The Instigator
recedingDebates
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Speedrace
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Bringing back gladiatorial games

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2019 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 576 times Debate No: 120401
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

recedingDebates

Pro

I propose that gladiator-style games should be brought back and practiced as a form of entertainment or sport. Ideally, This form of blood-sport would allow for the killing of participants during the games, As of old. Several points must, I feel, Be considered if a debate is to be had. Gladiatorial games have been seen as an affront to public decency, Cruel, And barbaric, Yet I believe they can still have a purpose and a place in modern society under the right circumstances.
Gladiators have long been seen as an ancient and outdated profession, Yet I believe the games can provide a source of entertainment and revenue for a modern city or town. Arenas used today for the Olympics are fast becoming dull for a newer generation of people, They offer the same categories each year, Javelin, Swimming, Cycling, Etc. Violence would present a humanitarian issue, But also an outlet for repressed adrenaline, Watching violent acts would sate a primal 'bloodlust' that people will pay to watch.
- Revenue generated from the games would go towards the champions, Families of the fallen, And to the maintenance of the premises. Fallen fighters would be honoured with tributes and their names living on if they earn the crowd's love.
- Fighters must be over the age of 18, Must provide written, Willing consent and must undergo several mental evaluations before entering.
- Prisoners sentenced to death-row may choose to serve as a fighter until they are killed in the games, This way freeing up money on their upkeep that could otherwise be spent more productively, And allowing them to earn a form of redemption if they earn enough victories. Death-row inmates will earn no champion's purse, Instead the money they would have received will go to their victim's families if their past crimes involved violence.
- Weapons used should vary, Though keeping to the theme of roman-style gladiators, (e. G. Swords, Spears, Shields, And other common melee instruments) Missile weapons such as bows, Javelins and slings are permitted only under decided upon circumstances.
- Participants who volunteer are free to leave at any time during the inspection process, Yet once they are in the arena, They must earn their freedom and emerge the victor.
- Champions are free to leave after a match and have no duty to return.
- Fallen fighters are to be buried according to the wishes of their kin, If no kin remained, An honorary communal burial site will be chosen.
Speedrace

Con

Thank you for creating this debate.

"Yet I believe the games can provide a source of entertainment and revenue for a modern city or town. "

Can you prove that enough revenue would be generated for a modern city? Keep in mind that the average city budget is $2. 146 billion. Only 2 movies have ever grossed over $2 billion. And that is without paying the costs and fees of production!

https://ballotpedia. Org/Analysis_of_spending_in_America%27s_largest_cities


"Arenas used today for the Olympics are fast becoming dull for a newer generation of people, They offer the same categories each year, Javelin, Swimming, Cycling, Etc.

Take a look at this Wikipedia page.

https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Olympics_on_United_States_television#TV_viewership

This shows the viewership of the Olympics. Although it has been wavering up and down, There is no evidence that the Olympics are losing popularity.

"Violence would present a humanitarian issue, But also an outlet for repressed adrenaline, Watching violent acts would sate a primal 'bloodlust' that people will pay to watch. "

Yes, You are proposing that people kill each other while others watch. Of course this a humanitarian issue!


As you say, This will be an outlet for repressed adrenaline. I encourage you to watch Brain Games, Season 4 Episode 8 which is on anger. In this episode, An experiment is done where people are given an essay that they are told is written by someone in the next room. The essay was actually written by the producers, And it was geared in a way to make certain people mad (like certain derogatory terms for certain demographics). The goal was simply to make the participants mad, And they got VERY mad. Then, Half were put in a room full of perishables and told to smash as much as they could. The other half was put into a room to sit by themselves for a while. After they were done, They were brought back. Then they were presented with a button and told that the button allowed them to shock the "person" they were told wrote the essay. The people who had smashed the stuff turned the voltage HIGH, While the people who had just sat there kept the dial lower.

Long story short:
It has been proven that violence does not stop rage, So this is not a valid reason for starting the gladiatorial games again.

Games like boxing and wrestling are enough to sate any bloodlust one may have.

"Revenue generated from the games would go towards the champions, Families of the fallen, And to the maintenance of the premises. "

I encourage you to read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal. " In it, He suggests that Ireland should cook and eat children to save Ireland from having to raise them. Now, Although this was satire, It still relates. Making money off of killing people is not ok. I would challenge you to prove how it is.

"Prisoners sentenced to death-row may choose to serve as a fighter until they are killed in the games, This way freeing up money on their upkeep that could otherwise be spent more productively, And allowing them to earn a form of redemption if they earn enough victories. "

This is like trying to get projected criminals or sociopaths to commit suicide so that they won't burden society any longer. That is not ok!

It also would not free up money for their upkeep because they would still have to live in jail or a cell of some sort regardless of whether they participate in the games or not.

This would not be redemption for them either, Because as you said, They would fight until they were killed!

"Fallen fighters are to be buried according to the wishes of their kin, If no kin remained, An honorary communal burial site will be chosen. "

Our population would drop dramatically! We would lose workers and other economic sources would fail, Causing the economy as a whole to fail.

To conclude, Gladiatorial games will only hurt us. My opponent must prove how the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
Debate Round No. 1
recedingDebates

Pro

recedingDebates forfeited this round.
Speedrace

Con

Pro forfeited.

My points still stand.
Debate Round No. 2
recedingDebates

Pro

recedingDebates forfeited this round.
Speedrace

Con

Pro forfeited.

My points still stand.

Please vote for Con. Like seriously, How could you even vote for Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
@recedingDebates

Same here xD
Posted by recedingDebates 3 years ago
recedingDebates
@Speedrace, Ah, See, I'm a spectacular observer. . .
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
Ok, Sounds good.

And I am your opponent, Not Brendo.
Posted by recedingDebates 3 years ago
recedingDebates
Hi @Brendo, Apologies for the late reply. Concerning your last questions, As far as I know, As a Contender to the debate, You must either argue why my argument is a bad idea/provide an argument against mine. In terms of factual proof, My argument for the revival of modern day blood-sports has no real-life parallel we can look at today, It's only a proposition, I suppose we both have an obligation to provide our own proof for each side.
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
Oh LOL, My bad
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
I am not your opponent of the debate. That would be @recedingDebates. I just posted an opinion in the comments.
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
@Brendo

My bad! I am not talking about your argument, I am talking about the rules of the debate.

Is it your job to get proof ONLY, And I just respond to your arguments, Or is it my job to give counter proof as well?
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
@Speedrace

I don"t fully understand what you meant by your previous comment. I simply stated that I do not want to watch a person die purely for entertainment purposes. However the actual fighting seems interesting.
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
@Brendo

Does the burden of proof lie on you or both of us?

The burden of proof basically just means whose job it is to find proof for their side.

If the burden of proof is only on you, Then my job is only to respond to your arguments. If it is on both of us, I must both respond AND find counterproof.

How do you want this to go?
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
I disagree with the actual murder part of it. However I do think it would be an interesting sport to watch.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.