The Instigator
NotPurpleHaze
Pro (for)
Losing
91 Points
The Contender
ExplodingNoob
Con (against)
Winning
92 Points

Fights to the death similar to those once held in the Colloseum in Rome should be allowed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+17
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,763 times Debate No: 10719
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (33)
Votes (34)

 

NotPurpleHaze

Pro

These fights would differ from those held in Ancient Rome in the following ways:
1. All contestants would be contestants by choice.
2. They would be competing to win cash prizes.
3. There would be no unfair advantages betweed contestants.

The weaponry and armour would be similar to those used by the Gladiators of Ancient Rome.

I believe that these fights would benefit society in the following ways:

1. Those with nothing to lose might be tempted to take part rather than commiting the crimes that they do. In this way it would transform the misfits of society into respectable or dead people. Neither of which we need worry about. If the contestant won he/she would earn an honest wage and would more than likely become a celebrity. As a celebrity he/she would not be able to do much wrong without drawing attention to himself/herself.

2. It would create plenty of jobs. Stadiums would be built, armour and weapons would need to be crafted, merchandise to do with the fights would be sold and it would definitely be broadcasted on television and radio.

3. A requirement of entry could be that the contestants agree to be organ doners which could lead to as many lives being saved as lost.

I've already thought of so many counter arguments. Ah well.
ExplodingNoob

Con

Thank you for your argument.

Now I would like to point out the multiple flaws in your argument.

1. Allowing fights to the death is simply ridiculous. There are laws against murder for a reason. With the allowance of "human cock fighting" it would open a gateway to other possible crimes being illegal as long as they are in a setting of "sportsmanship".

2. Humans are humans regardless of social status. Putting them in cages with swords and armor with a cash prize is completely unethical. This type of behavior would be illegal on the streets so what would the difference be when set in an arena?

3. Your suggested scenario is based on a world with no laws, a blood thirsty population who would pay to see people die, and sponsors to promote such violence.

4. Of course there is always the comparison to today Ultimate Fighting Championship but the relationship between fights with supervision, protective equipment, and TRAINED fighters creates a large gap between the two.
Debate Round No. 1
NotPurpleHaze

Pro

"Allowing fights to the death is simply ridiculous. There are laws against murder for a reason."

Yes, the laws are for the good of society. I have put forward an argument to show that this would be for the good of society.

"With the allowance of "human cock fighting" it would open a gateway to other possible crimes being illegal as long as they are in a setting of "sportsmanship".

Like what? Who can take the most heroin? Who can rob the most houses? What I have proposed would actually serve a purpose to society.

"Humans are humans regardless of social status. Putting them in cages with swords and armor with a cash prize is completely unethical. This type of behavior would be illegal on the streets so what would the difference be when set in an arena?"

There will always be murderers in this world. Would it not be better to have them kill each other for our entertainment than to have them roaming the streets killing innocent people?

"Your suggested scenario is based on a world with no laws, a blood thirsty population who would pay to see people die, and sponsors to promote such violence."

I am arguing that the law should allow it, so obviously there is law. Your example of UFC supports the idea that we are a blood thirsty population.

I have put forward an argument for why this would be for the good of society. It still stands.
ExplodingNoob

Con

Like what? Who can take the most heroin? Who can rob the most houses? What I have proposed would actually serve a purpose to society."

I still see no factual evidence that this would serve a purpose. You are merely confirming my response by listing more preposterous examples of "games" that would have no point. who can take the most heroin you ask? At what point does killing become a better example than that?

"There will always be murderers in this world. Would it not be better to have them kill each other for our entertainment than to have them roaming the streets killing innocent people?"

I believe that instead of sending them against each other to kill we should be helping them. If we create an environment that our kids grow up in telling them it is okay to kill where would we be?

I would now like to lead a discussion on the effects on children:

~~ As in today's society, children model themselves after what their parents do and the things that they grow up around. If we tell them it is okay to fight in an arena to kill then they will no longer strive for excellence by going to school.

If you offer them an option to drop out of school and become a "gladiator" so to speak where does the drive to succeed go? It goes directly into violence.

Today, we also have parents who will do anything to make their children succeed. We see this in today's sports, academics, etc. Imagine a parent pushing their children to fight, to become ruthless, to kill, JUST FOR SPORT.

Then what type of society would we be living in?

I await your response.
Debate Round No. 2
NotPurpleHaze

Pro

"I still see no factual evidence that this would serve a purpose."

I cannot provide factual evidence, only logic. My logic is that those who have nothing to lose might consider taking part in these fights rather than turning to crime. Why would someone become a criminal hitman and have to dodge the law all the time when he could do the exact same thing legally.

"who can take the most heroin you ask? At what point does killing become a better example than that?"

People who take heroin are only harming themselves. Killers harm others. This way killers would be killing killers and both would have agreed to fight in the first place. This is obviously preferable to killers killing innocent people.

"I believe that instead of sending them against each other to kill we should be helping them."

We don't know who they are until they have already killed and even then we have to have caught them. This way they would expose themselves to us and we could keep a close eye on them.

"As in today's society, children model themselves after what their parents do and the things that they grow up around. If we tell them it is okay to fight in an arena to kill then they will no longer strive for excellence by going to school."

That may be the case with some, but thats the same with every sport. Also high risk jobs tend to be the highest paid. The reason for this is because nobody wants to do them. It can't get much riskier than this. If the kid was bright he'd study. If hes not? Well, we'd just be allowing natural selection to take place again, which would be for the good of our species.

"Today, we also have parents who will do anything to make their children succeed."

In most case they just want their children to live well. I doubt these parents would think that sending them to their possible deaths would be a good way to guarantee this. And these fights would obviously only be legal for those that are over the age of responsibility.

"Imagine a parent pushing their children to fight, to become ruthless, to kill, JUST FOR SPORT."

The child would not legally be able to fight until he was over the age of responsibility. It is possible that in some cases the parents could have the child prepared for the time that he reaches this age, but these parents would obviously be crazy and murderous anyway and as you said "children model themselves after what their parents do".

"Then what type of society would we be living in?"

A society where killings occur in stadiums among killers and where those outside the stadiums need not live in fear.
ExplodingNoob

Con

Thank you for your response

I will now disprove your statements

"People who take heroin are only harming themselves. Killers harm others. This way killers would be killing killers and both would have agreed to fight in the first place. This is obviously preferable to killers killing innocent people."

~Flawed logic. Heroin users harm THEMSELVES not others. Killers hard OTHERS not themselves. The connection is completely opposite. Also, a killer does not usually just kill random people. Their reason for killing includes a motive.

=.Definition.=

motive [moh-tiv] - http://dictionary.reference.com...
1.something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc.; incentive.
2.the goal or object of a person's actions: Her motive was revenge.
3.(in art, literature, and music) a motif.

"We don't know who they are until they have already killed and even then we have to have caught them. This way they would expose themselves to us and we could keep a close eye on them."

~Your whole argument is based on theory. This is highly illogical as well that they would expose themselves just to fight with the possibility of FAILURE.
~~A killer would be better off taking the chance of killing whomever they were planning on killing, over turning themselves in to fight someone they might not come out alive against.

"That may be the case with some, but thats the same with every sport. Also high risk jobs tend to be the highest paid. The reason for this is because nobody wants to do them. It can't get much riskier than this. If the kid was bright he'd study. If hes not? Well, we'd just be allowing natural selection to take place again, which would be for the good of our species."

~So you are saying that the dumb deserve to be turned into murderers and the smart deserve to live? Because if so then you are implying that everyone who stepped into that ring would die. Which in fact, with the rules you have come up with, one would die, and one would live.
~Thus we are making murderers celebrities.

"In most case they just want their children to live well. I doubt these parents would think that sending them to their possible deaths would be a good way to guarantee this. And these fights would obviously only be legal for those that are over the age of responsibility.The child would not legally be able to fight until he was over the age of responsibility. It is possible that in some cases the parents could have the child prepared for the time that he reaches this age, but these parents would obviously be crazy and murderous anyway and as you said "children model themselves after what their parents do"."

~I negate your first statement in this argument above. In most cases parents want their children to take part in something they did not get to do as a child.
=.Source.= http://dkrobus.newsvine.com...
~~With your ending statement you are also contradicting yourself. You are saying that parents would not affect a child's track of mind, yet as long as their parents are crazy and murderous it is okay.

"A society where killings occur in stadiums among killers and where those outside the stadiums need not live in fear."

~As repeated above. Not all killers will turn themselves in. You are offering a flawless scenario that is actually VERY MUCH FLAWED. By offering an arena for killing there would be an increased sense of justification to kill thus leading to an increase in violence OUTSIDE the arena.

Thank you my opponent for this debate.

VOTE CON!
Debate Round No. 3
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Greyparrot 5 years ago
Greyparrot
Nice badger!
Posted by badger 7 years ago
badger
not that it was all that good of an argument.. but it was better than his.
Posted by badger 7 years ago
badger
i definitely won this debate. you big vote bomber koopin :)
Posted by Sonofkong 7 years ago
Sonofkong
Finnaly someone who agrees with my beliefs.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
so close
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
No doubt! Bigger than American Idol! They could be put on right before televised executions.
Posted by NotPurpleHaze 7 years ago
NotPurpleHaze
So you think the masses would be for such fights? lol
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
NPH: Ambrose Bierce applies,

"Happiness: an agreeable sensation arising from contemplating the misery of another."
Posted by NotPurpleHaze 7 years ago
NotPurpleHaze
I know you didn't. I just like this idea and wanted to defend it. And it would indeed be a playground for the demented. That was my main argument.
Posted by alyssa_16 7 years ago
alyssa_16
ha I like the losers pic but I'm so sorry but explodingnoob has put up one heck of a argument :) but nice pic
34 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Dmetal 6 years ago
Dmetal
NotPurpleHazeExplodingNoobTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by debatek3 6 years ago
debatek3
NotPurpleHazeExplodingNoobTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by chicarica89 7 years ago
chicarica89
NotPurpleHazeExplodingNoobTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Officialjake 7 years ago
Officialjake
NotPurpleHazeExplodingNoobTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by arenax3 7 years ago
arenax3
NotPurpleHazeExplodingNoobTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by spinnerclotho 7 years ago
spinnerclotho
NotPurpleHazeExplodingNoobTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by elizabeth93 7 years ago
elizabeth93
NotPurpleHazeExplodingNoobTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Superbarker 7 years ago
Superbarker
NotPurpleHazeExplodingNoobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by kingofslash5 7 years ago
kingofslash5
NotPurpleHazeExplodingNoobTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by QiiXii 7 years ago
QiiXii
NotPurpleHazeExplodingNoobTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05