The Instigator
DrySponge
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bluesteel
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Duelling should be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
bluesteel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,351 times Debate No: 46500
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 

DrySponge

Pro

We share BOP all rounds should be used to make arguments exept this one.
bluesteel

Con

I accept.

Pro said in the comments: "I proclaim the definition of dueling to be the use of organized violence between two consenting adults to settle feuds."

Pro must argue that it should be legal for two adults to use lethal force against each other, as long as both consent. I will argue that it should remain illegal.

For the sake of my own memory: I will argue innocent bystanders, the problem with needing to haul away dead bodies from random places, the problem of proof of consent, and the problem of cheating during duels.
Debate Round No. 1
DrySponge

Pro

How did the vikings keep the violence from their villages there was a stone circle outsode of town and people would setel tjeir differences there.

It was a specific place it is not like they would fight in the streets.
This is the same that I propose.

I suggest there to be a field where people could duel.
By standers would know the risk that they are taking by being there if someone would get hurt it would be there fault.

Arms could be swords preventing every deads by bystanders or old pistols.

The duel would be overseen by the police.
the police would give the weapons.
Cheating would Be quasi imposible.

It would be good for society people would be politer to each other if they knew they could be challenged.

Dead bodies would deposed by the police next to the field
bluesteel

Con

== Resolutional Analysis ==

My opponent agreed that a duel required only two consenting adults. My opponent cannot add additional requirements, such as (1) that police be present, (2) that the duel take place in an abandoned field, and (3) that the weapon be limited to swords. My opponent is engaging in “moving the goalposts” or a “No True Scotsman” fallacy. The name “No True Scotsman” comes from the following example. One person argues that a Scotsman would never attack an unarmed person. The second person pulls out a newspaper proving that in the past, a Scotsman did attack an unarmed person. The first person responds, “well no true Scotsman would do that.” The fallacy is that the original argument was over whether Scotsmen attack unarmed people; the argument was not whether “true Scotsmen” attack unarmed people. It is fallacious to narrow the grounds of the debate when one is losing so as to avoid arguments.


The original resolution was whether “dueling should be legalized.” There were no qualifications. The law was to read: “dueling is now legal. Dueling is defined as the use of organized violence between two consenting adults.” My opponent moves the goalposts if he now changes the law to be, “Dueling must occur with swords, in front of police officers, and in a place far removed from populated areas.” This change is tantamount to a resolution that says, “Killing another human being should be legal,” and Pro clarifies in Round 2 that he meant “only in cases of self-defense.”

Pro has clearly responded to my outline of arguments in Round 1 by simply moving the goal posts. This is not allowed. The original (unqualified) resolution still stands.

C1: No way to prove consent

Under the original resolution, there was no requirement that there be any witnesses to the duel. If the two duelers are the only two witnesses, and one of them is dead, then the killer’s word is the only one that matters. People can engage in murder and then claim they were dueling as a defense. The only person that can contradict that the victim gave “consent” is already dead [i.e. the victim himself].

This problem has already happened in the context of Stand Your Ground laws. Stand Your Ground laws have made it difficult for prosecutors to win murder cases because the killer can simply claim that the victim was the aggressor and the only other witness to the crime [the victim] is dead. [1] As a result, prosecutors find it harder to convict murderers because it is so easy for defendants to assert self-defense claims under the Stand Your Ground law. According to State Attorney Harry Shorstein, the Stand Your Ground law has influenced the District Attorney’s office in Florida to refrain from filing charges or to file reduced charges in a number of murder cases. [2] In addition, police do not even pursue murder investigations when they cannot contradict the killer’s version of events. According to an analysis by the Orlando Sentinel, some murder cases in Florida now receive 20 plus hours of police work, while others now receive ZERO hours of police work because the police cannot disprove the claim that the killer was “standing his ground.” [3]

The same thing would happen with “legalized dueling” – killers would simply claim that they had the victim’s consent to fight. If the killer stabbed the victim with a knife, the killer would simply plant another knife on the victim and claim they were dueling with knives.

Another problem with dueling and proof of consent is duress. A murderer could say, “duel me or I’ll just shoot you anyway.” Even if my opponent’s restrictions applied, it would be impossible to prove duress if the victim were killed in the sword fight. Thus, dueling would become a very effective tool for murderers.

C2: gang shootouts

Dueling will allow gang shootouts to happen in broad daylight with no repercussions. This is already a problem with Stand Your Ground laws. Stand Your Ground laws apply equally to both criminals and normal citizens. “Chief Assistant State Attorney in the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Jay Plotkin, illustrated this problem when he said, ‘unfortunately, you can't write a law that says only good citizens can use deadly force to protect themselves ... If a bad guy is defending himself against another bad guy, the law applies to him, too.’” [4] Elizabeth Megale writes in the American Journal of Trial Advocacy, “imagine two rival gang members cross paths on a public sidewalk where they each have a right to be, they each have a right to stand their ground. Either gang member can . . . claim to perceive a threat from the other, and acting in self-defense, use physical force against the other.” [5] The same thing will happen with duels.

One of the main problems with this is that if an innocent bystander is killed while a person is legally exercising force, the killer cannot be charged for killing the innocent bystander. The court case Smith v. State held that in the context of Stand Your Ground laws, if the person was validly “standing his ground,” he could not be prosecuted for killing an innocent third party by accident. [6]

C3: cheating during duels

If there is no one at the duel, what is to stop one person from cheating? If they are both using guns and agree to walk 5 paces, pause for 3 seconds, turn and shoot, what is to stop one person from waiting only 1 second? Who would enforce violations of duel rules? Even if police were present, would cheating be prosecuted as murder? So if you count your “1-alligator, 2-alligators” too quickly, you are guilty of murder? That doesn’t seem to make sense.

The unfairness to the victim from cheating and the potential unfairness to the killer for accidental rule violations militate against legalizing dueling in the first place because it is not administrable in a fair way.

C4: assuming you buy my opponent’s resolutional analysis, I still win

This is a big assumption, since it should be pretty clear that what my opponent is doing here is completely unfair. What he is advocating is beginning to look less like dueling and more like fencing. He could even add a requirement that “you cannot attempt to kill the other person, only injure.”

But regardless, assuming that you have police oversee the process and only use swords, allowing people to murder each other is still bad because (1) it is a huge waste of police resources, (2) it is a net negative for society, and (3) it undermines the legitimacy of our justice system.

First, police have better things to do than come watch people duke it out. Police would be forced to watch duels, even if the duel rules were that neither party could use lethal force. At some point, fencers – who admittedly are engaging in a rather boring spectator sport – can simply force police to watch them. Even if duels were rare, they hold no social value, so making police drive out to a deserted area and oversee a duel is still a waste of resources.

Second, duels are a net negative for society. Utilitarianism posits that we should not adopt a policy if it has a net negative effect on society. In the case of a duel, either one party has broken the law or one party has slighted the other in some way that is not illegal. If the party has broken the law, it is better for society that the other party reports the violation rather than engage in the duel. Society has an interest in having its laws enforced that goes beyond merely securing justice for the victim (such as deterrence and incapacitation of dangerous people). What happens if one party has committed a serious crime (such as rape), and the victim decides to challenge the aggressor to a duel, rather than go to the police? If the aggressor wins the duel and kills the victim, society is worse off because now a dangerous person cannot be put in prison since the only witness is gone. The ability of criminals to escape crimes through duels weakens deterrence and undermines the incapacitative goals of the justice system.

If neither party has broken the law, society has deemed the transgression to be minor enough that it is not worthy of punishment and therefore it is most definitely not worthy of death. Society loses out if people are killed over minor transgressions. Dead duelers leave behind grieving families. If the dueler is a primary wage earner, society must now support his or her family. Thus, duels are a drain on society. Society should not sanction a bad short-term decision that harms individuals and society in the long-term.

Third, vigilante justice is bad for the legitimacy of the justice system. A society appears inhumane and “Wild West values” prevail if people do not go through the court systems to settle their disputes. Eventually, the stigma for turning down a duel becomes so high that duels become the favored means for settling disputes. Entire communities can castigate people who go to court, rather than settling their feuds through duels. This undermines our criminal justice system.

Next round, I will raise one more argument.

[1] Timothy Johnson, April 26, 2012, Media Matters, Firearms "Researcher" John Lott Fudges Gun Facts Again, http://mediamatters.org...
[2] Zachary Weaver, October 2008, 63 U. Miami L. Rev. 395, Note: Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Law: The Actual Effects and the Need for Clarification, Lexis
[3] Henry Pierson Curtis, Orlando Sentinel, June 11, 2006, Gun law triggers at least 13 shootings, http://tinyurl.com...
[4] Zachary Weaver, October 2008, 63 U. Miami L. Rev. 395, Note: Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Law: The Actual Effects and the Need for Clarification, Lexis
[5] Elizabeth B. Megale, American Journal of Trial Advocacy, Summer 2010, 34 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 105, ARTICLE: Deadly Combinations: How Self-Defense Laws Pairing Immunity with a Presumption of Fear Allow Criminals to "Get Away with Murder", Lexis
[6] Jrank, Justification: Self-Defense - Risk To Innocent Bystanders, http://tinyurl.com...

Debate Round No. 2
DrySponge

Pro

As I put in the comment section I am impresed with my opponents resolve to debate he even challenged me to a duel !

Of course I can add requirements let"s lock at what I wrote:
I proclaim the definition of dueling to be the use of organized violence between two consenting adults to settle feuds

Now let"s break this down:
1- I proclaim the definition of dueling to be the use of organized violence
I didn"t mention how it would be organized, if I can say how it will regulated, it shall take place etc"

2- between two consenting adults
I and my opponent have no problem with this part as long as the consent is authentic.

3- to settle feuds
This part is understood.

My opponent is making a logical fallacy called argument from silence.
An argument from silence (in Latin argumentum e silentio) is a conclusion based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Well now that we got this out of the way.

Rebuttals:
No way to prove consent
Wrong since it"s regulated by the police consent can be proved quiet good.
With signed consent.

Gang shootouts
Gang shootouts would happen but away from the general populace.
What is an improvement to shooting in an alley.

Remembering the definition of duel
: I proclaim the definition of dueling to be the use of organized violence between two consenting adults to settle feuds.

So it would solve shooting in alleys where it could hit by-standers and reduce criminal population what isn"t a problem to me or to society.
Police could harness information from the duels.
Like who is a hot-head?
Who is suspected to be in a criminal gang?

Assuming you buy my opponent"s resolutional analysis, I still win
That"s a big assumption isn"t it , Sir?

This is a big assumption, since it should be pretty clear that what my opponent is doing here is completely unfair. What he is advocating is beginning to look less like dueling and more like fencing. He could even add a requirement that "you cannot attempt to kill the other person, only injure.

I"m don"t know if my opponent has ever read the code duello .
You know the set of rules written to regulate a Duel.
Code Duello : https://www.sos.mo.gov...
I"m starting to doubt if my opponent has read the rules if he had done so he wouldn"t call what I"m proposing fencing.
Although I do not agree with all the rules depicted in the Code Duello my opponents Remarque about what I want to be dueling to be like fencing is bordering to outright madness.

Now I will address my opponents concerns about my actual argument and not the version he debated at the beginning.

1.It is a huge waste of police resources.
- My says that police has something better to do then over-see duels.

Now I want my opponent to open his mind to the fact that murders where two parties were attempting to kill each other would not need to be cared for in prison.

It costs quiet allot to keep people in prison an average estimate would be 129,44$ a day.
http://www.lanecounty.org...

Not considering that innocent by standers would not be at risk as private property would not be at risk.
Duels are not that numerous that it would take allot of police forces to regulate.

To prove this I"m going to quote a person from 1834.
Early 19th century travel writer Harriet Martineau notes ,,It is understood that in New Orleans there were fought in 1834 more duels than there are days in the year.15 in one Sunday morning"
It is to be noted that this traveler wrote the number 15 to show a extremely high number .
So 15 duels are considered an high number.

It woudn"t take long to monitor 15 duels at all.
If only one of this 15 duelist would murder if he could not participate in the duel the money gain in avoiding imprisonment and trial would already profit society. So having police at duel places would be of benefit to society.

And I specified a dueling field so the police isn"t going nowhere the duelers are coming to the police.

2.It would be bad for society.

Here are the reasons my opponent lists.

-Utilitarianism posits that we should not adopt a policy if it has a net negative effect on society.

Proof to me that Utilitarriansim should be followed if you don"t this argument isn"t worth considering.
-If neither party has broken the law, society has deemed the transgression to be minor enough that it is not worthy of punishment and therefore it is most definitely not worthy of death. Society loses out if people are killed over minor transgressions.

People aren"t subjects to society .
Peoples lives aren"t property of society.

If people consent to a duel I don"t see why this notion of society that is foreign to me should keep them from doing a duel.

-Dead duelers leave behind grieving families.

So do innocent by-standers that get shoot when gang shoot outs happen .
If criminals want to die let them die in duel not on our streets where innocents could be shoot .

Innocents. Mothers grieving innocents vs. Mothers grieving criminals
Why are we discussing this ?

Again repeating my arguments.

-No dead from innocent by-standers .
-Reduction of criminal scum. (sorry typo I meant population)

3.Third, vigilante justice is bad for the legitimacy of the justice system. A society appears inhumane and "Wild West values" prevail if people do not go through the court systems to settle their disputes. Eventually, the stigma for turning down a duel becomes so high that duels become the favored means for settling disputes. Entire communities can castigate people who go to court, rather than settling their feuds through duels. This undermines our criminal justice system.

My opponent has to prove that stigma for turning down duels is going to arise until he does this his argument is invalid.

Secondly I would want to comment a phrase from my opponent

Wild West values

I"m starting to think that you don"t know what duels are".

Well I would like to add that duels are the best thing since sliced bread
Joker out !
bluesteel

Con

== Resolutional Analysis ==

Extend my argument that the resolution is that "dueling should be legal," without any limits on where, when, or how the duel should take place. My opponent contends that because he said that dueling involves "organized violence" in the Comments Section that he can use the word "organized" to define strict rules for the time, place, and manner in which duels would have to be conducted. However, I had assumed that the word 'organized" in the phrase "organized violence" meant the same thing as the word 'organized' in the phrase "organized crime," which simply means "orchestrated on a large scale." [1] The word organized merely means that the violence would be legitimized on a society-wide scale, i.e. it would be written into the rule of law. To the extent that my opponent is trying to use the term "organized" to legitimize his 'moving of the goalposts,' I reject his non-standard definition of "dueling." Dueling simply means "a contest with deadly weapons arranged between two people in order to settle a point of honor." [2] This definition is more predictable because it is from a dictionary, not simply from my opponent, and it is more fair since it comports with a reasonable person's understanding of what the resolution would mean. Had I known that the resolution authorizes my opponent to place extremely strict limits on how duels occurred (by re-defining dueling), I would not have taken the debate.

Thus, reject my opponent's supposed restrictions on dueling: that police must be present, that it must occur in an isolated area, and that it must involve swords. This definition of dueling is bad (1) because it is non-standard; most people would think a duel involves gun and is not administered by law enforcement, (2) because it allows my opponent to engage in a No True Scotsman fallacy by simply moving the goalposts whenever I am winning an argument against dueling in general, and (3) because it is unfair because it is not the topic I thought I was accepting. Fairness is a voting issue for reasons of competing interpretation - because as judges, you get to enforce the community norms of DDO and accepting a rule that allows the instigator to change the topic after the contender accepts is a *worse rule* than one that forces the instigator to stick with the topic that was originally intended or to the meaning that would be understood by a reasonable contender.

Extend C1 and C2

By his non-answer, my opponent concedes that it would be impossible to prove consent or to stop gang shootouts out in the streets unless you adopt his rules for dueling [police oversight, must be in isolated areas]. Because of this concession, as long as you refuse to allow my opponent to move the goalposts, C1 and C2 result in an automatic win for Con. Murderers will use claims of "dueling" to escape homicide charges after the fact or will use duress to force unwilling victims to duel them. Gangs will rely on the consent defense to say that gang shootouts are merely sporting events, not examples of homicide, and that innocent bystanders that are killed are no different than people who get hit by crashing cars and killed while watching Nascar.

Extend C3: unadministrable

In spite of my opponent's many limitations, I have argued that enforcing my opponent's scheme is unadministrable because dueling has no clear rules. What if pacing and counting of seconds is required? Will one count with Mississippi's or Mississippi-lessly?

My opponent responds that he will advocate that we adopt the Code Duello, which is an Irish code of dueling created in 1777. However, my opponent's assertion does not square with his own advocacy position since the Code Duello contemplates duels mainly with guns. For example, the Code says, "If they will not decide or cannot agree, the matter must proceed to two shots." However, my opponent stated that he advocated limiting duels to swords. He undermines his own advocacy position. The Code Duello also does not require that duels take place in secluded areas nor that police oversee the duel.

My opponent's advocacy is further unadministrable because it is extremely unclear what is meant by a "secluded area." How far away from civilization must someone go? Does secluded merely mean devoid of people? Does going to an elementary school on a weekend, when no one is supposed to be present, count as dueling at a "secluded area"? Does dueling in someone's corn field count as a "secluded area"? Does someone have to drive all the way out to the Nevada desert to get to a "secluded area"?

In addition, assuming police are overseeing the rules, there could be a serious problem with police corruption or bias. If one party pays a police officer to help him, the officer could simply turn a blind eye to that person firing before the duel has officially begun. Or the police officer could give the non-bribing dueler a dull sword. Alternatively, there would be serious charges of racial bias if officers allowed a minority dueler to die when cheating might have occurred. There was already so much backlash with the Rodney King beatings and the Trayvon Martin prosecution. Our society probably could not survive accusations that police officers were letting white people murder black people under the guise of dueling.

Extend C4: utilitarianism

Under this argument, I win even under Pro's framework. I argued that society loses productive members if people kill each other over minor disputes. Pro's only response is that people are not "property" of the State. However, utilitarianism posits that the State can adopt rules that are in society's best interest, even if they constrict the realm of decisionmaking power of society's members. My opponent seems to take issue with paternalism to save people's lives, but such paternalism underlies a number of beneficial laws, such as laws requiring that drivers wear seatbelts. Duels will mean that people will make hot-headed bad decisions (to kill each other over minor trangressions), when had they simply been disallowed from dueling, cooler heads would have eventually prevailed.

In addition, I argued that society has an interest in seeing people who are guilty of a crime prosecuted. If victims instead challenged their attackers to a duel and the victim lost, the crime would likely go unreported and unprosecuted, since the key witness is dead. However, if the crime goes unprosecuted, this erodes the deterrent and incapacitative functions of our criminal justice system, which go beyond merely securing justice for the victim. In addition, even the victim will not be avenged if the victim loses the duel.

Lastly, dueling wastes police resources (either overseeing it or trying to investigate whether it was actually murder). My opponent claims that this is not *that* big a deal because dueling is infrequent. However, to support this proposition, he cites a source which says that when dueling was legal, there were approximately fifteen duels per day in New Orleans.
Fifteen per day in a single city. There are 19,355 cities in the United States and 365 days in the year. Therefore, extrapolating my opponent's estimate of how many duels there would be if it were legal, that's 105,968,625 duels per year. One hundred and five *million* duels each year. That is a significant number of police resources. It is also a lot of dead bodies.

Because a dueling rule is not in the best interest of society, vote Con.

[1] Google dictionary [organized = arranged in a systematic way, esp. on a large scale.]
[2] Google dictionary
Debate Round No. 3
DrySponge

Pro

Ok my opponent is an adult that is responsible for her self.

If she reads: I proclaim the definition of dueling to be the use of organized violence between two consenting adults to settle feuds for the rest of this debate.
And she accepts to debate me she consents to debate with me following this rule.

But she didn"t she accepted to debate me after my very clear proclamation of a rule to be used in this debate.
The rule being : I proclaim the definition of dueling to be the use of organized violence between two consenting adults to settle feuds for the rest of this debate.

If she wasn"t sure of what she was getting herself in:
However, I had assumed that the word 'organized" in the phrase "organized violence" meant the same thing as the word 'organized' in the phrase "organized crime," which simply means "orchestrated on a large scale."
She should have asked me what organized means. But she didn"t ask she accepted to debate me after I made this proclamation.

Now to Bluesteel if you feel you didn"t know what you were accepting into you can leave the debate at any time and I"ll tell the voters just not to vote.
No problem if you want to leave.

So my way of organizing duels is still valid.
Now that we got this straight some of my opponents points are not longer valid after establishing that my way of organizing duels is still valid.
- gang shootouts
- cheating during duels
-proving consent

I only have to refute my opponent from C3.

- My opponent responds that he will advocate that we adopt the Code Duello, which is an Irish code of dueling created in 1777. However, my opponent's assertion does not square with his own advocacy position since the Code Duello contemplates duels mainly with guns. For example, the Code says, "If they will not decide or cannot agree, the matter must proceed to two shots." However, my opponent stated that he advocated limiting duels to swords. He undermines his own advocacy position. The Code Duello also does not require that duels take place in secluded areas nor that police oversee the duel.
Quote: Although I do not agree with all the rules depicted in the Code Duello.
I used to Code duello to show my opponent that my propositions do not make dueling lock as a boring fencing sport.
I used to show that dueling is not what you see in westerns.

I never advocated the code duello this is what I advocated:
-I proclaim the definition of dueling to be the use of organized violence between two consenting adults to settle feuds
-I suggest there to be a field where people could duel.
-The duel would be overseen by the police.
-the police would give the weapons.

My opponent has to refute this and not his made up versions of duels that only take place in movies.
Extend C3: unadministrable
My opponent argues that duels cannot be administrated because there are no rules for dueling.

I argue duels should give the roles of seconds to the police.
Two consenting adults go to the police sign the consent and duel with pistols.
Pistols (duelling pistols) give an equal opportunity to both parties of winning.
Police over sees the duel.
Duels are taped.

So now duels have rules. Problem solved.

Secondly my opponent starts going on that police bias and corruption could permit cheating.
Highly unlikely since the duels are being taped.

Extend C4: utilitarianism
My opponent says duels are bas for society ince we should keep people alive and than the dead of members of society would have a negative effect"
Again they consented to it they are not hurting any one else so I ask my opponent why not.
People live the society to means of immigration all the time. Society seems not to have problems with leaving members behind so this point is not valid.

After my opponent says if a witness challenges a perpetrator instead of denouncing him to the authorities it would hurt the justice system.
I argue that this will be a very rare case since most people would simply duel the offender and have a note given to the police if they were to die.
Let"s make it like this to settle this I"ll make a poll and we"ll see if it common enough to be a point against dueling.

Quote: Lastly, dueling wastes police resources (either overseeing it or trying to investigate whether it was actually murder).

No since the duels would take place in front of the police and would be taped not very much nvestigation would be needed.

Now this is what pissed me off because it showed that my opponent doesn"t read propelly trough the material.

This is what I said:
To prove this I"m going to quote a person from 1834.
Early 19th century travel writer Harriet Martineau notes ,,It is understood that in New Orleans there were fought in 1834 more duels than there are days in the year.15 in one Sunday morning"
It is to be noted that this traveler wrote the number 15 to show a extremely high number .
So 15 duels are considered an high number.
THERE WERE NOT FOUGHT 15 DUELS EVERY DAY DID YOU EVEN READ THIS PROPERLY ?

Extremly high number let"s 5 would be more accurate.
And even that is extremely high but let"s just stay with that.

An anonymous author writing in 1839 estimated that blood was drawn on in every seventh duel with a fatality in every 14th.

Making the math that would make only 69125 deads every day if the duel rates stayed the same since the 18th century.
But my opponent forgets that new Orleans was the capital of dueling it would be like to calculate the gambling rate in Las Vegas and multiplying it by all the cities in the US and declare that number to be the gambling rate in the US.
But since we have no hard records of duel frequencies in all the cities of the country we have to assume that the number 69125 should be reduced but how much I would like that to be in of my opponent.
Please be fair about it.

So not that big of a number.

Consents
Since my opponent has not refuted this points.
-Dueling would reduce criminal population.
-Be a economic advantage.
-Protect innocent by standers
-Dueling would introduce honorable values into our society.

I thank my opponent to help me make my mind about this subject
bluesteel

Con

I'm gonna keep this Round short to avoid beating a dead horse.

== Resolutional Analysis ==

My opponent changes his proposal back to guns and moves the goal posts once again by responding to my arguments about police corruption and consent by saying that duels would be videotaped.

My opponent says: "Two consenting adults go to the police sign the consent and duel with pistols.
Pistols (duelling pistols) give an equal opportunity to both parties of winning.
Police over sees the duel.
Duels are taped."

My opponent has proven once again why the No True Scotsmen is a fallacy. You can't simply move the goalposts every time there is a problem with your argument. In response to my argument about "too many deaths," my opponent could limit dueling to being between 4 pm and 5 pm on Sundays so that there would be fewer deaths. There is no end to how far he could move the goalposts in order for me to win.

His only response to "moving the goalposts" is that I accepted the ability for him to say how the duels would be organized because he defined dueling as "the use of organized violence." However, this stretches the word organized too far and in a way that is not predictable. My opponent says I should have asked what "organized" meant, but it has a pretty standard definition (which I provided last round). "Organized violence" simply means "orchestrated on a large scale."

I also provided reasons to prefer my definition, which my opponent dropped. It is more predictable and more fair. My opponent's definition allows to change the topic every single round, as he has actually done. This is an independent voting issue for fairness. My opponent claims that we can simply have a "no winner" declared, but this isn't fair to me given the significant research burden I put into this debate, whereas my opponent has done almost no research and simply moved the goalposts every round.

Extend everything else

My opponent doesn't respond to anything except to say "that's not the topic, I avoid that with videotaping."

The only thing he responds to is to say that my estimate of 105 million duels per year is too high. My opponent says that five duels per day would be a more fair number than 15 duels per day. So the estimate would only be 35 million duels per year.

My opponent then says that duels were rarely lethal in the 1800's. However, the firearms that we use today are far more lethal and have more stopping power (the bullets are fired much faster and are heavier). It is likely that modern gun duels would be far more lethal than those of the 1800's. Therefore, that's 35 million likely deaths per year, which is a lot.

All my other arguments about murderers using duels as an excuse defense and gang shootouts still stand. My opponent changing back to guns increases the chance that innocent bystanders will be killed. He never specifies what an "isolated area" would be. If people can have duels in metropolitan areas, even if there area is relatively clear, there is still the potential for innocent bystanders to get shot.

Because I have won the debate and the independent fairness voter, Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
DrySponge

Pro

My opponnet is cometing an logical falllacy is making arguments from silence.

I'm not moving goalposts I am filling silence that could be explained int he comment section.

I said duelling pistols not modern guns.

All points extended.

This boils down to Do you take my opponnets side on the definitions or mine.

Either way I hope my opponent had a fun time I sure had and the same goes to the viewers.

Let's see the result of our standoff
bluesteel

Con

Pro doesn't say anything in the last Round, so he drops all my arguments.

== Resolution ==

Extend my definition of "organized violence." The dictionary defines "organized violence" as violence orchestrated on a large scale. There is no dictionary definition of "organized" offered in today's debate that says, "Organized means that the Pro side can place any limits on dueling he sees fit." Because my opponent's definition is non-standard, it should be rejected because it's not predictable. When I accepted, I thought that "organized" would be given a standard definition. My opponent claims that I could have asked him what "organized" meant, but it is likely he would have given a different answer before seeing all my arguments than *after* seeing all my arguments. His definition of "organized" as "a duel with 19th century dueling pistols, in front of police, in an isolated area, that is videotaped" only came out after I made arguments necessitating (1) a less lethal form of firearm than a modern one, (2) a way to prevent innocent bystanders from being killed, (3) a way to ensure consent is genuine, and (4) a way to ensure no police abuse.

In addition, I said that the "moving target" abuse that my opponent was engaging in was an independent voting issue for fairness. So even if you don't buy my resolutional analysis, vote on the fairness argument. My opponent has moved the goalposts every single round. He changed the type of weapon used to swords, then to pistols, then clarified non-modern pistols. He changed from saying merely that police would observe the duel to saying that the entire thing would be videotaped. If this were a policy resolution that allowed him to offer a plan, he only gets to offer *one* plan in the first round. He can't change his plan every single round. There's no way to argue against that.

If you do buy my resolutional analysis, I still win because my opponent drops that it would be impossible to prove consent when the only other witness (the victim) is dead, meaning murderers would exploit the system and claim they were dueling. There is a serious risk that stray bullets will hit innocent bystanders (or the cops who are watching the duel - some people are lousy shots). In addition, gang shootouts would happen openly in the streets and be legal.

Even if you don't buy the resolutional analysis (that the resolution simply legalizes dueling without any restrictions), I still win on the following two arguments.

First, utilitarianism. My opponent concedes my estimate that there would be 35 million duels per year. Even if only a fraction of those were lethal, that's still a lot of needless death. Either duels will be over minor issues, not serious crimes. In which case up to 35 million deaths a year is an enormous waste. Or the duels will be over serious crimes (like "you raped me"), in which case society loses out if the victim (and only witness) is killed. Society has interests in criminal justice that go beyond mere revenge for the victim [i.e. legitimacy of the justice system, incapacitation of dangerous people, and deterrence of dangerous crimes]. Cops policing 35 million duels per year, plus cleaning up the bodies, plus providing welfare for the dependents that the dead person leaves behind = extremely costly.

Second, plan flaw. My opponent never defines "isolated area." No one will know how to implement his policy. What is an isolated enough area for a duel. An empty park at night? A cornfield in the middle of nowhere? Inside a school gymnasium? In addition, my opponent fails to explain what rules of dueling would apply. He only talks about the Irish Code, but then disavows the Code and says it was just an "example." So if there are no rules for the duel, that's a serious problem. If there are rules, what are they? If there is a rules violation, does that convert the dueling into murder? Or do we invent a lesser crime like "negligent dueling homicide?" If my opponent is going to offer such a specific plan, the plan will fail if the people charged with implementing it have *no idea* how to do so. If we are supposed to pretend to put ourselves (as judges) in shoes of Congress, we could never pass such hastily drafted legislation until these serious questions are answered. So vote the plan down now. Perhaps its drafter can add more meat to it and come back and try to get you (judges) to pass it later.

Because I win three potential ways: independent voting issue [moving target abuse], winning resolutional analysis (that duels are legalized without any other restrictions) [coupled with the arguments on gang violence, innocent bystanders, and difficulty of proving consent], or even under my opponent's framework (that he can change the topic to whatever he wants) [I still win on utilitarianism of up to 35 million deaths per year being wasteful for society], Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DrySponge 2 years ago
DrySponge
Classy got it !
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
Stay classy San Diego...
Posted by DrySponge 2 years ago
DrySponge
I'm starting to doubt your sanity ...
Posted by TheShadowCupcake 2 years ago
TheShadowCupcake
By the end of this comment thread, there will be something far greater than a Mexican standoff about. What shall we call it? The Dry Blue Dino Sammich Muffinbread of Steel Standoff? All in favor?
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
@dry

Cuz your name offends me. I hate dry things. I'd prefer that you were wet.

@thett

Hm, your argument is fallacious. Dinosaurs were allegedly around before sliced bread and they went extinct. How did people eat dinosaurs into extinction if they was no bread to make dino sammiches? Ergo, bread has been around since the beginning of time. There can be no "before" sliced bread. -Kalam Cosmological Argument for sliced bread
Posted by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
Bluesteel I'm very disappointed that you took Con on the res. Dueling is the best thing since sliced bread, and it was around before that, which means dueling is the best thing ever.
Posted by DrySponge 2 years ago
DrySponge
On what offense ?
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
@drySponge

I propose a duel. The weapon is: words. The loser of this debate is put to death.

Do you accept?
Posted by DrySponge 2 years ago
DrySponge
Haven't read the argument yet but I'm impressed
Posted by DrySponge 2 years ago
DrySponge
I challenge you to a debate to settel our differences before we go about this a little blodier .
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
DrySpongebluesteelTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I have no way to word this other than Pro got bodied. Bluesteels law school background showed up and decided to go ham. The argument from consent pretty much won con the debate at that very point alone. Organized violence and other accidents were not responded well to by pro. He almost just drops his closing round out of frustration. Con had organized sources and a very strong foundation for his argument. Pro in turn built his argument without laying the groundwork. Con also had a good utilitarianism approach on this as well. In the end this is pretty clear.