The Instigator
ericjpomeroy
Pro (for)
Winning
39 Points
The Contender
Korezaan
Con (against)
Losing
24 Points

We should bring back honorable duels.

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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,918 times Debate No: 2956
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (21)

 

ericjpomeroy

Pro

Duels were fair fights on matters of honor or disputes. Bringing duels into modern day society would reduce violent crime. They settle disputes and do not necessarily have to end in death. Though there should still be that option. If we brought back legal duels, and let the combatants pick the rules of engagement, innocent people wouldn't get hurt, and there would be a reduction in violent crime due to it being a legal fight. It would actually bring honor back to fighting rather than having cowardly drive by shootings that kill innocent by standers.
Korezaan

Con

"No doubt you've discovered loyalty is no longer the currency of the realm, as your father believed.. I'm afraid currency is the currency of the realm." - Lord Cutler Beckett, Pirates of the Carribean 2

Because Beckett describes society today,
I negate: "we should bring back honorable duels".

Responses to PRO:

"Duels were fair fights on matters of honor or disputes."
1) No evidence that they were fair fights. Also, since he put out "duels were fair fights" as a true statement, that means he must prove that ALL duels were fair fights.
2) Precedent does not justify the future. I liked coloring when I was in kindergarten. I prefer shading with my 0.5mm Papermate G-Force pencil now.
3) Conditional again; resolution/topic does not specify how we're only going to be using duels to settle matters of honor or disputes.

"Bringing duels into modern day society would reduce violent crime. They settle disputes and do not necessarily have to end in death."
1) No justification, as there is no specification of what modern duels will be like.
2) "I aimed for his leg but he tripped and so uhh, yeah. Headshot. My bad."
3) How the h*** does it reduce violent crime?

The rest will be responded in-case. With that said,

CASE:
PART I:

1) He says specifically in his case, "If we brought back legal duels". The topic talks about honorable duels. Hmm. Let's see. A) He provides no definition of honor. Since I don't know what honor is either, that means there is no definition of honor in this round and therefore you can already vote CON. By the way, does honor describe the duel or does honor describe what is being dueled for? (I really don't see how it's honorable to kill, period.) But onto a more concrete response, B) It's completely nontopical. Legal duels do not mean Honorable duels. Even given that there is a definition of honor, he has yet to provide a link between the two. Even then, C) He says he will allow legal duels in the world of the PRO, but allowing duels to be legal does not mean that duels will be honorable. There's no way you can bring back ONLY honorable duels, EVEN IF you can somehow read people's minds and conclude that both have intentions driven by honor (1. no def of honor 2. impossible to determine intentions), EVEN IF he changes his position to not "let[ting] the combatants pick the rules of engagement[s]", there's absolutely no way that you ONLY bring back honorable duels, unless you somehow make a government that can monitor all that. That's a completely different argument that I won't waste my time on unless you bring it up.

2) He says, "there would be a reduction in violent crime due to it being a legal fight". Let's see. He says "reduction in crime" because "it is now legal". Hmm. Obviously this is true, as crime is due to a breaking of law, and legalizing it will intuitively lead to less crime! However, this does not lead to less VIOLENCE, which outweighs CRIME for obvious reasons if they were ever separated. Which brings me to another important point, EVEN IF we take "we should bring back honorable duels" to be true, the PRO never reaches affirming the resolution, as it would lead to ridiculous things such as "the amount of vandalism, hate crimes, terrorist acts, incest, cannibalism, robberies, arsons, and rapes dropped to none because they were all LEGALIZED!" Unless he's going to argue that all of those things are justified, or that law dictates morality instead of the other way around, you can't affirm. Of course, I'd be happy to take him up on that....

PART II:

"Duel" was not defined. I define it from Dictionary.Com as "any contest between two persons or parties".

This should be preferred over the first definition because we have used this word even though the age of the colt 45 pistol duels are no longer common. "Yraelz and Logical-Master are dueling it out in the topic [Under the below listed rules my opponent will lose this debate]", or as we more commonly see it used, "X boxer and Y boxer are dueling it out in the ring".

C1) Duels still exist. You negate off of this because the resolution/topic assumes that honorable duels don't exist today, and because duels exist today, it can reasonably be assumed that there are some honorable duels out there.

C2) Even if you look to the first definition, you still affirm, because those types of "duels", the ones that require an agreement to a set of preset rules, also still exist today. They're just called life-or-death contracts: Proof - http://seattlepi.nwsource.com..., Example of usage - http://chinascope.org...

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1
ericjpomeroy

Pro

Thank you for accepting the debate. While I don't consider Pirates of the Caribbean 2 much of a font of useful information, your point is well taken.

Dictionary.com defines:

Honor: honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions.

Duel: a prearranged combat between two persons, fought with deadly weapons according to an accepted code of procedure, esp. to settle a private quarrel.

Sorry, I didn't know that you were unaware of the definitions were, that is what I get for assuming.

1. You stated that there was no evidence that the duels were fair fights. Well, that is the difference between a duel and a bar fight. In a duel two consensual parties agree to the rules of combat. If both parties agree to the rules and use the same weapons, how is that not fair? You can always back out as well. Proving that every duel is a fair fight is simple, if it was a real duel, then it was a fair fight. That is like having to prove that fire is hot. A duel is a fair fight, that is the whole point.

2. The reduction of violent crime would be the result of civilized combat. In the sense that both parties agree to have a duel at a set time, whether to the death, first blood, or just hand to hand combat MMA rules. Not only would it reduce people from acting out of passion and fighting in the middle of a party, but it would reduce the amount of collateral damage. How many people get shot in drive by shootings that are not the target? How many fights break out that result in broken property and innocent people getting hurt? If people would agree to a set time to fight as well it could reduce violence period. Hypothetical, if two guys get into a dispute, if they agreed to a duel at a later time, they would have a chance to cool off and possibly get over the incident all together.

3. The duel could be over anything. Though there is rarely a good reason to fight, but people do fight all the time. Disputes over girls, money, insults, pretty much anything people fight over these days. The combatants terms can be pretty much anything. There was a document of a duel that took place where both combatants used billiard balls as the selected weapon. I am sure today there would be very few duels to the death, but would mainly consist of hand to hand combat. The rules are agreed upon by both parties and are enforced by a selected official also agreed upon by both parties.

4. Your correct that duels do exist today, but not to end conflict between two parties just for entertainment. Duels in MMA, Boxing, or other contact sports don't resolve a conflict. Though I would like to point out that in rare cases when two fighters do have a prior conflict in an MMA match they often shake hands after the fight and end it gracefully, which shows how a fight can resolve a conflict.

5. I believe you are assuming that all duels end in death, when in all actuality duels usually either ended in minor injury or they didn't take place at all. A duel was more likely to be called off then to take place. Most duels with pistols didn't end in death either, it was more common that both parties selected first blood as the resulting end to the duel. Your statement that duels couldn't be honorable unless you could read their mind and tell why they wanted to duel. Well, the point of a duel is honor! Honor is fairness and integrity. If both parties agree to the rules of combat and agree to combat, what isn't fair and honorable about that?

"Violence - look, we live in a violent world, man. This country was founded on violence. Who's kidding who?"-Bruce Willis

I thought I would quote an actor as well. It is a violent world. My point being, that with duels at least the fights are regulated. Rather than brutal brawls where people may be outnumbered or using weapons on unarmed victims, or where people shoot at random hoping to hit their target.

Vote PRO or CON if you want.
Korezaan

Con

"Sorry, I didn't know that you were unaware of the definitions were, that is what I get for assuming. "

"Honor: honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions."

This definition works perfectly: The only person who can know what their beliefs are are themselves, which means that as long as the duelers believe in what they're doing (going to win), it's honorable. This means that any and all duels are "honorable", and buys into EVERY one of my impacts. Extend my case.

"Duel: a prearranged combat..."

The definition I provided in my R1 is still the definition for duel in the round, as I have provided justifications on why to prefer mine over his.

1. No, I don't think consent equates fairness. Fairness/Justice is "giving each their due", the only thing consent does in relation to fairness is say that consent overrides, and justice and fairness don't matter. Therefore, he doesn't impact to "fairness", only to "consent".
1b. Consent isn't a justification that something is good. Refer to PartI.2 in my R1. His link to fairness is arbitrary; just because there's a definition doesn't mean that it's true. He provides no justification for why this is true. Integrity has no impact in the round.

2. There is no proof that legalizing violence will lead to civilized combat, UNLESS you define "civilized" as "within the law", in which I would have to agree. What my position is, is saying that by legalizing duels, you aren't getting rid of violence at all, and that is what we ought to look towards.

I've never talked about collateral damage yet, but sure, let's take that on. He says "it would reduce the amount of collateral damage."

1) KRITIK: YOU DON'T VOTE FOR PEOPLE WHO CALL THE KILLING OF INNOCENTS "COLLATERAL DAMAGE". WHAT THE H*** IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN; SUDDENLY WE'RE NOT ONLY LEGALIZING VIOLENCE, BUT DEHUMANIZING THE VICTIMS?

2) No Warrant: I don't see any reason to why this is true, other than what I mentioned earlier about defining things: Collateral damage is lessened as a result of its legalization.

He also says "Hypothetical, if two guys get into a dispute, if they agreed to a duel at a later time, they would have a chance to cool off and possibly get over the incident all together." Well, that's my point: It's ALL HYPOTHETICAL. He has NO way to prove that we can make ALL duels honorable.

3. His statement that "The duel could be over anything" directly links into my impacts from my case in my R1: His admit in your definition and on this point that "the duel[s] could be over anything". His direction, from "we should bring back all duels" in order to reach the resolution, won't pass because he can't prove that there's less or no innocent deaths.

Now, he also talks about how there's going to be an official to enforce that. First of all, he hasn't provided a plan on how to do it, he just says "there are going to be officials". Under this interpretation and under the assumption that he doesn't want any "collateral damage" then we'd basically have hire a LOT of people. As we know, our country is pretty stressed for cash right now, we had a 73.5 trillion dollar deficit in OCTOBER LAST YEAR. Or, we could go in the other direction, by setting up some sort of "Office of Legal Violence", and placing offices in cities. His case is based on the "hypothetical" assumption that everyone will be sane and rational and go to this office to wait in line to go into some sort of room where they duel it out. That's not about to happen. The people that would be smart enough to do that would already have planned out a duel anyways, leaving him NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER.

Second, the official doesn't really matter at all, as even when we look to his definition it says "according to an accepted code of procedure, esp. to settle a private quarrel". This means that the code is ACCEPTED by THE DUELERS, and THE OFFICIAL is only there to see that the code is enforced. Which might as well be a "lets take over the world and kill everyone" contract.

Also, like seriously, He's LEGALIZING VIOLENCE. He says that the justification for that is consent and the impact of that is less innocent deaths, but that's NOT true AT ALL because the INSTANT you legalize VIOLENCE, the INSTANT you place the decisions of some sociopathic individual over the general well-being of the society, we've basically screwed over the world. If our government is going to say "VIOLENCE IS OKAY IF YOU COME TO US", that gives people the image that "VIOLENCE IS OKAY", which BRUTALIZES society, as we have seen when SEGREGATION WAS LEGAL. I don't think it's necessary to uhh, post pictures of what happened in Birmingham in 1963, but yeah, that's basically what'll be happening if we legalize this stuff. That, plus a lot on top of it.

4. This argument is based on his definition, and my definition for "duel" has reasons while his has none, so we look to mine. Therefore, it falls. His second part is an anecdote without a citation, which is, what I read from a previous debate from a debater whose name I forgot to write down, "double fallacy :)".

5. Well, you're wrong. I'm saying that the very existence of legalized violence leads to the consequences I have presented. Anyways, I have a problem with uhh, one of his arguments.

It reads, "Well, the point of a duel is honor!". Well, the point of MY ARGUMENT is DUELS AREN'T GOING TO BE ABOUT HONOR. You want some proof? Well, it's right in my opponent's case.

"Violence - look, we live in a violent world, man. This country was founded on violence. Who's kidding who?"-Bruce Willis

It's because of movies like these (I'm assuming its from a movie) and all this popular culture about how being an "original GANGSTER" is "cool", it's this GLORIFICATION OF VIOLENCE that will almost ENSURE that "MOST" duels will NOT be about 'honor'.

This whole idea of idealistic violence, IT AIN'T GONNA WORK.
Morals? THEY AREN'T COMMON SENSE IN SOCIETY TODAY.
What does that impact in this debate?

Even if some duels are honorable, we ought not bring back honorable duels because the needs of a society outweigh the 'needs' of an individual.

Oh yeah, ABUSE: shifting advocacy: he defines "duel" twice.

From
>"Most duels with pistols didn't end in death either, it was more common that both parties selected first blood as the resulting end to the duel."
To
>"A duel is a fair fight, that is the whole point. "

His position is that when we legalize duels, then we're going to be cutting down on violence because theres less innocent deaths, and because the duelers are honorable anyway. But this doesn't solve spur of the moment violence, and also doesn't prove how duelers are going honorable. he just hopes they will be, and says "most situations", when there is no evidence cited, no anecdotal proof provided, nor analytics to why it is true. In short, his position isn't warranted at all, and even if it was, just because duels are honorable doesn't mean that we ought to bring them back.

His case goes as follows.

1 Duels->Honor
2 Honor->Good
3 Good->Should
4 Should->Vote PRO

I took out his link on the second link: He defined it clearly for us, that as long as someone thinks they're doing the right thing, they're honorable. This links directly back into my society impacts, which he HASN'T refuted AT ALL, and since the needs of a society outweighs the 'needs' of an individual, you vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
ericjpomeroy

Pro

So, first I want to start my round with a question. Why does the person have to be honorable for the act to be honorable? Your talking about the intentions of the people in the duel. That is not the point at all. Their intentions don't matter at all. As long as they follow the agreed upon rules what isn't honorable about that?

Now your comparing a duel, a 1 on 1 battle, to Birmingham in 1963? Why don't you just compare it to Hiroshima in WW2? That would be just as ridiculous. Your totally warping the whole topic with your interpretations of simple words. you think fights that would happen anyway, taking place, would lead to bombings? Well that is all shades of idiotic. If that were true there would be bombings all over America every day.

Here is a statement I want you to oppose. Having 2 men fight in a controlled environment, to rules agreed upon by both parties, is WORSE than having them just brawl it out where ever the dispute took place? I know fighting is illegal, but it happens everyday. To say that making it legal as long as you do it in a proper manner with rules and witnesses, there is a problem there? The fights are going to happen anyway, why not regulate them?

As for the official that would witness the duel. What do you call those people that watch over our safety? You know, the guys with guns. Police! Yeah, them. Why can't they do it? Odds are if the two parties just fought where ever they were the police would end up there anyway right? Hell, I bet the cops would rather see a duel then clean up a brawl. It would probably be quicker and easier to document than a shootout in somebody' s house. I don't see how paying police is a bad thing. Actually, I bet there would be less man hours and less paperwork than at a regular fight.

As for the Bruce Willis quote it was not from a movie. A liberal activist was asking him how he can morally make such violent movies. Which brings up another point my opponent tried to make. I never said legal duels would eliminate violence, that is just ignorant. I said it would reduce it. It would. If you could just use a little common sense.

Ok, you wrote way to much for me to respond to, but most of it was irrelevant or I acknowledged it. I don't have that much time. But I think I have made my point a few times without have to try and break down every word my opponent used to respond. My opponent spent more time attacking my wording than attacking my points. Which goes to show that my points are too simple and logical to attack.

In closing. A fight that would happen anyway, being placed in a regulated environment, with rules agreed to by both parties, with an officer present to witness the duel, is a lot safer than just some bar room brawl. My opponent compared a duel to a church bombing. He says that the people aren't honorable who would duel. Well, I defy that by saying the people don't have to be honorable, just the duel, and duels have been around for thousands of years, including england in the 1800's, their society didn't collapse. I don't know about you, but I would rather people fight in a regulated, controlled, environment. It is much safer to the combatants and to those around them. That cannot be denied if common sense is applied.

http://laughingwolf.net...
Korezaan

Con

"Why does the person have to be honorable for the act to be honorable? Your talking about the intentions of the people in the duel. That is not the point at all. Their intentions don't matter at all. As long as they follow the agreed upon rules what isn't honorable about that?"

His definition says "honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions", which means that it's a person evaluating themselves. Bites back into all my impacts. His second point, "as long as they follow the agreed upon rules", means that all of my arguments that consent is outweighed by the good of society stand true.

"Now your comparing a duel, a 1 on 1 battle, to Birmingham in 1963? Why don't you just compare it to Hiroshima in WW2? That would be just as ridiculous[...]"

I never compared it to Hiroshima. Therefore I don't link into any of his impacts on "ridicule". My point in relating this topic to Birmingham is that legalizing duels will brutalize society. This is proven in society today.

"Here is a statement I want you to oppose. Having 2 men fight in a controlled environment, to rules agreed upon by both parties, is WORSE than having them just brawl it out where ever the dispute took place? I know fighting is illegal, but it happens everyday[...]"

Alright then. Let's see.

First of all, that's not what the topic is, all I have to do is oppose your position. I've never advocated that we should have people brawl it out wherever the dispute takes place, in fact, I think any reasonable person can assume that my case takes on a pacifism standpoint, that we shouldn't be allowing violence to happen AT ALL. THE POSITION YOU GIVE ME TO ARGUE IS COMPLETELY NONTOPICAL. Your situation is that WE EITHER LEGALIZE BRAWLS WE DON'T LEGALIZE THEM AND THEY HAPPEN ANYWAYS. What I'm saying is LEGALIZING THEM LEADS TO ***MORE*** BRAWLS IN THE STREETS, LEADS TO ***MORE*** BRUTALIZATION IN SOCIETY, AND THAT WE SHOULD JUST THROW AWAY ALL THAT AND GO WITH JUST THE STATUS QUO; I.E., ILLEGALIZING VIOLENCE. Just because "it happens every day" DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD LEGALIZE THEM.

YOU KNOW WHAT?

VANDALISM HAPPENS EVERY DAY.

HATE CRIMES HAPPEN EVERY DAY.

TERRORIST ACTS HAPPEN EVERY DAY.

INCEST HAPPENS EVERY DAY.

CANNIBALISM HAPPENS EVERY DAY.

ROBBERIES HAPPEN EVERY DAY.

ARSONS HAPPEN EVERY DAY.

RAPES HAPPEN EVERY DAY.

OH YES, I'M -VERY- SURE THAT LEGALIZING THEM WILL JUST MAKE SOCIETY BETTER. REGULATING VIOLENCE IS SURELY GOING TO MAKE THINGS BETTER. HOW? HMM. I DON'T KNOW. YOU JUST SAY "IT IS", AND JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. ABSOLUTELY NO SOLVENCY, AND EVEN THEN, NO WARRANTS WHATSOEVER.

Trying to straw man me? Ain't about to happen. (For debaters keeping track of new arguments, I made the list argument up in Part I, point 2.)

Second, your definition says rules will be decided by the combatants. They might as well just say "We'll kill everyone in the city, then kill each other". I'm sure that's going to solve innocent deaths in your case. And even if that's not the case, you never respond to "I aimed for his leg but he tripped and so uhh, yeah. Headshot. My bad." This applies to the judge. And the witnesses. They can just claim it to be an accident. All those "honorable" points you mention? They all fall because honor is self-determined.

"Ok, you wrote way to much for me to respond to, but most of it was irrelevant or I acknowledged it. I don't have that much time. But I think I have made my point a few times without have to try and break down every word my opponent used to respond. My opponent spent more time attacking my wording than attacking my points. Which goes to show that my points are too simple and logical to attack."

1) no warrant: Just because I wrote a lot doesn't mean it's irrelevant
2) irrelevant: I'm sorry he doesn't have that much time
3) The only time where I called him out on wording is on the K.
3b) As a result, I spent more time attacking his impacts than his wording.
3c) Wording is important anyways. There's a difference between a "legal" duel" and an "honorable duel". Extend Point 3 from R2.
4) STRAIGHT TURN: His very short R3 just goes to show you that my points were too good for him and he couldn't figure out how to take down my arguments. His arguments seem simple, but they're not, because they imply a lot more than he says. As with any case, he gives out only the good side of what he's going to be causing. I show you that NOT ONLY is the wording of his arguments important, but ALSO the ideas. Regardless of whether or not legal duels will cause innocent deaths, it will lead to brutalization of society. The only response he has to this is "that's ridiculous". STRAIGHT TURN AGAIN, you reject HIS because HE'S the one that's going to be linking into the really ridiculous impacts. At this point, I can just take his point about Hiroshima along with it, STRAIGHT TURN AGAIN, he leads to nuclear bombing and due to that, the breaking of MAD will happen, and he leads to Nuclear War. GG.

"My opponent compared a duel to a church bombing."

Where? Someone tell me? I must be blinder than I thought.
The CLOSEST POINT I get to that is saying duels will LEAD TO church bombings.

"Well, I defy that by saying the people don't have to be honorable, just the duel, and duels have been around for thousands of years, including england in the 1800's, their society didn't collapse."

1) Precedent is not a reason to go PRO. Look to my VERY FIRST response set in R1.
2) "people don't have to be honorable". Extend R2 Point 3.

"It is much safer to the combatants and to those around them. That cannot be denied if common sense is applied. "

1) Extend R2 Point 3.

Posting an article with no analysis does not get you anything in a debate round. I can just go to google and find "DUELING BAD" articles, but unless I explain how they work and what impacts they make inside of a debate, they're meaningless.

THESIS/MAIN POINT.

He brutalizes society by legalizing duels. This outweighs any sort of consent, even if they agree to only fight each other, and outweighs people of the immediate surroundings.

"He says that the justification for that is consent and the impact of that is less innocent deaths, but that's NOT true AT ALL because the INSTANT you legalize VIOLENCE, the INSTANT you place the decisions of some sociopathic individual over the general well-being of the society, we've basically screwed over the world. If our government is going to say "VIOLENCE IS OKAY IF YOU COME TO US", that gives people the image that "VIOLENCE IS OKAY", which BRUTALIZES society, as we have seen when SEGREGATION WAS LEGAL. I don't think it's necessary to uhh, post pictures of what happened in Birmingham in 1963, but yeah, that's basically what'll be happening if we legalize this stuff. That, plus a lot on top of it." (R2 Point 3)

There's no response to this except "it's ridiculous". First, ridicule isn't a reason to reject and second, turn, the impacts apply to him. The things dueling does to society are so ridiculously horrible, you reject his case.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Yeah, I agree I wasn't goin for a professional entry. Most or all of my rounds I was either at school during lunch or like 1:30 in the morning trying to use this site to stay awake. My upperclassmen have constantly told me that, but I've never really worked on eliminating that immature delivery. Thanks for the reminder though!

(btw I do LD.)
Posted by zander 9 years ago
zander
I'm really torn here, believe it or not. While I judge policy and competed for a few years, I'm not sure if I vote in that format here. It would have been much more pleasing to see two policy debaters or two casual ones.

While on a policy level there is no question korezaan won, he is wildly offputting, in my humble opinion. Because of the format, there is virtually NO clash in the debate.

I suppose I reluctantly vote CON.

I love policy debate, but this type of application really makes it look bad. If you want to further your policy skills I would suggest at least a moderate degree of professionalism. Saying vote CON at the end of every round and insulting your opponents inadequacies to an arrogant degree doesn't get you anywhere. Does using that imperious rhetoric win you decisions? Not with good judges. I found your 4pt in rd3 particularly offputting. "I wrote a lot and he didn't respond to all of my bada$$ args. This proves how much of a bada$$ I am."

It should have been obvious to you from his rd2 response onward that he had NO policy experience and that running him over with technical competitive jargon and args was probably NOT the best way to go with this one. I know its cool for high school debaters to show off how awesome they are, but dominating a debate against someone with no experience doesn't help anyone but your own ego.

I'm not trying to demean you, I just don't agree with the application of the format in this particular debate. Seeing a policy style debate between two policy debaters on this site would be cool and refreshing.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Policy debate is amazing! This makes me really happy.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
It's all about the cheap thrills with you, isn't it.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
Just a pre-vote comment. I like Korezaan's format here. It pleases me :D
Posted by Patrick_Henry 9 years ago
Patrick_Henry
Die over something stupid to prove to others that you're willing to die over something stupid?

Brilliant example.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
As a conservative, you would expect pro to abide by the founding fathers. Therefore, you would hope that he would ask himself "WWHD"... what would Hamilton do?
Posted by Patrick_Henry 9 years ago
Patrick_Henry
The difficulty with the premise of legalizing dueling is that it goes against just about every Liberalism or Enlightenment based political theory that has ever existed. Dueling effectively eliminates one member of society from being a productive member.

Aside from that, in this society you'd have to create a civic process to ensure that the several attempts at settling the matter, which are to be made by the "seconds" actually occur.

Plus, criminal slayings will always be criminal slayings, because the point isn't honor.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Sola: I've been using different formatting. Not sure which one I like best yet though, so I change according to each topic and debater.

Ninjanuke: Yes.
Posted by Ninjanuke 9 years ago
Ninjanuke
Korezaan
ha ha i've been like following all the debates you do
honestly im still surprised at the level you debate at.
im assuming you debate at a high school level?
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by roycegee 9 years ago
roycegee
ericjpomeroyKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ronnyyip 9 years ago
ronnyyip
ericjpomeroyKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Evan_MacIan 9 years ago
Evan_MacIan
ericjpomeroyKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by karlynjane 9 years ago
karlynjane
ericjpomeroyKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by dls771737 9 years ago
dls771737
ericjpomeroyKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by colsen112 9 years ago
colsen112
ericjpomeroyKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by colsen111 9 years ago
colsen111
ericjpomeroyKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by colsen110 9 years ago
colsen110
ericjpomeroyKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Kierkegaard 9 years ago
Kierkegaard
ericjpomeroyKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by nitrogen85 9 years ago
nitrogen85
ericjpomeroyKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03