The Instigator
UnStupendousMan
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
smileydodge
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gladiator Battles should be Legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
UnStupendousMan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,259 times Debate No: 23357
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)

 

UnStupendousMan

Pro

FULL RESOLUTION

Resolved: Gladiator Battles should be Legal if both sides willingly want to fight

***
DEFINITIONS

Gladiator: an armed combatant who [entertains] audiences [with] violet confrontation with other gladiators...[and] wild animals. [1]

(*Note: I know that I butchered the definition. But 'willing' and the traditional definition of 'gladiator' is rather contradictory; gladiators were often slaves in Rome. Since we have laws abolishing slavery, and Rome is long dead, I feel like I have justly butchered the definition.)

(**Note: The gladiators are going to be mentally and physically able people who are trained in the art of hand-to-hand combat, swordfighting, etc.

Legal: permitted by law, lawful [2]

Willing: disposed or consenting [3]

***

RULES:

The burden of proof is shared; I have to defend my position, not just attack my opponent's, and my opponent has to defend their position, not just attack mine.


No semantics.

Use in-line citation [4]

First round is for acceptance

No new arguments in final round

8,000 character limit, although brevity is encouraged

72 hours between cases

Otherwise, standard rules apply.

***

SOURCES

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[4] Like this

***

May the best debater win.


***

(***Note: The battles are not necissarily to the death; however, this is not to say that fighting to the death is precluded. The rules and customs would largely follow Roman rules: http://en.wikipedia.org... addition, prisoners could be elegeable for gladiatorship, and could be freed from prison with a certain number of vicotries, depending on the crime. They would have real swords, real armor, etc. Any other questions I can answer in the comments.)
smileydodge

Con

This debate seems interesting. I am a little confused on why gladiators would ever be needed, but I am ready and open for discussion. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
UnStupendousMan

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting. I hope for an interesting and thought-provoking debate.

***

Gladiator battles should be legal if both sides willingly want to fight. This is because there is a net benefit from allowing gladiator battles, there are already dangerous sports allowed, and both sides agree to the consequences.

1. There is a net benefit from allowing gladiator battles

If gladiatorial battle is legalized, then a whole infrastructure system will pop up to meet the needs of the gladiatorial system. Arenas would be built or stadiums retrofitted to suit the needs of combat; weapons and arms makers would spring up in order to supply the demand of those who fight; gladiator schools would arise to train the fighters in the methods needed to engage in combat. Merchandizing would more likely than not be provided. All this would add jobs to an economy that is in desperate need of a kick-start [1]. This could only be beneficial.

In addition, it would clear up prisons. As I have stated in the introductory round, prisoners would be eligible for being a gladiator. They--only if they wanted to--enter the circuit and become gladiators, freeing up room in our prisons. Putting prisoners in they gladiator system and not in overcrowded [2], dangerous [3], and expensive [4] prisons would is a step up form the current system.

2. There are dangerous sports allowed

My opponent will no doubt like to bring up the injuries that the gladiators will inevitably suffer as unethical, and therefore grounds to negate the resolution. However, there are sports where there are also serious life-long injuries out in the world which are perfectly legal. One example is American football. There has been many incidents of football players who have had serious brain damage. The NFL player's association is suing the NFL over concussions sustained during the collective careers of the plaintiffs [5]. In addition, there have been multiple suicides--including the one committed by Junior Seau that is, at the time of writing, is making headlines--that probably have been caused by repeated concussions [6]. In addition, there are all the other injuries that football players sustain in the course of their career.

Football isn't the only dangerous sport. Hockey is another sport with dangerous conditions, including actual fighting [7]. Concussions have been a major problem for the NHL [8], with a string of suicides of players, many who have had chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). Of particular infamy is the case of Derek Boogaard, a twenty-eight year old forward who's brain was studied and was discovered to have CTE. [9] The other skaters that were lost were Wade Belak [10] and Rick Rypien [11]. Again, there are other injuries like ACL sprains, broken bones, and concussions.

Moreover, there are much more sports where there are conditions where the athletes are endangering lives willingly: mixed-martial arts, boxing, rugby, and wrestling are all sports that have very high risks for injury, especially brain injury. I'm not saying that gladiators would be safer than football players, but I am outlining the fact that there are dangerous sports today. While gladiator games are very, very dangerous, there are other games that also hazardous. According to Wikipedia, a few gladiators made it to one hundred fifty matches [12]. Wikipedia also mentions that gladiators fought two to three combats annually [12]; so, if one does the math (150 / 2.5) that means that a really special gladiator with an average schedule could have a sixty year career. Even though those gladiators probably fought a few more battles other than ~2.5 a year, that's still a pretty long time to be alive in a sport that puts one's life on the line.

3. Both sides agree with the consequences

My opponent will bring such things as "it's unethical!" or "killing and/or injuringing someone is a crime!" etc. However, While most cases of injury and killing ARE indeed unethical, in this case, it is not. Because they are WILLING gladiators, there are a whole different set of rules with this. The police don't arrest people who failed at suicide for attempted murder. They have the right to their own body. However, the suicide analogy is going to be wrecked by opponent if I do not add that because gladiators sign over the right to their bodies--they are WILLING, remember. They are not hurt against their will, they as gladiators, accept that their line of work is potentially deadly and life-threatening.

***
I look forward to my opponent's opening arguments.

***
Bibliography:
[1] http://www.nytimes.com...
[2] http://www.correctionalnews.com...
[3] http://www.news4jax.com... , http://www.hrw.org...
[4] http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...
[5] http://video.msnbc.msn.com...
[6] http://www.kwch.com...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://bleacherreport.com...
[9] http://www.nytimes.com...
[10] http://www.cbc.ca...
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[12] http://en.wikipedia.org...
smileydodge

Con

smileydodge forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
UnStupendousMan

Pro

Extend arguments. If my opponent does forfeit another round, and with it the last chance for me to rebut my points, I am going to have to request that she forfeit all seven points.
smileydodge

Con

smileydodge forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
UnStupendousMan

Pro

Seeing as CON has forfeited all of her arguments, and the only argument that she still can make is the one that I cannot respond to, I urge that voters give me all seven points. It's an atrocity that this debate has gone the way that it has. Vote PRO.
smileydodge

Con

smileydodge forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by UnStupendousMan 5 years ago
UnStupendousMan
God, if she forfeits another round.... I want justice. I wanted an actual debate, not an easy win. GRRR!!!
Posted by UnStupendousMan 5 years ago
UnStupendousMan
I want to post my argument before 10:00 tonight; my argument isn't completely ready yet.
Posted by UnStupendousMan 5 years ago
UnStupendousMan
Ahhh.
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
USM. The main argument for gladiatorial combat is that it is OK for consenting individuals to engage in such practices, despite the harm they might do themselves or each other, because they consented. Work it out.
Posted by UnStupendousMan 5 years ago
UnStupendousMan
No. They would be free men who would CHOOSE to be gladiators, Real.
Posted by TheRealDebateXx 5 years ago
TheRealDebateXx
Gladiators were slaves. So you want slaves legal. -_-
Posted by UnStupendousMan 5 years ago
UnStupendousMan
I don't see your logic, Thad.
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
Clicks on profile. Finds opposition to hard drugs. Whut?
Posted by UnStupendousMan 5 years ago
UnStupendousMan
Note: It doesn't assume that the gladiators fight to the death, but it isn't forbidden.
Posted by Scorbie 5 years ago
Scorbie
I vote for this resolution no more death sentence lol.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
UnStupendousMansmileydodgeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF's
Vote Placed by Koopin 5 years ago
Koopin
UnStupendousMansmileydodgeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfiet.