Ought be a Legal Right to Dueling.
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Minimal rating
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.
(Only Lemming may accept.)
I’ll waive the first round to avoid giving myself an unfair headstart.
Well that was quick,
I think my rounds 1 and 2 with Bella3sp, were decent,
So I'll just push forward with my round 1 from that debate.
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.
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.
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?
As Con, I shall argue that there shouldn’t be a legal right to dueling by arguing that.:
- Dueling is inhumane
- Dueling is a permanent solution to an insignificant issue & there are alternatives
- Dueling causes trauma
- Dueling would encourage hypermasculinity and violence as the ultimate remedy for arguments and solutions
- That people cannot properly consent to a duel
- That dueling can be a cover for mass murder
Dueling - 1. A prearranged combat with deadly weapons between two people following a formal procedure in the presence of seconds and traditionally fought until one party was wounded or killed, usually to settle a quarrel involving a point of honour.
Mankind is an intelligent and evolving species with major shortcomings. Violence is one of them. Dueling is such a barbaric way of proving a point. The point of life is change & progress.
Since violence & crime is a part of the problem, shouldn’t we work on improving society by seeking to make it more civilized? To progress, humans must learn to resolve issues diplomatically or else, what is the point?
Permanent solution to a insignificant problem
We will never know how many important people we’ve lost with the potential to contribute a lot because their temper got the best of them. A petty coworker that you don’t like to an internet troll or cyberbully that keeps spamming hateful messages is such a minor thing.
Why put your life on the line for someone who is irrelevant?
Do you not have the power to ignore them? If so, why are they worth so much to you that you would put your own life at risk just to get rid of them permanently?
Even if you win, that internet bully can always be replaced by someone new or worse.
Are you going to fight all of them? How can you expect to win everytime? Even if you do manage to win, there is always the possibility of sustaining an injury that causes irreparable damage.
Risks & Trauma
Because dueling involves taking a life, it is such a high-stakes environment.
People who duel regularly can grow accustomed or even desensitized to it, but it can always be a traumatic experience not just to the challenger, but to the challenger’s friends and families. If the challenger takes their enemy’s life, that enemy will be a martyr in the eyes of their loved ones and they will be forever traumatized by that death. Naturally, if the enemy had sons/daughters, they would seek to avenge his death and it would be a constant game of survival for that person’s murderer. If the victor refuses to accept challenges in the future, the relatives of the victim will seek revenge in other means by killing the victor illegally or targeting their friends/family.
- The victor will forever have a bounty on his back.
- The victor’s friends & family will forever be at risk.
- The friends & family of the deceased will forever be traumatized.
There is no need for dueling. As in gladiator-like fights where it results in death.
I mean there’s already that, just minus the death part.
There are already regulated, sanctioned environments that promote an atmosphere for cathartic behavior.
- Boxing and MMA already exist for two people to settle their differences and clash. Sometimes, accidents happen and it ends in death but there is gear and regulations in place to prevent this from happening.
With disrespectful celebrities like Logan Paul who disrespect nations like Japan or Italy, there are people who are able to rise up to the challenge and fight it out.
Boxing and MMA exist as safer and healthier options because most of the time, people can fight and prove their point without the conflict resulting in a permanent death.
When Khabib and Conor McGregor had beef, Conor insulted Khabib’s father, his religion, and his country. Khabib ultimately humbled him in their cage match and while there was aggression afterwards on the internet, Khabib considered the feud over. 1
After this fight with Khabib, Conor has absolutely fallen and his reputation took a brutal hit that he will most likely NEVER recover from. Death was not needed for this to happen, just one fight and it was all over for Conor.
Legalizing dueling would encourage an unnatural level of aggression in men. Far from deterring it in fact. It has been proven that civilizations in the past were more violent than cultures of today. 2
Humans are not chimpanzees. Instead of fostering a culture of lethal violence, I think we can do better.
The Issue of Consent
People cannot give consent to a duel. We live in a very shame-based society, so this means perpetrators are able to prey upon the weak.
That means anytime someone is challenged to a duel, the fear of denying the challenge will be enough to compel them to say yes. Lest they be scrutinized the rest of their lives. So did they really have a choice?
Dueling can be used to justify murder.
Violent thugs that want to kill someone unjustly are free to coerce or intimidate weaker men into accepting a fight, on the basis that they will continue harassing their family if they refuse or they’ll be known as a coward. The latter then has no choice but to fight.
- Since dueling is legalized, the thug will then kill the man ruthlessly. And because he consented, there will be no police or law enforcement to hold the thug accountable And the thug is free to keep doing this to weaker men until someone else puts a stop to him, but how many lives need to be taken before this happens?
“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.”
There is no evidence that dueling would be an effective way of solving overpopulation. And why would we need dueling to resolve this problem?
Why couldn’t we impose regulations like how much offspring people can legally have? Or exiling citizens to third world countries to practice population control if they break the first law if they don’t agree to an abortion or castration?
If these regulations seem too inhumane, consider what Pro is really suggesting by legalizing dueling and decide which is more preferable.
“(B) HonorOught 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.”
This raises the question.
- If someone’s response to getting berated is to challenge someone to a fight to the death, how much honor is this person really worth?
Their reaction is very disproportionate to a situation like this.
When a person is getting verbally attacked, and their first instinct isn’t to fire back with jokes or insults but to escalate into violence, they’ve already taken the biggest L.
They’ve already lost. As they have demonstrated no self-control or emotional stability.
- Famous director Uwe Boll challenged his five harshest critics to a boxing match and he won all of them, but he is seen as the biggest laughingstock in society now.
“In June 2006, his production company issued a press release stating that Boll would challenge his five harshest critics each to a 10-round boxing match.” 4
What do I mean by this and what does this mean for society?
That society’s perception of honor has changed over time. Pro’s definition of honor is very obsolete and does not represent what people think and feel nowadays.
“(C) FreedomOught 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?”
There are limitations to what a person can do as far as drugs and other self-harmful behaviors.
- A lot of people who abuse are coping with trauma and are not attempting self-harm and when they end up in a state where they require medical intervention, society and the healthcare laws demand that doctors act with urgent assistance.
- Now with dueling, it is not just YOUR life that’s at risk, but you are putting someone else’s life on the line and threatening harm to another person. A dysfunctional society cannot continue to function this way without the government putting a stop to it.
Suicide is already illegal and those who attempt it are forced into incarceration and given treatment to help them.
- With citizens who are drafted to war. By living in the nation, you have technically forfeited your right to decide. And by living there, you have the moral obligation to defend your friends, family and you have the duty to help your brethren in war. If you do not wish to fight in the war, you are free to leave the country at any time.
1: marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals"
While humane action 'is part of the equation, by which we and society decide our actions,
It is not the 'only one.
Businesses and individuals are allowed a measure of self interest and freedom,
Let us have compassion, sympathy, and consideration, for those individuals who 'wish to exercise their freedom and honor in consensual dueling.
Is there compassion in outlawing and removing a practice,
That acts as a release valve of pressure within individuals and society?
How often is violence and murder committed,
People sent to prison,
Where they become true criminals?
So long as duels are 'consensual, are 'legal,
We act in a humane fashion.
I disagree that honor, freedom, and population are insignificant issues,
Nor is dueling 'permanent,
Given how many people don't die,
Given how throughout life, one must confront new situations, and act to 'maintain honor for oneself and others.
If we have lost good people,
So too have we lost bad people,
If bad people are more likely to offend,
More likely to be in duels,
Then we have lost more bad than good.
If bad people are more likely to refuse duels,
Then by their actions they are seen as lacking honor,
And not 'so trusted by the public,
Not so high in public office or sphere.
A person doesn't 'have to give a challenge, or accept one,
For every minor spat or slight,
Many people refused challenges historically, on the grounds that a challenge was for trivial reasons.
"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"
The use of dueling, was capable of better 'outcomes,
Rather than some illegal eternal war or eternal legal battle,
Dueling was capable of both parties agreeing that the issue be settled then and there,
Whether in the duel,
Mutual 'or one sided, apology.
"The idea was that single combat warriors averted endless bloody feuds between groups and families ala the Hatfields and McCoys. The duels nipped these potential feuds in the bud as insults were given immediate redress, with satisfaction given to both parties."
Rather than illegal underground gang wars,
Allows for 'doctors to be on site for the duel,
Rather than individuals dying or crippled, for fear of being arrested after going to the hospital.
(2) Trauma and Risk to family.
It is people's 'Freedom to choose their traumas in life,
If a fellow mountain hiker dies, I'm sure some find that traumatic.
Traumatic experiences can be necessary,
Soldiers often get trauma from just war,
Not the trauma, but the action.
Trauma is subjective.
"Firing an AR-15-style rifle can be a deeply traumatic experience, according to a New York-based journalist who said his recent experience with the popular rifle left him with post-traumatic stress disorder."
I am not familiar with 'any history about dueling being dangerous because of duelists families being targeted.
The individual does not 'have to accept duels,
And in many cases of history, a single duel would be the end of the matter, resolved.
Not about being the greatest duelist, but of a particular situation, question of honor.
Individuals possess freedom,
Ought no one join the military, because their family might be traumatized?
Everyone dies, eventually,
Better 'how we lived,
“A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once. It seems to me most strange that men should fear, seeing that death, a necessary end, will come when it will come.”
― William Shakespeare
I agree that legalizing dueling, would create violence in duels,
But it also possesses the ability to decrease violence in other aspects of society,
As population and aggression is given an outlet.
I argue that legalizing dueling would 'decrease offensive language and aggression overall in society,
It is when children are given no consequences for their actions, that they most go wild.
“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
"Unnatural level of aggression"?
People are not being 'forced into dueling,
Rather it is their 'current stance, of being chained from exerting their free will, that is unnatural.
Technological invention, greater resources, more powerful weapons,
Are explanations for less war in the world,
Small tribes have become large tribes,
Thus there is less war in a location,
Thus the large tribes fear to fight each other, 'more than not, (Nukes, machine guns)
But in this prosperity, we have lost the the 'Immediate Vitalness of honor.
So many safeguards,
Like poison, slow sapping our strength.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf
I confess, that the topic of consent and coercion, has greatly confused me, since I started these three debates on dueling.
If I want something from other people, I 'must act a certain way to get it,
If I want to buy something, I 'must pay money to receive it,
I ask that Sir.Lancelot speak further on, on why an individual is unable to consent or dissent from dueling,
For 'many people 'did refuse in history,
Speak on Sir.Lancelot, I ask.
For to my perspective, we have choice,
So many a duel has been declined in history,
There 'is the choice,
If there is not a choice,
How can humans be trusted with 'any decision?
Better in such a person's view, that all an individuals autonomy be given to the state, who knows 'better than the individual how they ought live their life.
Alcohol, cigarettes, military service,
If everyone else jumped off a cliff, 'Must I?
I don't agree,
'I say people possess choice.
(5) Dueling as a cover for murder
Dueling commonly had witnesses, a legal system,
I'm doubtful an individual could 'so easily murder someone then claim it was a duel.
(5) Civilized Society
This is an argument against an individual 'choosing to duel, not whether dueling should be allowed.
Additionally I would argue violence is part of what allowed humanity our conquest of Earth,
It shall remain ever of value,
People ought not forget how to defend themselves.
The alternative of sports, does not 'tend to true seriousness in a dispute.
"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)
'This is seriousness, the seriousness of 'existence.
The Khabib and Conor McGregor match,
Is in the 'deirection of a serious matter,
But 'still, it is not 'as serious as could be.
I 'do however note, that you note this combat,
As a positive example of two individuals combat.
(7) Mass Murder
Violent thugs harassing a man into a fight, by threatening his family,
Is similar to violent thugs harassing a man into selling his house, by threatening his family,
It's 'not allowed,
'Many dueling codes were part of the legal system,
An individual couldn't just murder some person when they were alone together, then claim it was a duel.
Justifying my own Arguments
If dueling normally causes many deaths,
Then it acts as a population decreaser.
If it doesn't cause many deaths,
Then many of your arguments worrying about all it's death, are invalid.
My own argument,
Is that as in Universe 25,
There come times when overcrowding occur,
Aggression, violence occur.
Dueling allows both an outlet and decrease in numbers, 'when such times occur.
Whilst in more peaceful times, maintaining honor in a society.
Sir.Lancelot's solution, is to,
Treat our citizens as China does,
Encourage them to have kids when war is expected,
Then punishes them by removing their rights when war occurs not.
Sir.Lancelot's solution, is to,
Forcibly strip our citizens of citizenship and force other countries to take them,
As we do our garbage.
Sir.Lancelot's solution, is to,
Kill Children within the womb,
And to 'castrate individuals who don't agree to do exactly what government decrees, 'even if it be their own choice, own body risked.
I find consensual dueling 'far more humane.
A person has the 'choice whether to duel or not,
The 'choice whether a person or situation is a question of honor.
Additionally seconds in duels would often work to reconcile individuals who wanted to duel.
Honor may vary,
But whatever we consider it,
We attach to it importance.
Honor is my word given,
Respect given and received,
My action towards 'Right behaviors, including forgiveness when it is sought, when it is genuine.
Honor is something I 'want in politicians, in news, in business.
"Under the Mental Health Act 2007, you must be seen by a doctor within 12 hours. You can only be forced to stay if that doctor believes you are “mentally ill” or “mentally disordered” as defined under the Act."
This is vague,
As Suicide is 'Legal in America,
I'm inclined to the view that “mentally ill” or “mentally disordered” refers more to psychosis, drug induced or not, schizophrenia, alzheimer's, dementia and the like.
Sir.Lancelot speaks towards the government deciding, rather than the individual, what is best for them.
. . . . .
I was 'born in this country,
The laws of school 'claimed I 'must pledge allegiance to this country,
I am not lawfully allowed to 'leave this country without paying a fine
"The government fee to renounce U.S. citizenship is $2,350"
The 'Draft is an example of 'hypocrisy,
Of the government tearing people's bodies to shreds with bullets in nonconsensual wars the 'Government claims are moral.
Yet removing from the individual the consensual right to duel with another consenting individual in a duel of honor that 'both consider moral.
. . .
"I have a dream. That one day every person in this nation will control their own destiny. A nation of the truly free."
- Steven Armstrong
Thank you, Pro. I’ll focus on only rebuttals this round.
Ethics of Humanity
“(1) "humane1: marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals"While humane action 'is part of the equation, by which we and society decide our actions,It is not the 'only one.Businesses and individuals are allowed a measure of self interest and freedom,I ask,Is there compassion in outlawing and removing a practice,That acts as a release valve of pressure within individuals and society?How often is violence and murder committed,People sent to prison,Where they become true criminals?”
I acknowledge that prioritizing someone’s consent is a very humane quality, but that’s as far as I agree.
Legally allowing two people to hash out their differences in a fatal manner and potentially to the death isn’t something I or semantics recognizes as compassionate, sympathetic, or considerate.
I’d call that enabling.
It is true that prison environments do transform innocent people into animals, but this is another major shortcoming that needs to be addressed. I fail to see how legalizing dueling would solve this issue.
Pro claims that if we legalize dueling, it would yield positive results.
This means Pro’s formula makes the following assumption that takes the form of cause and effect.:
- Legalizing Dueling + Violent Offenders = Cathartic Outlet = Less violence.
Pro fails to provide evidence that legalized dueling would lead to less violence, so I disregard this on the basis that it is an unsubstantiated claim.
Questions of Permanence
“(2) PermanentI disagree that honor, freedom, and population are insignificant issues,Nor is dueling 'permanent,Given how many people don't die,Given how throughout life, one must confront new situations, and act to 'maintain honor for oneself and others.If bad people are more likely to refuse duels,Then by their actions they are seen as lacking honor,And not 'so trusted by the public,Not so high in public office or sphere.”
This is another claim that requires a huge BOP that Pro is unable to meet for several reasons.
- Dueling is outlawed in most parts of the world, so statistics about death toll or body count will be impossible to find.
- The only examples of reported deaths in dueling would have to be supported by historical sources and there is no way to verify the accuracy of obsolete research.
- Pro has not defined dueling to be only limited to swords, as duels can be done bare-handed or with firearms. Since the nature of dueling is practically limitless in this respect, for all we know the actual risk of death is significantly higher than what Pro is claiming.
And we cannot possibly assess the moral quality of every individual character, so there would be no way of objectively determining how many lives of good men will be lost to that of a villain or what contributions they could’ve made, medically or technologically, if they lived on.
Risks of Vengeance
“The use of dueling, was capable of better 'outcomes,Rather than some illegal eternal war or eternal legal battle,Dueling was capable of both parties agreeing that the issue be settled then and there,Whether in the duel,By reconciliation,Mutual 'or one sided,https://www.artofmanliness.com/character/knowledge-of-men/man-knowledge-an-affair-of-honor-the-duel/'Legalized dueling,Rather than illegal underground gang wars,Allows for 'doctors to be on site for the duel,“Rather than individuals dying or crippled, for fear of being arrested after going to the hospital.”(3) HypermasculinityI agree that legalizing dueling, would create violence in duels,But it also possesses the ability to decrease violence in other aspects of society,As population and aggression is given an outlet.”
It is a mistake to assume that the outcome of a duel, even death, is the end-be-all.
- Say you do succeed in killing your enemy.
Congratulations. Not only have you killed one monster, but you have created five more.
Violence creates a cycle of violence. A chain reaction of events that progressively spirals out of control.
Let’s look at history and pop culture for examples.
- In the Shakespearean classic literature, Romeo & Juliet, when the hot-headed Tybalt wants to fight Romeo but ends up dueling and killing Mercutio (Rome’s friend) instead, what was the result? 1
Answer: Romeo became terribly enraged that he takes on Tybalt out of revenge, which results in him slashing down the latter. Which results in Tybalt’s family demanding the death penalty for Romeo, Romeo getting exiled, and eventually, the two lovers Romeo & Juliet dying miserably.
- In The Mask of Zorro, we learn that Captain Love has dueled Alejandro’s brother and when this brother died, Alejandro spent the rest of his life seeking revenge. 2
- In The Princess Bride, Inigo Montoya tells his origin story to the Dread Pirate Roberts about how his father was slain by the six-fingered man when he was a child in a duel, so he spent the rest of his life taking up fencing to exact vengeance. 3
- And my personal favorite. In the movie, Troy, when Prince Hector ends up fighting a man 1on1 on the battlefield wrongly believing it to be Achilles. What do you think happened? 4
Answer: Hector discovers he has just slain Achilles’s cousin. In the movie, Achilles had no desire to fight in the war but now Hector has just given him every incentive to. 5
Achilles shows up to Troy personally to confront the prince, which results in Hector getting his ass handed to him. Which also leads to Hector’s brother killing Achilles at the very end.
What is my point? That violence cannot solve violence, it ironically just leads to more violence.
Factors of Consent
“(4) ConsentIf I want something from other people, I 'must act a certain way to get it,If I want to buy something, I 'must pay money to receive it,I ask that Sir.Lancelot speak further on, on why an individual is unable to consent or dissent from dueling,For 'many people 'did refuse in history,Speak on Sir.Lancelot, I ask.For to my perspective, we have choice,So many a duel has been declined in history,There 'is the choice,If there is not a choice,How can humans be trusted with 'any decision?
My answer to this is pretty simple. That people who don’t want to fight may end up agreeing anyway. Just because a few people had the strength or willpower to say no doesn’t mean everyone is the same.
People who are out of touch with reality may suspect everyone and end up agreeing to duel, or with strong severe mental disorders.
If a person is a threat to themself or others, the government has a duty to interfere. This is why psychiatric institutions lock up people with strong suicidal tendencies or why drug addicts are sometimes forced into rehab.
“(5) Dueling as a cover for murderDueling commonly had witnesses, a legal system,I'm doubtful an individual could 'so easily murder someone then claim it was a duel.”
Murder could easily be a cover-up in a duel. If an individual with a huge fanbase or demographic of people wanted to, he could target a random person and stage offenses on himself just to frame the other person.
The public figure is there able to utilize his power to incite his fanbase to harass the poor victim until they agree to a duel. And then a poor innocent life can be taken because he was put into circumstances where he felt compelled to agree. Probably to
- Preserve his reputation.
- Stop the harassment on his friends and family.
- Appease the public.
Self Defense Culture
“(5) Civilized SocietyThis is an argument against an individual 'choosing to duel, not whether dueling should be allowed.Additionally I would argue violence is part of what allowed humanity our conquest of Earth,It shall remain ever of value,People ought not forget how to defend themselves.
If the only way to teach self-defense is to deliberately manufacture high-stakes environments, then it is clear we’re doing something wrong.
The sport of combat and martial arts will never go out of style because it will always appeal to young men or those in the military. Instead of forcing people into needing self-defense, we should instead be cultivating a world where people aren’t required to use their self-defense in the first place.
As I have stated that alternatives exist that allow for cathartic release without endangering people’s lives like boxing and MMA, Pro has not given a convincing rebuttal. I’ll extend it for now.
“(A) PopulationSir.Lancelot's solution, is to,Treat our citizens as China does,Encourage them to have kids when war is expected,Then punishes them by removing their rights when war occursSir.Lancelot's solution, is to,Kill Children within the womb,And to 'castrate individuals who don't agree to do exactly what government decrees, 'even if it be their own choice, own body risked.
I strongly urge voters to see my solutions for what they really are.: Facetious extremes.
The Earth is not currently so overpopulated, that it demands the legalization of dueling to deal with this problem unless Pro demonstrates otherwise.
Infact, I consider the overpopulation argument invalid just on the basis alone that Pro himself asserts that deaths in dueling are uncommon.
Characteristics of Honor
“(B) HonorA person has the 'choice whether to duel or not,The 'choice whether a person or situation is a question of honor.Additionally seconds in duels would often work to reconcile individuals who wanted to duel.Honor,Honor may vary,But whatever we consider it,We attach to it importance.For me,Honor is my word given,My reputation,Respect given and received,Bravery,Truth,My action towards 'Right behaviors, including forgiveness when it is sought, when it is genuine.”
Honor is subjective, but Pro’s version of honor does not reflect the modernistic, current values of society. It reflects that of a more historical, traditional society that no longer exists.
My evidence is my logic.
For Social Psychology is difficult to pin down with 'facts,
Correlation mistaken often, for causation.
If you like, I can claim that since dueling was outlawed in Uruguay, in the 70s.
A dictatorship popped up in the 70s,
(Though I admit an uncertainty in 'Many sites, some saying 1971 others saying 1992, I am uncertain 'what the legislation in the two different dates is.)
Or that as generations grew up without honor being a strong concept,
"Homicides and crimes, such as armed robbery, began to spike in 2011-2012"
Another evidence I give is Universe 25
A clear example of crowding's psychological effects,
My opponent suggests many methods which by force the government can violate it's citizens, quell their numbers, on the 'governments terms.
But recoils at the people being given freedom, autonomy, in which they themselves might decrease in number.
So long as they are of sane mind,
A respect for autonomy is of the highest humanity.
Ought we force our own beliefs upon people?
Only by whatever religion we practice, shall they be saved?
No more tattoos?
Tell them how to think, act, and feel?
'I argue for.
. . .
There being a legal method of violence, (Dueling)
Prevents as many people going to prison for violence,
People become 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.
Wicked individuals, being held in public contempt,
Honorless fellows, who commit offenses again and again,
Become more likely to meet their end.
But they 'do, you might claim?
Nay! say I.
Blunt: "Sir. It is time. To return. To the courtroom."
Mr Kornada: "Good. The sooner they find me innocent, the sooner I can go home."
Blunt: It is possible. They may find you/ Guilty."
Mr Kornada: "Then we take what we learned and appeal until I am found innocent."
Blunt: "Like. A saved game. Before. The Big. Boss fight. It sounds like. Cheating."
That's why it takes so much gold to keep playing. We can't have the unwashed masses copying our moves."
Honor ought be a currency, regarded higher than 'paper and 'coin.
'Dueling, is an equalizer.
"An additional lawlike aspect of the seconds negotiation process was that it always resulted in a written record, duel or no duel."
"A fatality in a duel, something that thankfully only happened once in a decade."
Why dueling was legal in Uruguay from 1920 to 1992
If people should choose deadlier or safer means of dueling,
Then I say this is freedom.
Meanwhile I argue my Morton's Fork, of Round 2 still applies.
Risks of Vengeance
Not 'One of Sir.Lancelot's sources were historical,
The event's of Troy 'may be historical, but Historical 'Fiction, is not Historical 'Fact.
I admit the fairness of using Fiction to make a point, (Certainly I have used quotes from fiction in my arguments)
But I asked for historical proof,
Fiction is better used to 'reminding an individual that a truth 'Matters,
But there need 'be a truth.
In the Iliad,
If Paris had simply been killed or Menelaus been killed,
Rather than Aphrodite whisking Paris away,
Then war 'might have been averted, Helen going with the victor.
Though there would not have been a 'need for said duel, if Paris had not dishonorably stolen a mans wife.
"In the Iliad, Paris challenges the Greeks to a duel to settle the Trojan War once and for all. Menelaus accepts, but before he can kill Paris, the Trojan prince is rescued by the goddess Aphrodite."
. . .
Of the other duels,
I assert that it is beyond easy in fiction,
To find duels that ended with revenge or not.
I reiterate my point,
Fiction is better used to 'reminding an individual that a truth 'Matters,
But there need 'be a truth,
In this case, I ask for 'statistics, of their claim that duelists families will be targeted.
Factors of Consent
While people may not understand or be pressured in life,
Life abounds with life altering decisions,
We do not outlaw individuals freedom to choose their own lot in life.
One could argue for a court of honor.
"MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Aug 5 — The Chamber of Deputies has approved a bill suppressing existing penalties on duelling, provided certain conditions are fulfilled.
The penalties are suppressed under the bill, provided the seconds submit previously to a court of honor consisting of three members, the question of whether an offense justifying the duel exists and if so who is the offended party."
Rich and famous people can 'already target people, push them towards ends.
Of course the courts exist, which can be used to mitigate this,
As I said in Round 2
It's 'not allowed,
And if it 'be legal, then ought we take from citizens freedom of money?
They might be intimidated into giving it to the rich and famous person in your example?
No, say I.
In the last 430,000 years, even further I'm sure.
Strength and violence have existed among man.
"This violent tableau resembles something from the darker side of modern warfare. But it instead describes the grizzly demise of a group of African hunter-gatherers some 10,000 years ago. They are the victims of the earliest scientifically dated evidence for human group conflict—a precursor to what we now know as war."
"In a cave in northern Spain, archeological detectives discovered the remains of a 430,000-year-old skull bearing what appears to be lethal, deliberately inflicted blunt force trauma. If the scientists’ interpretation of the wound is accurate, the skull represents the earliest known murder."
This is not to say we should not strive for more,
But the threat of war has not left the nations of man.
It is better to be strong I assert,
To know of strength and violence,
Ere come war, or natural disaster.
We need not 'force people into duels,
But skill in arms is a 'virtue.
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?
Clear, 'Clear I say, before our eyes.
All I ask,
Is whether my notion of honor, is to you right?
Or do you agree with Sir.Lancelot, that it be outdated?
For this round, I’ll focus mostly on rebuttals.:
The alternatives to dueling provide cathartic release, which demonstrates a lack of need for dueling to solve warfare.
Lack of dueling & Tyranny
Pro says that dueling being outlawed caused a dictatorship formed in the 70’s because of dueling being outlawed, that it is the cause of violence’s peak in 2011-2012.
Not only are these unsubstantiated claims, but tyranny and violent crime existed in places where dueling was legal for the majority of the Medieval century.
And during the French Revolution, dueling was still legalized and this did not stop power-hungry tyrants from oppressing people like Maximilien Robespierre.
In most places that struggle from violent crime, it is attributed to low socioeconomic status and poverty, rather than a lack of honor. This is true even for crime-infested places in the United States.
Legalizing dueling will not stop armed robbery, school shootings, or terrorist bombings.
“There being a legal method of violence, (Dueling)Prevents as many people going to prison for violence,People become 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.Wicked individuals, being held in public contempt,Honorless fellows, who commit offenses again and again,Become more likely to meet their end.”
Believe it or not, most people who are sentenced to prison aren’t violent. A lot of drug-related crimes make up a huge demographic of the conviction rate. These people do not become violent because they have anger issues and require an “outlet.” They become violent for survival and self-defense.
Similarly, a lot of cases or situations involving violence are circumstantial. Getting cut off in traffic, drunkenness, or discovering a spouse has been unfaithful.
Dueling won’t magically make these problems disappear.
“But there need 'be a truth,In this case, I ask for 'statistics, of their claim that duelists families will be targeted.”
Let’s assume that dueling in the United States is legalized and the grandson of a secret Cartel leader insults a waiter’s wife. So the waiter challenges the offender to a duel.
Are we not to believe that the waiter’s head won’t be discovered in a box delivered at the widow’s front door before the day of the fight even takes place?
Or if the waiter succeeds in killing the man, that he won’t return home and discover his wife cut into pieces?
“(A) PopulationHumans '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?Clear, 'Clear I say, before our eyes.”
Will any of these issues be resolved with dueling, which Pro himself stated that deaths are rare?
There had been misunderstandings that led to the loss of someone’s life. To which I ask, is honor so important so much so that they would risk their life over something as trivial as an insult to one’s self or woman? Now here are important questions to consider.
Would the wife/girlfriend want their man to risk his life to defend her honor? (Fighting to the death over a verbal dispute.)
- If the answer is yes, then consider how little this woman values her man. Is she someone really worth defending? Perhaps, the insult is even warranted in that case.
- If the answer is no, then why would a man care so little about his wife that he would disregard her feelings entirely and stake his life just because his sense of pride was damaged.
Russell Lynes offers a better way to respond to insults, “If you can't ignore an insult, top it; if you can't top it, laugh it off; and if you can't laugh it off, it's probably deserved.” 1
I maintain my argument,
That sports, do not risk enough,
A duel shows 'bravery, conviction in one's claims.
I wouldn't say the dictatorship and outlawing of dueling are 'proof,
But it 'does lend towards argument,
Of violent people being prevented outlets, until they burst out upon others,
And government stepping on people's rights.
The dictatorship ended in 1985 (I think)
"The civic-military dictatorship of Uruguay (1973–85), also known as the Uruguayan Dictatorship, was an authoritarian military dictatorship that ruled Uruguay for 12 years, from June 27, 1973 (after the 1973 coup d'état) until March 1, 1985."
I assume Con mentions "2011-2012",
"The Proposal Foundation (Fundacion Propuesta - FP), an organization that monitors security in Uruguay, released figures putting the country on course for a homicide rate of 9.19 per 100,000 in 2012. This marks a jump from 6.27 per 100,000 last year, and means that 2012 will be Uruguay's most violent year on record, reported EFE."
Which, I'd argue I 'again see as argument for legalized consensual dueling,
Societies have periods in time when they're more violent, or people more crazy,
Allowing such individuals a method to vent and die if they continue to live by the sword.
Rather than commit their violence in shadows, against the consent of others.
"After the 1789 revolution, all the royal edicts were abolished including those banning duels."
I 'specifically note the 'all royal edicts part.
French Revolution was a crazy time in many an aspect,
So many heads. . .
At least if the accused had been offered trial by combat/duel,
There might have been less deaths,
People 'so eager to execute others, when they risk nothing.
Well, less people means the poor's skills are valued more.
"The Black Death was a great tragedy. However, the decrease in population
caused by the plague increased the wages of peasants. As a result, peasants
began to enjoy a higher standard of living and greater freedom. "
And if as in much of past history, the 'elites shoulder the lions share of duels,
"In the Middle Ages, it was a legitimate procedure to settle a personal dispute. Yet as time went by, an excess of testosterone combined with personal pride made it the prime cause of death among young nobles, who felt obliged to fight for the slightest personal offense. At the rate of 500 deaths a year, France was in danger of losing all of her nobility to trivial disputes. Duels were outlawed by a royal edict."
Due to reputation, one's word, integrity,
Being held of greater importance, higher up the ladder,
There's that importance of honor again, in public servants.
It allows greater upward mobility,
Both in deaths,
And people kicked out by their peers and public,
If they do not maintain honor.
Will it Stop X?
Well, even a stop sign, doesn't always stop cars.
I 'do argue that through dueling's various ends,
Robbery, school shootings, terrorist bombings,
'May be mitigated to a degree.
When the violent meet their ends earlier or if they live, vented in a manner not illegal.
When children are raised in a society that makes a point of politeness, of how 'much words matter.
“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
Dueling won’t magically make these problems disappear,
But it 'might mitigate them,
Through such reasons as population control,
Removal and outlet for what aggressive/violent people there 'are.
"a Banking and Insurance, Counterfeit, Embezzlement 200 0.1%
b Burglary, Larceny, Property Offenses 7,198 4.9%
c Continuing Criminal Enterprise 246 0.2%
d Courts or Corrections 607 0.4%
e Drug Offenses 66,090 44.5%
f Extortion, Fraud, Bribery 6,380 4.3%
g Homicide, Aggravated Assault, and Kidnapping Offenses 4,767 3.2%
h Immigration 7,857 5.3%
i Miscellaneous 836 0.6%
j National Security 42 0.0%
k Robbery 4,055 2.7%
l Sex Offenses 17,897 12.1%
m Weapons, Explosives, Arson 32,187 21.7%"
Yes drugs are a big part of the pie,
But violence is not an inconsequential part,
And drug related some violence be or not,
Aggression is aggression.
Members of criminal organizations such as a Cartel,
Can't be held up as actions 'normal people would take.
Example, legalize guns,
Well what if gangs use them?
Gangs would use illegal guns and violence anyway.
The Gangs are not supposed to 'be anyway,
Not as though they would only be killing people because dueling is legal.
Additionally dueling encourages in the common people skill in arms, honor, standing for themselves,
May the 'people kill the cartels,
As a Wild West townsfolk ought shoot bank robbers.
Remember the Morton's Fork,
I have an argument, whether dueling causes many deaths or not,
I have the argument that the number of dueling deaths and aggression in society varies.
That in times people 'become aggressive and violent, it is good to have a venting valve.
Forgiveness can be given,
But if violators are 'never held to account,
A sense of entitlement grows,
It becomes 'normal behavior.
Just look at Trump.
. . .
We should 'want our politicians 'overall, to,
Keep their words,
And various 'other ideals of honor.
This is my last round.
Since Lance gave up his first, I give up my last.
“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
Do we wish to create in society, an artificial culture of insincere politeness from fear of death?
This fearmongering is unhealthy for the minds of civilians and their safety.
- Extend all my previous constructives, arguments, rebuttals, and sources.
VengeanceMembers of criminal organizations such as a Cartel,Can't be held up as actions 'normal people would take.Example, legalize guns,Well what if gangs use them?Gangs would use illegal guns and violence anyway.The Gangs are not supposed to 'be anyway,Not as though they would only be killing people because dueling is legal.Additionally dueling encourages in the common people skill in arms, honor, standing for themselves,May the 'people kill the cartels,As a Wild West townsfolk ought shoot bank robbers.
Law-abiding citizens can be driven mad too when the life of someone close to them is taken.
I do believe I have cemented my point that dueling should not be legalized on the basis that society has moved forward and our values have shifted.
Someone’s reputation shouldn’t be prioritized over their life.
A special thanks to Lemming for the interesting debate.
As I stated I would do in the last round,
Since Lance gave up his first, I give up my last.
Thanks for voting,
No formal complaints about your vote,
Nor any wish you change it.
Still I like stating my personal views sometimes, below is meant more lighthearted, than serious.
Bah, Romeo is fictional.
The reality of the modern world,
Legal to commit suicide,
Legal to gamble away one's livelihood,
Legal to modify one's body,
Dueling just not a 'current fad.
Win on a technicality, I shall not.
Judged fairly, the debate will be.
Why not put it under legibility?
If two people look upon a raging torrent of a river,
"There is not no way we can just wade across that safely without any preparation.
Look at the raging torrent and history of people who drown crossing this river when it's like this."
"So you're saying it's safe despite the dangerous reasons you gave after you said it was safe?
Okay then, I'll try crossing."
Second guy drowns.
. . .
That doesn't happen,
Because most people would catch on to the first guy's meaning,
Even if First 'did use a double negative.
I firmly hold the opinion that the sentence is grammatically incorrect that it holds no technical nor practical meaning. Therefore, it means nothing, and cannot be "proven". It can be "disproven" though, by disproving the proposition that such a claim can be upheld at all. Unless the CON's BoP is to prove the inverse of the "sentence" if it even is one, Con wins by default.
I'll vote on this after my own similar debate.
Thanks for the debate,
I've been enjoying three debates on the same subject more than I thought I would.
Hm, darn, I forgot to change Lance and Con to Sir.Lancelot, in round 4,
And Lance to Sir.Lancelot, in round 5,
I noticed this debate I can copy and paste usernames when posting my round, so that the User names are blue,
But Lance and Con were supposed to be placeholders, not what I meant to use,
Not that it 'matters much,
But I like to remember my intention, ah well.
I've noticed you're an active debater,
One I've thought,
Well I hope I don't debate them,
I'd have to effort, try, and improve myself, To match them.
Active in Wylted's presidential campaign.
Have published books.
Writing books, another sign of effort/skill in an area,
Mentioned Star Wars a few times,
I suppose Star Wars has duels, but they're more fights that happen to be one on one,
Unless one goes into more media than the movies.
Too many debates to read, currently with what else I'm doing in life,
I think I'll read and watch David S. Parker talk about dueling in Uruguay,
Then post my round 2 in 0-3 days.
I think you’re a strong debater, just having seen the way you argue.
And this is a very creative resolution.
This will be a fun convo.
I'm up for it,
It's still an interesting topic for me,
That I ought research more.