The tragedy of, Helios and Phaethon.Sun God promises his son anything, son asks to drive the sun chariot, loses control and dies.
Are we putting greek gods into the 'equation'? I'm not much of a follower or audience for learning about greek gods. I can't respond much to this, but it doesn't seem like something affecting me either.
II. Immaturity
This one is extending as well, it's not adressed to its fullist. I will be adding more detail after this.
If one assumes the reckless duel more, then the reckless will die more than the prudent.
They both die, together. And this really just confirmes my hint about recklessness. I feel this goes for the entirety of children, but also adults. I mention addiction and this is something we pay people to help us with because it is unhealthy. Children dying because of recklessness or influence is horrible.
Would Donald Trump have been elected, in a nation that valued honor, bravery? (Rhetorical)
It's actually funny so i'll comment on this rhetorical comment.
Yes, he still would've been eleected. What do views know about his bravery? They don't. Almost none of that factors in.
All presidents are brave, what do you see on social media? Loads of hate. How many people want to kill the president? If he wasn't brave, he wouldn't have been the president.
ChildrenWould learn that honor, conduct 'matters in life,Would learn that there are 'consequences in people who act reckless.
How are they learning when their dead?
Children need a slap on the wrist (situation based), reinfourcement. They don't need to die because of influence or immaturity.
Going to extend this.
In drugs so often, there are the 'slow consequences, not seen for years,'Dueling at least, is 'quick to the point.
So, we are okay with letting children die because of immature decision? What have we become?
See, this is what i'm talking about. We as a society need to protect the children of the next generation. Protect them until their ready for the real world.
This is like being transgender and getting surgery for it at a young age. They make permanent, lifelong changes that they may regret. Regret comes and goes, but they are mature enough to make a decision such as that.
III. Consent for whom?But we don't outlaw cigarettes or marriage, just because people can be pressured into them,We discourage and legalize against 'coercion, blackmail, instigators and such.(To varying degrees and situations, I'm not saying all forms of pressure are illegal)
You are comparing an apple to an orange. And I say this in every debate.
Does this forced consent kill them? Remove them from existence?
There are 'many situations in which pressure can be applied,In the end, it is 'still the individual's choice.
Of course, "fight in a duel to the death or die".
Not really much of a choice, huh?
IV. Sports - AlternativeSee my arguments in II. Immaturity,What is to fear or be serious about, in play fighting? (Rhetorical)
Losing something you worked hard for? These are something far less dangerous and can be competitive. They are not as the extremes of severe levels of hurting another.
IV. Sports - AlternativeSee my arguments in II. Immaturity,What is to fear or be serious about, in play fighting? (Rhetorical)
I have 17 minutes, I am going to summarize. You just say we have an overpopulation damaging the earth, okay, what happens when we get to a concerning low amount? Rather make laws to enforce better habitats or have people dead with our human race expiring?
(B) HonorWell, many people would likely just brush off being bumped into.. . .
It was mostly an example of idiotic-ness, that is possible.
Our 'Honor carries on, influences people's regard for us.Our word, morality, actions, 'ought be something we treasure, 'want, respect in ourselves.Though a person doesn't 'need to,There are many reasons 'to.
This is your main argument. I believe honor can happen in other ways.
Consider:
"Woah you're so cool for killing the man that spilled your coffee", what really is this honor? And can it be projected in a different manner that is not life-threatening?
(C) FreedomOught we have maturity in our lives? YES.
Okay then, this freedom should be limited to an extent for the safety of others. The extent of preventing these high levels of immaturity in our lives. We restrict drugs to children at young ages, to prevent immaturity (the addiction).
If the military 'wants a person, they'll have them,And have them 'walk, 'slowly walk across No Man's Ground, against some machine guns,And 'execute them if they try to refuse.Well, risking one's life for some meaningful cause or reckless abandon,Ought be 'theirs to make,Else we would not allow 'many dangerous activities, like climbing Mount Everest, Deep Sea fishing (When there are other sources of food that won't kill the fishers)
So your point: There are freedoms that are dangerous like dueling? We try to prevent these things, that's the problem. And comparing them doesn't make a difference, maybe they should have laws against them as well. Dueling is not helping prevent but rather making a problem. Is dueling making a helpful impact on the world? No.
---
All of these topics will be addressed in more detail later on next round in the debate. Sorry.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Framework
Frameworks as people 'truly use them,
Are vague,
Are Cat's Cradles, made up of various value strings together tied.
This moment,
If you find your values in what I speak,
If I speak my argument logically, persuasively, with source and truth. . .
Then vote for me,
If not,
And it be my opponent's arguments you value,
If they speak their argument more logically, persuasively, with source and truth. . .
Then vote for them.
(A) Population
If population runs at a low,
Then this will result in fairer wages for the common man.
"GREATER SCARCITY OF LABOR RESULTS IN HIGHER WAGES"
But either way,
We are not slaves,
Regardless the taxes, conscription, and various laws that attempt to shackle us.
The tragedy of, Helios and Phaethon.
I view it's purpose as warning of an oath carelessly given,
For many people in olden times, held to oaths and honor strong,
A different cultural example,
"Courage was but one aspect of honor in the Vikings’ culture. Equally important was personal integrity. Oaths were sacred, and frequently were sworn to the god Thor on a holy ring of gold or iron, kept on the altar in Viking temples, or sometimes worn by their priests [3]. Oathbreakers were despised, especially those who broke an oath of loyalty to their own comrades. The term felag referred to a fellowship, often a ship’s crew, who swore an oath of loyalty and mutual support to each other and to their leader. Within the Vikings’ code of honor, one of the most heinous offenses one could commit was betraying a member of one’s own felag — such a person was deemed a Nithing, one who was not even considered a man because he so lacked honor."
II. Immaturity
And if both the people die,
Then we have twice as few aggressive offensive individuals.
Childeren
Childeren?
Who mentioned children, in what history do we see a glut of children dueling one another?
What modern laws in the first world send children to war, let them drink, drive, or smoke?
Children dueling arent an issue here.
At 'most one could argue about children growing up into adults who duel,
But the freedom of an adult is something we value in society,
Let there be a freedom to consensual duels, say I.
Trump
In another vein,
When has Trump been held accountable?
Faced danger or punishment for his actions?
Beyond wrist slaps or prevention of him to power?
It's common of bullies, though not universal,
To pick on those unable to fight back,
It's the lack of accountablility see?
'Brave, until there's any danger, is not bravery.
"In Sworn Deposition, Trump Says He Has Real Concerns About Being Killed By a Piece of Fruit"
"Donald Trump avoided the military draft 5 times,"
. . .
Bravery,
The Caning of Senator Charles Sumner, was not considered a duel,
And when a chance for a duel came,
Brooks turned yellow, and gave excuses to avoid it.
His lack of bravery, honor, still echos in American history.
Childeren
I'm just mentioning this again,
As you mention it several times,
At no point did I say let's have children duel to the death.
III. Consent for whom?
There 'Is no forced consent,
There 'Is no, "fight in a duel to the death or die".
A person can 'decline a duel.
IV. Sports - Alternative
'Yes,
Losing something of value is the 'point.
If value was 'not a point,
Then crimminals could just say oops, my bad, I'm sorry,
Then skip the whole prison scene.
The point of dueling,
Is to increase the value of honor, by tying it to something of 'value.
IV. Sports - Alternative (Where population is again mentioned by Con)
The human race isn't going to go extinct by allowing people to duel,
(B) Honor and Being Bumped
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"
Maybe people would say that guy has overly thin skin,
But it's not wrong for society to address trolls,
Hold people in contempt for overstepping themselves,
For some people do not know boundaries, until they 'hit upon them.
We 'ought be a society that addresses when individuals lack honor,
We 'ought 'care when an individual lacks honor.
(C) Freedom (Restricting Freedom)
Again, I'm 'not saying that children can duel.
My point isn't that freedoms can be dangerous and ought be taken away,
My point is that goverment endangers people plenty, against their will.
I'm argueing that Freedom and Honor, can be held as high as life.
For we all die,
People 'may choose servitude,
Desire life above freedom or honor,
So be it,
But in this moment, this debate,
I argue for the law to hold higher Freedom and Honor.
"Give me liberty, or give me death!"
- Patrick Henry
I ask you voter,
Does it ring with your values?
Con
#6
This time around, I (hopefully) won't be responding to every single comment. More so the main arguments and summarize it there.
I. Agreements:
Framework
As for your comment on the framework suggestion, I can agree to an extent.
Currently trying to different frameworks out. More so just testing them. But as of what you have said, I can agree with.
II. Quick Refers
All rebuttals will be sectioned. Such as a number above the rebuttal stating "0" or "9" for example. If I mention it has been covered at number 6, it will be an easy refer.
III. Rebuttals:
0
Before I go into my opponents rebuttals, pro mentions freedom quite often. I think freedom has an extent, I believe we shouldn't be able to do what we want. Such as children, just because I have the freedom, doesn't mean I should burn my hand as a baby. That's why parents restrict the oven, usually, for younger age children. With adults, drinking while driving or before driving is usually restrict to help maintain a 'peaceful' environment. Yes, we should have freedom, but it should be limited. Limited for the safety of others.
Have you seen the movie where they allow you to kill anyone for one night? Aka: The Purge. Imagine that, just in different context. Think about my mentions of forced consent as well.
Further, I ask pro one thing:
- What could be possible reasons for dueling?
What is something you would duel for, risk losing your life? Or even fatal permanent injuries.
Alright, now let's continue..
1
A) PopulationIf population runs at a low,Then this will result in fairer wages for the common man."GREATER SCARCITY OF LABOR RESULTS IN HIGHER WAGES"But either way,We are not slaves,Regardless the taxes, conscription, and various laws that attempt to shackle us
Should we lose lives, and run low on population, it's alright! It's just fair wages of men.
This was already covered above in my slight comments before I began the rebuttals. Refer to number zero.
2.
II. ImmaturityAnd if both the people die,Then we have twice as few aggressive offensive individuals.
Great. I guess half of the population of men, gone. (Rhetorical).
Immaturity is way to great right now, why do we need to add more?
3
ChilderenChilderen?Who mentioned children, in what history do we see a glut of children dueling one another?What modern laws in the first world send children to war, let them drink, drive, or smoke?Children dueling arent an issue here.
I think you switched up a little bit. At first, you talked about "would it teach them honor", now your acting like it couldn't happen in the first place.
Does it have to be in history? Your defintion includes basically, a fight between two people. A child is a person. Therefore, they can be included in this sense. So, yes, if they choose to fight they could. If they choose to engage in a duel both mutually consented towards, yes, they have duel.
Therefore children dueling would be a problem. In fact, have you seen children that have died in classrooms or killed by their own classmates? Think about how bad it would be if it was allowed.
4
At 'most one could argue about children growing up into adults who duel,But the freedom of an adult is something we value in society,Let there be a freedom to consensual duels, say I.
This is also an issue, if the child choose not to duel but grew up around the influence it was alright, that is also a problem.
5
Trump
What is your point? That "its common of bullies to pick on those unable to fight"?
If I get your point, the fight already began before the other opposing side consented.
6
Bravery
Bravery. Bravery you say? Bravery versus maturity. Perhaps Brooks choose the smart decision and didn't risk his life.
I believe theres a difference in your vision. Maybe it wasn't he was completely scared, but rather cautious about his future. Rather mature to know to step down.
7
ChilderenI'm just mentioning this again,As you mention it several times,At no point did I say let's have children duel to the death.
Refer to my other mention. At not point did you have to mention it for the capability to exist.
Rather, if dueling was "Right for at the minimum two people above the age of 20 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."
That would be completely different.
8
III. Consent for whom?There 'Is no forced consent,There 'Is no, "fight in a duel to the death or die".A person can 'decline a duel.
Your not completely right, but not completely wrong. Your right, they may have a choice. Alright. Sure.
But think about this carefully:
Should I threaten someone to bring a bomb into a building otherwise I kill their family. What is the pressure? What are their values? How does that become pressured consent?
Think about this other example:
"You have two choices. Duel and have the chance to survive, or I kill you right here. On the spot." What do think would appeal someones mind? "Have a chance to survive or die now", does this then become pressured?
Or perhaps, how is this consent going? Is this signed, or verbal? Someone can easily manipulate or force someone into writing it. If it's signed, its done. It's accepted and there is no going back.
9
IV. Sports - Alternative'Yes,Losing something of value is the 'point.If value was 'not a point,Then crimminals could just say oops, my bad, I'm sorry,Then skip the whole prison scene.The point of dueling,Is to increase the value of honor, by tying it to something of 'value
What is pro's point with this contention? This has nothing to fo with alternatives, to a degree. You can easily lose your pride and 'stumble' in humilation and defeat at the loss. Anytime I am gaming online, when I lose, my KDR (Kill Death Rate) goes down. When it drops low, it's shown on my profile. Or maybe i'm a level 602 in a game, and I lose to someone who's level 59.
As for your point with criminals, this only goes for certain criminals. I'm not sure if the higgest degrees of murders are let out for rehabilitation.
10
IV. Sports - Alternative (Where population is again mentioned by Con)The human race isn't going to go extinct by allowing people to duel,
But is it possible that there will be a huge decline, is my point.
11
(B) Honor and Being BumpedTrite 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"
I now see that it is sent in writing, therefore, I am assuming they agree to it in writing? Proves my point even further at number "..
11.5
Maybe people would say that guy has overly thin skin,But it's not wrong for society to address trolls,Hold people in contempt for overstepping themselves,For some people do not know boundaries, until they 'hit upon them.We 'ought be a society that addresses when individuals lack honor,We 'ought 'care when an individual lacks honor.
You practically repeat number one about freedom, and I refer to it on number zero.
12
(C) Freedom (Restricting Freedom)
Repeat of number one.
--
As for "The tragedy of, Helios and Phaethon" I will respond to next round. Or perhaps not at all.
IV. Quotes provided:
I think a quote here and there, will prove my point even further. I decided i'll use some of the less common quotes. I'll provide every quote for each of the arguments (five in total) + one extra that continues for the rest of the debate.
"There are five dangerous faults which may affect a general: recklessness, which leads fo destruction; cowardice, which leads to capture; a hasty tempter, which can be provoked by insults; a delicacy of honour, which is sensitive to shame; over-solicitude for his men, which exposes him to worry and trouble."
~ Sun Tzu
"The vexation of a fool is known at once, but the prudent ignores an insult."
~ Proverbs 12:16
"When someone isn’t smart enough to express their frustration, they use dirty words. Those are words that describe a lack of intelligence. Smart people don’t use those kind of dirty words, because they find it an insult to their intelligence."
~ Nouman Ali Khan
"The first human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization"
~ Sigmund Freud
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation."
~ Moliere
"He who allows himself to be insulted deserves to be."
~ Pierre Corneille
Round 4
Pro
#7
Bella3sp's Rebuttals
But should you have the freedom to burn your hand as an adult?
Society has marked lines, between minors and adults,
Blurry lines but lines,
Meant towards hope that an individual has been around long enough, educated enough,
That they have an understanding of the rules of the game,
Life, existence, nation, and law.
. . .
Of drunk driving,
I am of the view that the law is legislated more for the safety of people and property a drunk driver may hit,
Incident being of such high degree.
. . .
Purge,
I've never seen it, but I've heard of it.
"In 2014, a political party called the "New Founding Fathers of America" are voted into office following an economic collapse and pass a law sanctioning the "Purge," an annual event wherein all crime is legal, and emergency services are temporarily suspended for 12 hours."
A central theme in my arguments of dueling is consent,
'All crime being legal, sounds like a lot of nonconsent.
Even if it's 'legal to kill or rape someone,
If it's against their consent,
'Still nonconsensual, even if 'legal.
. . .
'Whether a person should 'choose to duel,
Is different than whether a person should be 'allowed to duel.
Nonetheless, to answer your question,
Honor,
Functioning society,
Aggression.
Aggression sounds bad, and it is (From my view) but it links into functioning society, by way of my population arguments.
A) Population
Yes,
A lower population does not harm society.
I suppose in the 'detail, people might object to individuals dying,
But all the ways people kill themselves slow, as I've mentioned before,
Getting fat, smoking, drinking.
People want freedom.
II. Immaturity
"How is humanity saved if it's not allowed to... evolve?" - Ultron
While evolution 'still works within humanity,
Does it work as we 'desire it?
We need not practice nonconsensual eugenics on people,
Only give them freedom.
If half of the population of men killed each other (Consensually)
Where would those genes have gone?
'Ideally, not back into the population.
If they are instead kept alive despite their natures,
Then who are our leaders?
Aggressive thin skins,
Surely this is not good for the world.
. . .
But if they 'survive. . .
Those aggressive, honorable people,
Then the human race is improved,
For aggression has it's uses.
Honor has it's uses.
Let us not be as the Allies in WW2,
Who acted with cowardice in Czechoslovakia,
'Abandoning an ally, giving a bully their lunch money.
. . .
Additionally,
There being a legal method of violence, (Dueling)
Prevents as many people going to prison for violence,
One time offenders avoid becoming 'more violent with prison,
Thus this prevention makes society more peaceful.
There being an outlet for aggression,
When population or politics get's too high,
Prevents crime and mass violence.
Children
Teaching children,
The value of honor, respect, one's word, the dangers that might come with action or word, is not wrong.
As to children being included in the definition,
I argue 'adults were implied, not children,
If I said people should be allowed to have sex,
The 'assumption most people would make is that I was speaking of adults,
Same with drinking or going to war.
. .
Though I admit history is subjective with what rights humans have, at what ages.
. .
Still, I argue,
Society has marked lines, between minors and adults,
Meant towards hope that once an individual has been around long enough, educated enough,
That they have an understanding of the rules of the game,
Life, existence, nation, and law.
. . .
Teaching children,
The value of honor, respect, one's word, the dangers that might come with action or word, is not wrong.
Of what is 'moral varies from person to person,
Some people find homosexuals immoral,
But as a society (Well America) we have prioritized freedom.
My view is that children ought be encouraged by their parents, in their life directions,
But in the end, as adults, it is the individuals choice.
Trump
The point on Trump,
Is that dishonorable behavior should be challenged, discouraged in life.
That a society that valued honor, would be less likely to value Trump, and others of his ilk,
His lying, for example.
His cowardice,
His oath breaking.
Bravery
Brooks was a coward who beat a man unable to defend themself,
Then refused a challenge from a person able.
Smart? 'Maybe,
But not the sort I would want as an elected official.
Children
If 'anything is legal, smoking, driving, shooting guns,
A child 'could do it,
But the most common assumption when speaking of legalizing any og these,
Is that children would be barred until of age.
(Depending on time period and culture)
III. Consent for whom?
If a person refuses a duel,
They cannot simply be killed, else it becomes a murder.
As I said in an earlier round,
Humans have a lot of choices before them,
Simply because someone 'could encourage them to do this or that,
Ought not mean their ability to choose should be removed.
Ought not mean it was their choice (Practically speaking)
Dueling Codes 'allow for apologies, instead of dueling,
. . .
IV. Sports - Alternative
I maintain my argument,
That sports, do not risk enough,
A duel, of life 'risked, shows 'bravery, conviction in one's claims.
IV. Sports - Alternative (Where population is again mentioned by Con)
Humans 'have no check to them, but themselves,
How many species have gone extinct?
How many cities bubble with too much humanity and overcrowding?
How many people find themselves crowded in countries and immigrate?
How much energy and pollution causes mankind?
How often has Lebensraum (Living Space) been cause of war?
Humanity would not be bad off, with a decrease in numbers.
(B) Honor and Being Bumped
Still a person has the free will to refuse a challenge,
To apologize,
To give thought to their actions 'before challenging or accepting.
Quotes Given
Certainly there are reasons for restraint,
But a people 'too restrained, are stepped on.
People 'can have reasons not to duel,
But there are reasons 'to duel as well,
As I have given throughout.
. .
Beyond this too,
Is the 'Right to duel,
'Freedom to make choices, be they good or ill.
Round 5
Pro
#9
No worries,
As debate description said, "Debate can be cut short,"
I think 5 rounds often results in people reiterating themselves eventually,
I just like having the option, that people have a full ability to address each other's arguments.
@Round 5
Conclusions where a debaters points out all the reasons they won, aren't for me,
People often say look at my arguments they are better than my opponents,
Yet 'both people usually say this,
Summation 'can make a debate easier to consider, but I'm going to leave that to the voters.
Voters,
Just consider the arguments and themes of the debate 'already brought up and argued.
I argue there are 'mainly two considerations,
First,
Whether dueling be positive or negative on human society.
Second,
Whether dueling be positive or negative on individual human freedom.
Con
#10
Conclusion:
Freedom should have limits, just like everything in society, we don't let people drink and drive just because they have freedom. We don't let people stab one another because they have freedom. There are no positives to dueling besides the fake-invite to freedom but that freedom comes with heavy costs that simply don't outweigh the harms. Freedom is limited to keep people safe and from (or prevent) making stupid decisions, therefore dueling should be illegal to limit stupid decisions (dueling).
I ask voters to keep these quotes in mind:
"There are five dangerous faults which may affect a general: recklessness, which leads to destruction; cowardice, which leads to capture; a hasty tempter, which can be provoked by insults; a delicacy of honour, which is sensitive to shame; over-solicitude for his men, which exposes him to worry and trouble."
~ Sun Tzu
"The vexation of a fool is known at once, but the prudent ignores an insult."
~ Proverbs 12:16
"When someone isn’t smart enough to express their frustration, they use dirty words. Those are words that describe a lack of intelligence. Smart people don’t use those kind of dirty words, because they find it an insult to their intelligence."
~ Nouman Ali Khan
"The first human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization"
~ Sigmund Freud
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation."
~ Moliere
Good debate, thanks.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Here goes my vote.
Population
Pro says that there is overpopulation. Con says that Earth can support these people. Pro counters with many issues, such as:
"The existence of pollution.
The eradication of natural resources, in materials and organisms."
Population argument goes to Pro.
Honor
Pro makes a claim that care needs to be created for one's own reputation through consequences.
Con counters that by saying that reputation can be built in better ways, and that dueling might not create reputation at all. Pro counters by bringing example of person slandering someone's reputation. Con repeats that there are other ways to save honor. Pro counters by saying that duels are usually done to save honor, that duels make individuals care more for honor. Pro brings up example of Trump, which I think is a nice example.
Honor argument goes to Pro.
Freedom
Pro points out that duels are done with consent of people. They are not forced. Pro points out that many harmful things are allowed, even when they kill people, because it is freedom.
Con counters by saying that you have freedom in your life, but it shouldn't be getting to the point of recklessness where people are dying left are right.
Pro counters by saying that people have a choice to risk their life for something meaningful or for something reckless. Repeats that there is consent in dueling.
Con counters by saying that freedom should be limited if it causes harm. States that we should ban harmful things.
Pro counters by saying that freedom is more important than life.
Con counters by providing quotes which mainly point out that dueling is an overreaction, and that wise people wouldnt do it.
Pro counters by saying that people have understanding of the game.
Con counters and concludes that this freedom comes at high cost and that people should be prevented from doing stupid things.
Freedom argument goes to Con.
Immaturity
Con states that risking life for honor is immature. Pro counters by saying that if people are ready to risk life for honor, then honor means something.
Pro says that duels will eradicate reckless people.
Con counters by saying that children will die due to recklessness.
Pro counters by saying duels lower the amount of aggressive people. Mentions the example of Trump's immaturity caused by lack of dueling in society.
Pro says that dueling is a way of society to evolve by consensually getting rid of aggressive people.
Immaturity argument goes to Pro.
Children
Con states that children would be influenced by dueling and would do it themselves.
Pro counters by saying that children would learn honor.
Con counters by saying that children would die.
Pro counters by saying that government wouldnt allow children to duel and that such duels didnt happen.
Con insists that they would happen, that children copy adults.
Pro says that its not wrong to teach children honor, that it would help children.
Children argument is a tie.
Consent for whom?
Con points out that people would be pressured in some cases, and that consent wouldnt always exist.
Pro counters by saying that society already allows dangerous things that people can be pressured into, and that people can decline dueling.
Con says that people can be forced into dueling with death threats.
Pro points out that if person declines dueling, they cannot simply be murdered as it would be illegal.
Consent for whom? argument goes to Pro.
Sports - Alternative
Con points out that there is alternative in sports. Pro counters by saying there is nothing to fear in sports, therefore it cannot be serious.
Con counters by saying that you could lose something you worked hard for.
Pro counters by saying that dueling ties honor to something of value, mentions the example of criminals and sentences being valuable.
Con counters by saying you can lose pride in sports.
Pro counters by saying sports dont risk enough.
Con brought up population being low.
Pro countered by saying that human race wont go extinct due to dueling.
Sports - Alternative argument goes to Pro.
It seems that Pro won on many grounds, and that dueling does seem beneficial to society by solving overpopulation, pollution, preserving honor and dignity, upholding consent. So I am giving win to Pro.
**************************************************
>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.
**************************************************
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.
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.
Thanks.
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No worries on the 2 weeks wait,
If I minded, I'd make a shorter time period.
Yeah, thanks. I've been working on it for around half an hour.
My bad for the two week wait.
Just a reminder, in case debate has been forgotten.
You seem to have quite a few on your plate.