Ought be a Legal Right to Dueling.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,500
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
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.)
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.”
“(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.”
- 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?
- 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.
“(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?”
- 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.
- 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) "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?”
- Legalizing Dueling + Violent Offenders = Cathartic Outlet = Less violence.
“(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.”
- 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.
“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.”
- Say you do succeed in killing your enemy.
- 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
- 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
“(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?
“(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.”
- Preserve his reputation.
- Stop the harassment on his friends and family.
- Appease the public.
“(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.
“(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.
“(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.”
“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 there need 'be a truth,In this case, I ask for 'statistics, of their claim that duelists families will be targeted.”
“(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.”
- 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.
“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
- 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.
There's a lot said here, so I will categorize arguments for the purpose of clarity. The questions here are (a) whether dueling is harmful and (b) whether that harm means that the government is justified in restricting the right to duel.
(a) Con does better here, showing the impact of the loss of life and even harms that impact people other than the ones dueling. Pro gives impacts that are much less direct, such as population. Honor doesn't really help either side because of how subjective it is—both sides try to define it differently. Impolite people may be removed from society, but I'm also told by Pro that those who duel are honorable, and the benefits of this aren't guaranteed in every case. The direct impact of death seems much bigger.
(b) Neither side seems particularly interested in weighing harm against freedom. Pro does less with this than he could, since he seems to consider freedom one of many impacts, rather than saying it should outweigh any other sort of harm. There's some questions raised about consent, and I don't see Pro doing enough with the freedom angle to show why allowing dueling isn't enabling. Pro makes an argument from consistency, arguing that people are usually afforded freedom. But this isn't true in every case, and Pro doesn't show why all cases should be treated equally—Con is showing a lot of harms that seem unique to dueling.
Hence, my vote goes to Con.
For the argument: First off, Pro and Con both exercised a beyond average level of competency in their arguments. For that, I applaud them both. The debate certainly entertained me. That said, I felt that the ideas that Pro advocated for as reasons for the legality of dueling are simply incompatible with the reality of the modern world, which Con contested and put down with admirable skill. Specifically, the turning point, for me, was when Con made note of the cycle of violence and the story of Romeo.
For the sources: Nothing significant to expand upon. Logic was the predominant source of persuasion in this debate, not quality of sources.
For legibility: Similar levels of legibility were displayed by both debate participants. Pro used an interesting format that was pretty unique and definitely meshed well with the principles he was preaching, though it read slightly poetic, which isn't my flavor. Con used a pretty basic, organized format that was crystal clear and to the point, though it read a little long.
For conduct: Nothing significant to expand upon. They behaved with equal amounts of respect and dignity for the other.
Well,
They're topical for people,
It was 'Really interesting,
Back when I was reading through DDO,
The oldest debates I mean,
One could see people discussing past topical events,
So curious to see conversations of laws, events, people,
That many take for granted now.
One of the reasons I'm against the 'banning of some people currently.
Though,
I 'am for a regulating some of them,
Spamming topics, as though they are taking up 10 tables in a bar, when they only need 1.
No one's 'making anyone interact with anyone 'now.
I'd say the problem is more people taking up an obnoxious amount of space.
If someone 'really dislikes another individual,
Just block them, and have blocks prevent a person from posting in a thread that was made by someone who blocked them.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
While the argument ban any opinion I disagree with may not be 'wrong,
In the sense of preserving one's own value,
It becomes argument for 'any group, to not allow free discussion.
Rights for Blacks?
Guess the racists ought to have refused people freedom of speech,
Course many 'did,
But that's not the point.
The point is people protest against being denied free speech for 'their beliefs,
Yet cry for it at any belief they disagree with.
. .
Well, not 'any belief.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Really though,
It's interesting, to go through conversations from years ago.
Imagine going back a thousand years,
And having 'detailed information of people's beliefs, arguments, conversations.
Detailed more than some slight record,
Some censored record,
Or people only of one mind discussing a subject.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Although I suppose even now it could be interesting,
Provided I went to some website with different enough culture than my own.
You should take pride. (<--- By which I mean, overestimate yourself.)
You're one of the few great debaters that actually came up with an interesting topic.
I'm so tired of all the abortion/trans/religious debates. Nobody cares about that garbage.
Bring back debates about dueling, stoicism, or anything similar.
Well,
Lightbringer69's biggest errors, were in not continuing the debate to the end,
And making insults during the debate.
. .
Also might have been some translation troubles for him,
Possibly caused by my wording on the subject,
Certainly my round 1 had errors, (I used it from a long past debate of mine, and didn't check for errors).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bella3sp,
Had a bit of scheduling trouble, looks to me,
Her round 2 also tripped me a bit,
The layout of it I'd say,
Felt fragmented I'd say,
Not that that's good or bad,
I just have a harder time dealing with 'many points at once.
Children,
I thought she could have used historical examples,
Gang knife fights for instance,
West Side Story but real, I 'imagine there's historical documents somewhere.
What we 'raise kids 'into,
Well,
Societies often have so 'many different groups,
With ideas of what is right.
She had a point about bravery and Brooks,
But didn't quite follow it enough, I 'think.
Some people may lack 'fear,
Yet not choose to fight,
Not 'honorable maybe, but not 'necessarily a lack of bravery.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Really though,
I had higher hopes for me in our debate, Sir.Lancelot.
But maybe I should have seized more on your argument of suicide, (Which I saw as an error on your part)
Or fully addressed your hypothetical examples in fiction.
I do think you argued better than the other two duel debates,
But that also made me 'try more myself,
Bring up more sources and argument.
I also felt more firing all cylinders,
I don't mind Bella3sp taking two weeks,
But can be easier to stay more in mind of a topic, if there isn't too long a gap of time.
Still win or lose I'm glad of the debate,
One wants for other people's opinions of their arguments,
Can be easy to overestimate oneself wrongly.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
So long as people have 'constant consent in a system,
I 'might not mind any law allowed or prevented.
Barring that which cannot 'have constant consent.
I don't mind groups making laws,
So long as people can leave,
Though I might not want to live in a number of groups.
I like the right to a gun,
Think it should be a right in other groups,
But other groups have different wants than me,
More objectively,
Some groups would have more a reason to remove it,
Just I wouldn't want to live in said group.
While copying and pasting probably did give me somewhat of an advantage, I'm a pretty big fan of this subject that I believe I could script all the possible arguments both sides make.
Me for instance, I read a lot about Arthurian Legends, Shakespeare, or the old-school dueling back in Abraham Lincoln's time.
It's just that there are more arguments to make as Con, but I do think your knowledge of the subject is strong enough to win as Pro against the typical decent debater. For instance, you destroyed that one person and you're doing a very good job against Bella3sp.
I intend to recreate this debate against anyone who will accept, but this time, I'll be Pro.
Oh no, 'three debates is more than enough for me,
On this subject,
Barring my making a long winded comment on YouTube somewhere.
Though it 'is good to switch sides for debate subjects,
Adds to knowledge of the subject,
'Can remove close minded view of a subject, advocating 'both sides,
Can show to self whether one 'really understands the view in opposition to one's own.
. . .
Population though 'is a modern concern of people,
'And an old concern of people, regarding dueling,
All the nobles dead of dueling,
All the officers in war dead of dueling,
. .
Which 'was an argument I was expecting from one of the Cons in these three debates,
I don't 'remember anyone making it though,
Though people 'did mention concerns about having too few people,
Well,
'People aren't 'so likely to kill each other I think,
Nor do they 'matter so much as officers, in the sense of function and vital need in war.
Also the other arguments I made,
About aggression outlet,
Possible the common man's wages would increase with less competing labor.
. . . . . .
Still, I enjoyed the debate,
And might not have watched that one two hour YouTube video on Uruguay if not for this specific debate,
Not that I needed more research for you, and not Bella3sp or Lightbringer69,
Can be good to keep improving each additional debate on a subject,
Also,
Since you seemed confident,
I thought a need to try to change up my arguments a bit,
Not so much 'better, but different,
In case you had a view on my angle of attack and were thinking, yes, yes, counterpunch when he uses 'that argument.
We can recreate the debate and switch sides. (I'll be Pro, you can be Con.)
But basically as Pro, I would've likely considered abandoning the Population argument entirely because I feel there are better arguments to be made for legalizing dueling.
Out of curiosity,
How did you feel about the population argument in 'this debate regarding dueling?
Both in the sense of 'number of people overall,
And in creating a higher turnover, of individuals in higher ranks within society?
For what it's worth, I think you did pretty good.
Darn,
But thank you for your vote,
Not trying to change your vote with the below,
I just like stating my thoughts at times.
I'd suppose dueling 'can be harmful to the body,
But thought I made enough argument for it being beneficial to soul/honor, society, it is more beneficial than harmful.
Same with the freedom over harm,
But ah well.
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,
First say's,
"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."
Second says,
"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.
. . .
But no,
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.
@Sir.Lancelot
Thanks for the debate,
I've been enjoying three debates on the same subject more than I thought I would.
@NoOneInParticular
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.
@Sir.Lancelot
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.
@NoOneInParticular
Hm, forums,
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.
Interested?