The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Should dueling be legalized?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 616 times Debate No: 41563
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I will be arguing dueling should be legalized in the United States.

First Round-Acceptance only.
Second Round-Construction of arguments
Third Round-Refutations
Fourth Round-Rebuttals and Closing arguments. No new information other than what is included for the rebuttal.


I accept your challenge.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for your acceptance. Good luck.

Dueling should be legalized for a number of reasons. Dueling is an organized bout of violence rather than spontaneous. Both participants have accepted the conditions of the duel for it to take place. I will point out four reasons why dueling should be legal:

1. Dueling is consensual
Dueling requires seconds to act as go betweens between both participants of the duel. The seconds act as the representative of the offended and offender's parties. The seconds will attempt to come to an agreement before the duel is to take place. Essentially duels can be avoided through the negotiations of the seconds. But the offender will always be given the chance to apologize for the action he did that was offensive. If the duel comes to fruition, it was all consensual.

2. Dueling is organized
Weapons, location, and the attendants of the duel are agreed upon by the seconds. The duel is not a spontaneous brawl in the street between two gutter snipes. The intention is not to kill each other like a death match among gladiators. The intention to the duel is to wound an opponents only. To kill someone during a duel, in the Americas and European countries was considered dishonorable.

3. Dueling is honorable
Dueling is a way to preserve one's honor or someone else's by defending it by force.

4. Crime will possibly be lowered.
If duels were legalized, there could be less fights and altercations. But then again the duel is for the civilized not the obstreperous.


Dueling is a fight with lethal weapons. I have four reasons for being against such a thing:

1. You stated that "dueling should be legalized in the United States." The U.S. is a country of freedom. Freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. If another activity that may involve death was legalized in this nation, there would be more violation of religious freedom.

"Thou shalt not kill", Exodus 20:13.

2. Responsible parents would not want to hear about their children dueling.

Such parents do not want somebody to tell them that their child was killed in a duel. It would simply break their hearts badly. This may be avoided in countries where dueling is illegal.

3. Even non-participants may be killed because of a duel.

A five-year-old could probably wander over to a duel site and be killed by more than one means. One of the horses could run them over, or they can get shot or stabbed in a vital organ with one of the close-rang combat weapons used.

4. There are better ways to defend one's honor.

Force is not the answer to everything. Previously, you argued that "dueling is a way to preserve one's honor of someone else's by defending it by force." One can provide good reasons to do what they are disrespected for, offer people something in return for your honor, or if one is challenged to something other than a duel, accepting the challenge is an option. Before accepting the challenge, it is also good to have a strategy to get around any tricks the challenger may be pulling. Any extra time the contender is given to accept the challenge can be useful to them for this purpose.
Debate Round No. 2


1. If the United States is a country of freedom as you claim, are you not impairing my freedom by keeping duels illegal? Dueling is a consensual activity between adults. The con side has said dueling is a violation of religious freedom. But we also have the freedom from religion as well. Those who are of a pacifist religion, need not participate in duels. Duels are a consensual activity after all.

2. Children wouldn't have the capacity to duel because dueling adheres to strict rules. Children lack the mental functions to understand the complexity of the rules. Children would have to understand the role of seconds and finding a location for the duel. I am also struggle grasping whether children would even have the capacity to even create a dueling event. There are other dilemmas that allow children wouldn't participate in dueling. For example, where would children even be able to acquire the licenses for a firearm? Or where would children obtain swords legally? Children wouldn't be able to legally attain the weapons to even possibly have a duel.

3.This is extremely exaggerated. I am confused to why children would even be near a dueling site. As I said before the seconds choose the dueling site and who will be attending the duels. Any person who has the simplest considerations would not bring a child near an event where a brutal form of violence will be exhibited. I also don't know where the horses your referring to will come from.The non-participants would be limited by the seconds to only those who have stake in the duel.

4."Force is not the answer to everything." I am sorry to inform you, yes it is. If your opponent no longer exists, there are no more problems from said opponent. But force should not be preferred or considered last because it is a form of violence. That is why in dueling, the person who started the initial offense has several chances to apologize for the offense before a duel takes place. Violence is abhorrent, that is why duels should be legalized in order to limit violence.


1. You argued previously that I am impairing your freedom by keeping duels illegal. I believe that I am simply trying to keep you alive. If you disagree, can you not simply move to a state where murder is less frequent?

2. I have a reason to believe that children could find themselves in a duel site. While their parents were asleep, at work, etc. they might figure out how to get out of the house: by putting a chair in front of a door, unlocking it with the key, removing the chair, and opening the door, taking the keys outside, and locking it back again. This may not happen with much younger kids, but it could happen with eight-year-olds. This adds the risk of wandering to a duel site. If they are,of a pacifist religion, they may also try to break it up, thus making it possible for them to be killed.

3. If your parents take something away from you for a week, do you try to grab it out of their hands right away? No. You wait and behave properly so they'll give it back to you. Additionally, the most likely reason that they took it away from you is because they love you. If your TV starts malfunctioning, do you hit it with a hammer? No. Do you call the TV provider and yell swear words at them? No. You wait a few minutes, and if it doesn't start working right, turn it off and find something else to do, then check to see if it's working right later.

4. There is a chance that a celebrity (e.g. Justin Beiber) will be involved in a duel. They will possibly be killed, which would cause a big riot. People would want to know who killed that celebrity and be so mad at them they'll want to kill them. Who likes Justin Beiber? Teenagers (especially girls) all over the U.S.
Debate Round No. 3


1. You may wish to keep me alive, that is good. But you can't keep me alive, it is inevitable that we all die. We can only prolong life. Also having a choice to not be murdered is not a choice for the victim.

2. Children would not be at dueling a site. If they arrive at the dueling site, the duel will simply be stopped. If someone of a pacifist religion or anyone else interferes, the duel will be stopped as well. Duels are between two private parties that were selected previously. If a third party breaks that rule, the duel is stopped or set for another date.

3. Honestly, I don't have clue about what your talking about.

4.Going back to my second round comments, people don't die in duels often. Also Justin Bieber and others can hire an agent to replace them in duels rather than duel themselves if they wish.

Duels are an agreement between two parties and their seconds. There are no third parties. Shouldn't we allow the two parties to engage in this agreement if they wish? I believe such agreements should be legal with certain regulations upon where the duels can be held.

If you have been convinced with the evidence that the I have provided; that dueling should be legal. Vote Pro!


Ok you win.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
I agree bring back dueling.

I think people would carry there selves with a lot more honor, and with more respect for each other if dueling were made popular and legal.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MrVan 2 years ago
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: Con ultimately conceded to Pro's arguments and failed to provide any sources.