The Instigator
Madara_FTMFW
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Alex
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Legalize Fighting

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  
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2011 Category: Sports
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,137 times Debate No: 17362
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Madara_FTMFW

Pro

My position is that, as long as it is consentual and the persons involved are not impaired (by drugs, alcohol, or some form of mental handicap) when making the decision, all forms of human on human fighting should be legal.
Alex

Con

Welcome, I negate the resolution that fighting of all sorts should be legalized as long as there are no mental impairments.

1. That's essentially legalizing murder. How you ask? For instance folks may not know when to stop. The fighting could include guns (as you said "all forms of human on human fighting should be legal")

2. People are stupid, as in other aspects of life, without government protection, some people would falter.

3. You may not know what your getting yourself into:

A fight happens, one man is losing so he pulls out a concealed gun, boom dead.

I await my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 1
Madara_FTMFW

Pro

Would it really be legalizing murder? To an extent, yes. But is murder not already legal? The death penalty, the armed forces, police who are legally allowed to shoot first and ask questions later, those are all forms of murder. Fighting already happens, getting stabbed or shot in the midst of a fight or argument already happens, and people getting murdered because somebody did something stupid already happens. Legalizing fighting won't help or hurt the overall balance.
Also, the passing of a new law or legalization of something always comes with a set of rules to regulate it. Rules could be made to ban the use of excessive force, or the use of weapons, or even that there must be witnesses at the time of the event to ensure that the fight is stopped and nobody is killed.
It can be legalized and it should be legalized. Like marijuana, alcohol, or sex, just because it CAN be abused doesn't mean that everybody WILL abuse it.

And for the government protection thing, the government does a lot more harm to its citizens than good. However, that's a debate for another time.
Alex

Con

Murder is unlawful killing. http://dictionary.reference.com...

So no. As a side note, a police officer is allowed to shoot when their life is threatened; furthermore, when an officer shoots someone there is a several month legal process in which they must go through (while being relieved of duty might I add) they don't just "shoot and ask questions later".

And it's illegal, and murder. Legalizing it would help nothing.

"Also, the passing of a new law or legalization of something always comes with a set of rules to regulate it. Rules could be made to ban the use of excessive force, or the use of weapons, or even that there must be witnesses at the time of the event to ensure that the fight is stopped and nobody is killed."

And who is to judge? Everything you just mentioned is far to subjective and circumstantial to ever create a system of guidelines sufficient and thorough enough to work.
Debate Round No. 2
Madara_FTMFW

Pro

Madara_FTMFW forfeited this round.
Alex

Con

Unfortunately my opponent forfeited the last round. I feel the need to go no further.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
Madara_FTMFWAlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were better and Pro lost conduct due to forfeit.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
Madara_FTMFWAlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO forfeited; PRO used unnecessary commas; CON's points remained unanswered due to the forfeit; CON used a source.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
Madara_FTMFWAlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious