The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)


Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
alex6704 has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 890 times Debate No: 113684
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)




By dueling I am talking about the right for at the minimum two people agree to meet in some formal way sanctioned by law and fight each other in mortal combat, possibly to the death, though this is not to say it could end with a first blood or no blood with both opponents honor satisfied.

If you accept this debate you accept debating with the "spirit" of what I intend by this argument. Voters are free to vote however they like, although I would appreciate it if they are good sports and honest about it.


If dueling were legal, especially in the hyper-technological society we live in now, the death rates would dramatically increase. Because we are instantly able to message now through social media, we are also able to meet and communicate with people outside of our immediate social spheres. This has pro's, and con's.

- Ability to form friendships with those we would not otherwise converse with
- Ability to spread ideas at a rapid pace

- Ability to bash those online we don't agree with
- Ability to form rivalries with those we would not otherwise converse with

We are all able to converse with (close to) whomever we want. Obviously, not everyone likes each other.
Making it legal for us to kill each other, who have almost unlimited social reaches, would allow for devastation worldwide.

"Honor" seems to be a thing of the past, at least in mainstream culture, so making it legal to duel would give someone the right to challenge someone to the death over a small and insignificant matter.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting the debate and hope we can both have a good time.

My opponents states in his argument that legalizing dueling would cause "the death rates would dramatically increase". I believe he considers this "devastation worldwide"...

Is humanity not near everywhere across this globe?
Are we not struggling in places with overcrowding?

There being less people in the world would not necessarily be a bad thing. This does not mean to say I favor some Samuel Jackson Kingsman culling of the world. I merely note fewer people would not lead to devastation. After all dueling existed for centuries, and I do not recall hearing of it being some cause of civilizations downfalls.

My opponent also speaks on how "honor" "seems to be a thing of the past"...
Is this not one of our problems in modern society?
That peoples words overflow and dribble down their chins due to any accountability? True you could not murder a man for cursing at you and a deceased loved one of yours at a funeral. But if modern society had a sense of honor and a shame at lack of it. You could defend your families honor and your love for them. Challenge the scurvy cur who dares befoul your loved one's funeral. Challenge them to a duel! Throw you glove in their face and demand a public apology.
Should they refuse, all would know them to be even more of a base coward than their earlier actions implied.

To legalize dueling does not mean a person can randomly walk about and stab people, tis consensual. Rules and regulations are built around any activity, dueling has been the same.

Pros of dueling would be that it could increase a societies sense of honor
Be awesome
Be a persons right to do as they wish
Allow a decrease in pigheaded people who despise others and wish them harm, for surely everyone they offend would seek revenge.
If a person were to misuse dueling. Would not vast members of a public be outraged and many duels be offered to the offender?
Would criminals not be of a lesser degree? Violence and short term thinking being a trademark of them, well as short tempers.


Leaning, I appreciate debating with you, and I hope we can have a bit of fun as well.

My opponent states in his previous argument that in order to uphold one's honor when one is insulted/attacked/offended etc., they have to retaliate. But I challenge that idea and ask, would not the contrary be more "honorable"? Think about it:

A man with a dirty appearance and sloppy posture swaggers up to you in the town saloon, sits down in the squeaky chair across from you, leans over the table and spits in your cider. What to do in this situation? Do you quickly reach for your pistol and give him what he deserves, two shots to the chest? Do you flip over the table and demand he pay for your drink? Or, do you rip the mustache from his face, stuff it down his shirt, then kick him in the nostrils?

See, upon inspection, none of these retaliatory responses are honorable in the slightest. True honor (according to Wikipedia) is "...a perceived quality of worthiness and respectability that effects both the social standing and the self-evaluation of an individual..." In other words, honor isn't snobbishly slapping back whenever you are wronged, it is treating your enemy as your friend, and being publicly held as one who does so.

Wouldn't the honorable, title-bearing response be to kindly remove yourself from the table, and buy that same man a drink twice as tasty as your own? The reason why I object to Leaning's argument is that he states that dueling would increase honor! When in reality, dueling, by definition, isn't honorable!
Debate Round No. 2


"a perceived quality of worthiness and respectability that effects both the social standing and the self-evaluation of an individual" could also be interpreted as depending upon the societies values. A christian society who places high regard upon turning the other cheek would not view dueling as a honorable action. That does of course require the society to all have that opinion.

Would other people not prefer a society where people are held accountable for their actions? And true certain duels may seem dishonorable, but that does not apply to all duels.

A man of high control and integrity might be lauded for ignoring his enemies behavior and actions toward himself, even seen as a type of genius should he persuade his enemy the error of their cider spitting ways.

But if this stranger with a dirty appearance should become emboldened by the lack of punishment for his actions, would not the other scoundrels about become the same? No consequence for spitting in drinks? We even get tasty drinks!

And even worse were the stranger to cause harm to a loved one of yours, what if they were to slap your sister? Or insinuate in the locale newspaper that your mother was a w****? Is it so easy or even wise to let such behavior continue unabated?

Truth be there are other ways to curb their behavior than dueling, but dueling be one of the options and means of protecting ones social standing as well as their individual view of their own worth. I do admit this can be dependent on the society one lives in.

But No I Say! Let these other people be known as base and cowardly rogues for their actions! Unworthy to share civilized society. Let all people know that insult and harm be not accepted as acceptable! And that men of honor defend the honor of their society and life.


I do admit that my opponent has a way with words, but nonetheless, is faulty.

He states "...dueling be one of the options and means of protecting ones social standing as well as their individual view of their own worth." Does this suggest that our worth as intelligent beings be reduced to how well we are to duel? This seems a petty view to me.

And he even admits that dueling isn't necessary! "Let it be one of the options" he says. For the low life's he's mentioned, would not years in the slammer be enough to slap them into reality? Is there no TRUE honor in the courtroom? Where criminals against society are fairly judged, where every man is repaid for the evil he has committed?

Let the local body, or the national government decide the fate of a wrongdoer. NOT the average citizen armed with a weapon.
Debate Round No. 3


"Let the local body, or the national government decide the fate of a wrongdoer. NOT the average citizen armed with a weapon."
As he did in round one with
"Making it legal for us to kill each other, who have almost unlimited social reaches, would allow for devastation worldwide."
My opponent depicts dueling as some sort of public lynching, as if individuals are going about as individual Punishers or Boondock Saints... But that is not what I suggest by dueling.... All I suggest is that people be held to a type of responsibility.
Specifically one in which they actually feel a NEED to consider their words and actions.

My opponent also mentions on how I admitted that dueling is not our only option. I stand by that, dueling is of course not our ONLY option. Doubtless there are options undiscovered, options we are using now, options we have discarded in the past.
A state having strong enviormental control such as Oregon had under Tom McCall is one option. Another is for people not to care as much about how factories or individuals might pollute rivers to a point where all the fish are killed or the streets at litterd with cans and trash.

And the justice system? Our prison system? It is a common subject I hear on this site or elsewhere on how people are unsatisfied with our corrections system. What might one say are the three points of the prison system? I would say
and Exile. The prisons in America overflow I would say. Detterance so often fails, Education is twisted by their fellow imates to a further knoweledge of crime, Exile in prison is so rarely permenant.

Do you not believe that thoese of violent and crimminal temperment would meet their ends sooner if their swords had a well designed place to meet? Do you think they would be so brash if they were held accountable by others for their pasts. Honor being held up as a virtue would inspire more to follow it and our social standards.

And in the final two arguements I'll give before a conclusion

Should we not expect our leaders to be honorable?
If we held honor as a higher virtue. As something one risked his life for, would our leaders not have to follow? Be it Democrat Emails or Republican Russian connections, would they not be more ashamed if honor mattered more?
Did the leaders of old who would at times risk their own lives in battle or honor not have a quality desireable?
Robert the Bruce of Braveheart fame met Sir Henry De Bohun in single combat upon the battlefield once. Though chastied by his men, is it not honorable he would risk as much as them.

If a religous tilt you seek, look to a part of the Bible taken out of context (Because I've never read the whole thing)
English Standard Version
for we aim at what is honorable not only in the Lord"s sight but also in the sight of man.


Audience, Leaning is clearly going off on tangents here. In his last post he tries to paint a picture of my view as one that believes no people anywhere have self control. Then, with confusing examples he tries to topple my previous argument concerning correctional options.

Leaning, you insist on sticking to your own harmful definition of honor. Who, in the past, has been more honorable? The cowboys of the west alongside their rogue posses, or Mahatma Gandhi with his movement for peace? The feudalistic knights of old who exploited from the poor, or Mother Teresa who fed them?

Making the practice of dueling legal would allow for those in society who wish to gain immoral power the means to do so. An example of this is as follows:

A man by the name of Frank is watching television one day when a broadcast emergency station overrides his Price is Right show. A rainbow screen appears for a split second, then a man in a suit is seen staring boldly back at him. Confused, Frank leans in toward the screen. The man on the television begins to speak. He says "Today is a day the world will forever remember. Hundreds of years ago, the practice of the Duel was common, an accepted part of society. The Duel is, simply, an event agreed upon by two individuals, where both engage in either hand to hand combat, or combat with use of a pistol, all with the end goal of ending the others life in order to gain societal status. Today, ________, 2018, the United Nations Board has agreed to pass a law, once again legalizing this ancient practice." Frank is in awe. What did he just say? Did he just say the world authorities have made it legal to kill another human being, as long as I "challenge" them, and it is a "mutual agreement"?
Frank, without a moment to lose, grabs his coat, boots, and trusty (soon to be bloody) .22 Winchester Magnum revolver. His heart is racing, he's always dreamed of this day. He knocks on the door of a house owned by his boss, Marty. The owner slowly opens the door. Standing there, plump, hairy, and cheerful, he utters, "What can I do for ya?" With an empassioned and slightly creepy grin, Frank looks directly into the man's eyes, and says, "I challenge you to a duel." Not fully understanding the situation, but never backing down from a fight, Marty says, "Well... alright. If it's what you want." Frank fires back, "Oh, I've been wanting this for a long time..." With a disappointed look, Marty goes inside for a minute, grabs his hat and gun, and steps outside to face his challenger.
By the time the two men's guns are drawn, Frank's revolver is already smoking, and Marty has a hole the size of a baseball in his stomach. Beginning to laugh, Frank turns from his dying opponent, softly saying "Now I get what I deserve. The job that was supposed to be mine." Marty is left in the street to slowly bleed out, while Frank gets back into his car, and drives home, where he will sleep restfully, waiting for the next day. The day he will replace his former boss, who's children will grow up without a father.

The correctional system may be flawed, but using Dueling as a way to "weed out" the "bad apples" of society would extremely damage our youth as well as those who can't yet be trusted with that large responsibility.
Debate Round No. 4


Well, we have come to the end.

In conclusion I would like to say I do not feel my opponent has provided significant evidence for his claims in the first round that legalizing dueling would lead to "devastation worldwide"
nor did my opponent address my counterargument that even if more people were killed off, humanity is already growing at a dangerously exponential rate. And man being the greatest predator, what keeps us in check but ourselves?

He also addresses "honor" as a tradition of the past. Only to change his stance later on to specific examples he considers honorable such as "turning the other cheek". As I addressed in round three, there are flaws to such a viewpoint.
Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Teresa did in my opinion behave in an honorable fashion in many ways. Though I would like to point out that Mahatma Gandhi during his movement on peace was willing to risk his life and livelihood many times during his life.
"To bet ones own existence, this is a sign of true seriousness " (From a Kaiji manga I think).

Dueling was a time when honor was more apparent, more challengeable.
This does not mean that it is an honorable action for a father who's family depends on him to risk his life. Nor is it honorable to kill such a man. Society I think would have an understanding of this.

I would like to point out again though. Dueling is NOT grounds for murder. Nor would it be some sport that we would expect teenagers to partake in. Privileges and rights come with age, be it drinking, smoking, or as it seems nowadays gun rights. Dueling itself would of course have an age limit, and as I've said before in some affect REGULATION.

My opponent does not think much of my offer as dueling to aid in the sooner end of criminals prone to violence. He points to my admittance that there are many paths to change a persons behavior. But offers nothing but the current system which he admits is flawed. Legalizing dueling would not mean a singular path of seeking out and challenging criminals to duels in an attempt to legally kill them.
Prison would still exist. Public programs to help them. But our current system is still flawed, allowing a valve for people of violent nature and low thinking would allow them to self destruct in a fashion sooner rather than later. Is it not better that those who live by the sword die on it sooner in their lives rather than using it upon the general public for years and years. Or wait 80 years before they fall of old age having sucked our tax dollars?

Honor is not an antiquated notion.
Though many peoples appearances in this modern society where it's value is held as less than it once was belies that.
Peoples individual lives are their own.
Dueling could prove beneficial to honor and society.

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, I have enjoyed it.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Hey no worries dude, I enjoyed debating you too. And since my first round wasn't really and argument really, we argued the same amount. Only thing I might suggest in the future if you're at a loss of words, just say extend previous arguments or something.
Posted by alex6704 3 years ago
Poo, I apologize friend. I couldn't come up with something! This was fun though. Thank you. It was my first ever debate on here and I'm glad you were my opponent!
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Ah well. I did think your situations you described were rather effective in how graphicly descriptive they were.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Hmm, 12 hours left.
Posted by alex6704 3 years ago
Haha, me too!
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
I enjoyed it. But wow, that took a while. Maybe 5 rounds is a bit much for me.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Very poetic.
Posted by alex6704 3 years ago
I sympathize with you friend. Word flow to a writer is as the sound of a beautiful symphony to a conductor.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Curse you editor inside my head! It should be "That peoples words overflow and dribble down their chins due to A LACK OF any accountability?"
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Eh, I have the feeling it would be a bad idea, but it sounds cool sometimes.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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