The Instigator
Tophatdoc
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
MasterDebater2
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Dueling should be legalized

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Tophatdoc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,016 times Debate No: 44456
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

Tophatdoc

Pro

I as Pro will be arguing dueling should be legalized in the United States. The burden of proof is on me.

Definition:
Dueling:"A prearranged, formal combat between two persons, usually fought to settle a point of honor."
[1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Debate Structure:

Debate Structure:
Round 1) Acceptance only
Round 2)Opening Arguments
Round 3)Rebuttals
Round 4)Closing Arguments. No new evidence is allowed to be presented. Otherwise it is an automatic forfeit of all points.

Debate Theme:Will You Follow Me by Rob Dougan

MasterDebater2

Con

Sure, I'll bite. Why should dueling be legalized?
Debate Round No. 1
Tophatdoc

Pro

I thank Con for accepting this debate.

The following are reasons why dueling should be legal:
1.Consensual Agreement
Both parties that participate in a duel agree being involved in such an event[1].Both parties involved assume responsibility for the results of their agreement.
[1]http://definitions.uslegal.com...

2.No Bar Room Brawl or Street Fight.
Dueling is not spontaneous or an event built in with instincts of anger.Dueling requires seconds to exchange with each other the rules and location of a duel.Then they must be agreed upon by both parties[2].Normally there will be a negotiations to stop the duel before it happens.There is more than enough time for a duel to be called off.Both parties will have had time to consider what they wish to do.The duel simply can be called off when the offending party apologizes for the offense to the offended party.
[2]The Code of Honor by John Lyde Wilson

3.Weapons are agreed upon.
The weapons to be utilized in a duel is agreed upon by both parties.Normally, weapons utilized in a duel are pistols or swords.But weapons that will result in incapicitation or death can be avoided if the particpants wish.Participants can even duel in hot air balloons if they want[3].

[3]http://blog.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk...

4.It is a Great Event.
Many great people have dueled ranging from kings,aristocrats,and nobility to professionals,politicians,and commoners.President Andrew Jackson was in multiple duels in his life[4].A duel can be the event of a lifetime.

[4]http://hubpages.com...

5.An End to Grudges.
Instead of holding grudges,a duel can allow for grudges to end.

6.Peace Through Strength(V is for Victory)
Allegedly,Mahatma Gandhi once said "An eye for eye makes the world go blind[]."I tend to agree.That is why I say if they take your eye,you take their life.The fact of the matter is that if they can take one eye what prevents them from taking the other eye,an arm,a leg,or your life or your loved ones' lives.It requires faith in someone that had the intent to harm you to allow them another chance.If they did it once what would prevent them from doing it again?There is absolutely one person that can be trusted in this life and that is yourself because that is the only person you can control.Let us not put faith in those who have had the intent to harm us and still do.In the best or worse case scenario depending on your perspective someone can be rendered incapacitated or lifeless as a result of a duel.Your foes can become impotent.
[]http://quoteinvestigator.com...

7.Builds Character.
The legalization of duels will prevent the slanderous from verbally abusing people they dislike in public.Now they could suffer for their sharp tongues in a duel.As a result, duels will encourage self-restraint and re-introduce honor into American culture.
MasterDebater2

Con

You bring up some interesting points but some of your points are flawed, unethical or outright subjective.

Consent
Humans have a nasty habit of exploiting any law or rule that has ever existed and this one would fair no differently. In a perfect world we could hope that both parties of a duel would consent to dueling and I’m sure they would most of the time but this leaves a legal loophole for organized crime groups to kill people legally by extortion (i.e. forcing someone to duel or the crime group would kill someone close to the duelist). In no way, shape, or form should killing be legalized because this always leaves a loophole to be taken advantage of.

Weapons are agreed upon
Not having a standardized location would cause issues. Like it or not times have changed since dueling was acceptable. You can’t just have gun matches everywhere, this would be a threat to everyone’s general safety. It would have to take place in a heavily regulated arena solely meant for dueling.

It is a Great Event
Not everyone would believe this, some people would view it as barbaric or regressive just like gladiating.

An End to Grudges
Sure it would end the grudge between the two individuals but it create animosity between the families of the two duelists and with dueling being legal, many duels would happen between the two families presumably.

Builds Character
How can you say this for sure about a whole society?

My thoughts
Legalizing killing opens up a whole can of worms that didn’t exist in the society that originally had dueling legalized.

Could people justify murder by saying they were just dueling?

What happens to all the people not killed? Is society fronted with their medical bills?

Will organized crime take advantage of this law?

Is a permanent solution to a temporary squabble ethical?

This is why the court system was created so people didn’t have to resort to killing each other in order to solve squabbles. They were created to resolve disputes in a civil way that doesn’t have an ultimately negative permanent outcome.

Debate Round No. 2
Tophatdoc

Pro

"Your points are flawed,unethical or outright subjective"

Ethics is relative to the individual. Ethics is not absolute so it is only unethical according to the ethics you subscribe to. Everything from a person's perspective is subjective because "perception is reality."

"Organized crime groups to kill people legally by extortion (i.e. forcing someone to duel or the crime group would kill someone close to the duelist). "

That is an illogical scenario. If they are going to kill someone close to "Person A" illegally why would they not just kill "Person A" anyways? If they kill the person close to "Person A" they are engaging in an illegal activity already. So what is the difference?

"No way, shape, or form should killing be legalized because this always leaves a loophole to be taken advantage of."

Killing is already legal contrary to what my opponent thinks. People are killed in wars when we shoot them and drop bombs on their heads without warning.A war is a nefarious act where even innocents are killed without consent or any kind of written permission.Dueling is fair to both participants generally. In a duel, both sides are in agreement for the action taking place so they assume responsibility.

A loophole is not enough to toss dueling out. The loophole that Con has mentioned is strictly theoretical and not practical.What is the likelihood of his example?It is extremely low because duels have been legal in the past and the events that he has offered have never happened.Therefore this loophole is inconsequential.

"Gun matches everywhere"

Duels have never took place everywhere as Con states.Normally there were grounds for dueling.For example, there were dueling grounds right outside of Washington DC[1].Duels are not going to be happening like in the movies where it is sundown and duelists are shooting it out in the street.That is purely fictitious. Duels have taken place far away from the general populace.

[1]http://www.roadsideamerica.com...

"Not everyone would believe this."

People against dueling and gladiating must acknowledge such events are great due to the intensity of said events[2].

Great:"full of emotion."
[2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...

"Many duels would happen between the two families "

Dueling does not result in vendettas often.There are little to no examples in history.Vendettas are often fights such as the Hatfields-McCoys, spontaneous and unorganized.The probability of the event Con has suggested is very unlikely.

Vendetta:"Very long and violent fight between two families or groups"
[3]http://www.merriam-webster.com...

“Character”

People affected by the legalization of dueling would be affected only.

"Justify murder"

Murder is an illegal action[4].Once dueling is legalized,it is no longer murder.

Murder: “the crime of deliberately killing a person”
[4]http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I will respond to the rest of "Con's thoughts" next round.
MasterDebater2

Con

Consent:

“That is an illogical scenario. If they are going to kill someone close to "Person A" illegally why would they not just kill "Person A" anyways? If they kill the person close to "Person A" they are engaging in an illegal activity already. So what is the difference?”

The point is that crime groups could kill legally through extortion without repercussion after a dueling law passed. There is no question it will happen, humans exploiting laws are as predictable as the sun rising.

Loopholes:

“Killing is already legal contrary to what my opponent thinks. People are killed in wars when we shoot them and drop bombs on their heads without warning. A war is a nefarious act where even innocents are killed without consent or any kind of written permission. Dueling is fair to both participants generally. In a duel, both sides are in agreement for the action taking place so they assume responsibility.”

You are comparing apples to oranges here. War and dueling are not the same thing. The former is between nations supposedly ratified through a complex process whereas the latter is between individuals over a dispute. This system could easily be taken advantage of by someone who wished to exploit it. Why bring in unnecessary deaths if you don’t have to? That is why we have a legal system, to handle disputes between individuals without the need for violence and death. It is a superior method of handling disputes because it does not involve loss of life while rectifying the situation.


“A loophole is not enough to toss dueling out. The loophole that Con has mentioned is strictly theoretical and not practical. What is the likelihood of his example? It is extremely low because duels have been legal in the past and the events that he has offered have never happened. Therefore this loophole is inconsequential.”

Legalizing dueling in this era is completely theoretical as well, we have no idea how it would be adopted as our culture is vastly different than when dueling was commonplace and legal. The general morality and honor code of today is alien compared to what the norm was then.

Vendettas:

"Dueling does not result in vendettas often. There are little to no examples in history. Vendettas are often fights such as the Hatfields-McCoys, spontaneous and unorganized. The probability of the event Con has suggested is very unlikely."

Why open the possibility of it happening? There is no need to duel as disputes can be reconciled and punishment can be administered through due process without death.


My thoughts:

While I respect the concept of dueling in its time by upholding an honor code to an extreme standard, it has been replaced completely by a legal system in which all manner of issues can resolved and punishments can be administered. There is no need for vigilantism as we have progressed as society and no longer require it in our society. The populace shouldn’t be able to decide who gets to fight to the death, it’s regressive in nature.

Debate Round No. 3
Tophatdoc

Pro

Let me sum up my points:

1.Consensual Agreement
This point stands as is.

2.No Bar Room Brawl or Street Fight.
This point stands as is.Con tried to make the claim that dueling was happening everywhere.I refuted this in Round 3.

3.Weapons are agreed upon.
This point stands as is.Con has used appeal to fear to make it seem that in duels someone has to die or would be harmed beyond belief.I said in Round 2,weapons are up to the participants exclusively.They can use non-injurious weapons if they wish.

4.It is a Great Event.
Con tried to make the claim that some would believe it is not a great event.I refuted this in Round 3 because by definition dueling must be a great event.

5.An End to Grudges.
This point stands as is.

6.Peace Through Strength(V is for Victory)
This point stands as is.My opponent didn't even address this at all.

7.Builds Character.
This point stands as is.Con was concerned if the general American populace benefited from dueling.To which I replied no.

8.Loopholes
Con was fixated on theoretical loopholes in the legalization of dueling.I dismissed them because they were non-existent historically.Dueling has existed historically so shouldn't loopholes been exploited?Possibly,but my opponent didn't offer any examples.

9.Vendettas
I refuted the claim that duels would lead to vendettas among families.The evidence was inconsequential and will continue to be as such if dueling was legalized.

10.Morality
My opponent has tried multiple in this opinion to demonize and shame the act of dueling.But I simply retorted in Round 2:"Ethics is relative to the individual. Ethics is not absolute so it is only unethical according to the ethics you subscribe to."Let us all not be subject to the morals of Con.

11.Con has only offered opinion.
"My's Thoughts" was exactly what Con determined to call it,and it was exclusively his thoughts only.Con has also offered many fallacies in this debate to back his opinions.Throughout the debate he used appeal to emotion multiple times.He used terms like "unethical," "exploiting," and "regressive" with no evidence to back such adjectives.Con also used appeal to fear as well stating "unnecessary deaths."Con did not offer one iota of evidence for any of his statements.If he offers evidence this round he forfeits the debate entirely(See Round 1 debate structure).Voters,should we accept such conjecture in a debate on something that was once legal?Shouldn't evidence be presented based off of previous details on the art of dueling?Con has offered his distaste for dueling very clearly but there is nothing to back that distaste.

12.Con disregarded the debate structure.
Round 2 was supposed to be opening arguments only.Instead he offered no presentation of arguments whatsoever. Con asked questions and provided a rebuttal.He should lose his conduct points.

Many thanks to my opponent for participating in this debate.If you agree after reading this debate that I have provided a strong and valid argument for the legalization of dueling,Vote Pro.
MasterDebater2

Con

For my closing argument I'll keep it extremely concise since this will be the only time I can log on here in the next few days and I don't have much time. Pro dictates dueling a way of two parties consenting to resolving a conflict. I am saying the current legal system is a superior way of resolving conflicts in a non-violent manner and makes dueling obselete. I bring up theoretical situtions in which people today will exploit the system of dueling as today's culture itself has changed so radically since dueling was origianlly legal and legalizing dueling in this day and age is in itself hypothetical. There is no way to prove with facts whether dueling today would be the same as it was then, for or against, it's all hypothetical.

Anyways, I had a fun time debating and will try to adhere to structure much more thoroughly as I am very new to this site.

Vote Con!!!
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Tophatdoc 2 years ago
Tophatdoc
@Ragnar, There was only one hot air balloon duel that I know of. It was in France.
Posted by MasterDebater2 2 years ago
MasterDebater2
Interesting, I'll post my response after my classes today.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
I'm intrigued, though at the moment I'm too busy to manage another debate. I'll be keeping track, though, interested to hear both sides' arguments.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
Sounds amazing, I'll view this.
Posted by ironmaiden 2 years ago
ironmaiden
This looks good! I'd say yes it should be, as long as it was done where no one else would get hurt. But yes, this would be a way of eliminating all the idiots in the world:)
Posted by Caploxion 2 years ago
Caploxion
Interesting...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
TophatdocMasterDebater2Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Pro had far more coherent and logical arguments. While I am opposed to dueling, I do think that Pro made a good case and as such deserve arguments points. Sources go to Pro, as Con offered none. Con should have adhered to the structure of the debate, but as Con apologized I will not deduct conduct points. S&G are shared.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
TophatdocMasterDebater2Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con simply isn't refuting Pro's case. The presence of loopholes exists in status quo, and the ethical harms are dependent on perspective. As such, there's no demonstrable harm to legalizing dueling. Con really needs to take some time to articulate why a gladiatorial scene is wrong (there are decent reasons why), and spent some time on how dueling is not just legalized killing, but legalized torture by individual citizens. We should be worried about the fact that these would have limited and uncertain regulatory structures, and what that means, I just don't see enough about it to justify a Con win. Pro, it might be best to compare to some things that are allowable in society today, stating that this is no worse, say, than putting two men in a ring together and having them punch each other until someone submits due to a combination of exhaustion and physical harms. Pro also gets sources, since he's the only one to cite.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
TophatdocMasterDebater2Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources: Con did not challenge any of them, and given their quality and interesting details (hot air balloon duels happened!) this basically makes this area surrendered. In R2 pro's "7.Builds Character." dirrectly conflicted with "1.Consensual Agreement" (really surprised con did not notice this). However con did misrepresent the idea as solely lethal in his bold text. R3 con began putting all his own words in bold, to make them seem more important? Anyway by doing so he threw out one third of the things I grade in argument. R4 pro did a great job summarizing, even if I disagree with a few things in it. I agree that con broke conduct, and were I awarding him argument I would subtract conduct as a price to it (the failing still affects argument). Overall pro easily takes argument. Con next time cite the Burr?Hamilton duel to even things up. Oh S&G could have been better from both parties.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
TophatdocMasterDebater2Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro put together a good well researched argument. I wish con could have provided some facts instead of just resting on hypothetical situations. Maybe researching why it was made illegal to start with.