Instigator / Con
14
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Topic
#4497

Ought be a Legal Right to Dueling.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Sir.Lancelot
Parameters
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
Contender / Pro
8
1468
rating
6
debates
33.33%
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.

(Only Lemming may accept.)

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

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.

-->
@Lemming

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.

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

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.

-->
@Lemming

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.

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

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.

-->
@Lemming

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.

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

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?

-->
@Lemming

For what it's worth, I think you did pretty good.

-->
@Savant

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.

-->
@TheApprentice

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.

-->
@Lemming

Win on a technicality, I shall not.
Judged fairly, the debate will be.

-->
@Intelligence_06

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

@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

@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.

-->
@Lemming

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.

-->
@Lemming

Interested?