Duelling should be legal

Pro doesn't say anything in the last Round, so he drops all my arguments. == Resolution == Extend my definition of "organized violence." The dictionary defines "organized violence" as violence orchestrated on a large scale. There is no dictionary definition of "organized" offered in today's debate that says, "Organized means that the Pro side can place any limits on dueling he sees fit." Because my opponent's definition is non-standard, it should be rejected because it's not predictable. When I accepted, I thought that "organized" would be given a standard definition. My opponent claims that I could have asked him what "organized" meant, but it is likely he would have given a different answer before seeing all my arguments than *after* seeing all my arguments. His definition of "organized" as "a duel with 19th century dueling pistols, in front of police, in an isolated area, that is videotaped" only came out after I made arguments necessitating (1) a less lethal form of firearm than a modern one, (2) a way to prevent innocent bystanders from being killed, (3) a way to ensure consent is genuine, and (4) a way to ensure no police abuse. In addition, I said that the "moving target" abuse that my opponent was engaging in was an independent voting issue for fairness. So even if you don't buy my resolutional analysis, vote on the fairness argument. My opponent has moved the goalposts every single round. He changed the type of weapon used to swords, then to pistols, then clarified non-modern pistols. He changed from saying merely that police would observe the duel to saying that the entire thing would be videotaped. If this were a policy resolution that allowed him to offer a plan, he only gets to offer *one* plan in the first round. He can't change his plan every single round. There's no way to argue against that. If you do buy my resolutional analysis, I still win because my opponent drops that it would be impossible to prove consent when the only other witness (the victim) is dead, meaning murderers would exploit the system and claim they were dueling. There is a serious risk that stray bullets will hit innocent bystanders (or the cops who are watching the duel - some people are lousy shots). In addition, gang shootouts would happen openly in the streets and be legal. Even if you don't buy the resolutional analysis (that the resolution simply legalizes dueling without any restrictions), I still win on the following two arguments. First, utilitarianism. My opponent concedes my estimate that there would be 35 million duels per year. Even if only a fraction of those were lethal, that's still a lot of needless death. Either duels will be over minor issues, not serious crimes. In which case up to 35 million deaths a year is an enormous waste. Or the duels will be over serious crimes (like "you raped me"), in which case society loses out if the victim (and only witness) is killed. Society has interests in criminal justice that go beyond mere revenge for the victim [i.e. legitimacy of the justice system, incapacitation of dangerous people, and deterrence of dangerous crimes]. Cops policing 35 million duels per year, plus cleaning up the bodies, plus providing welfare for the dependents that the dead person leaves behind = extremely costly. Second, plan flaw. My opponent never defines "isolated area." No one will know how to implement his policy. What is an isolated enough area for a duel. An empty park at night? A cornfield in the middle of nowhere? Inside a school gymnasium? In addition, my opponent fails to explain what rules of dueling would apply. He only talks about the Irish Code, but then disavows the Code and says it was just an "example." So if there are no rules for the duel, that's a serious problem. If there are rules, what are they? If there is a rules violation, does that convert the dueling into murder? Or do we invent a lesser crime like "negligent dueling homicide?" If my opponent is going to offer such a specific plan, the plan will fail if the people charged with implementing it have *no idea* how to do so. If we are supposed to pretend to put ourselves (as judges) in shoes of Congress, we could never pass such hastily drafted legislation until these serious questions are answered. So vote the plan down now. Perhaps its drafter can add more meat to it and come back and try to get you (judges) to pass it later. Because I win three potential ways: independent voting issue [moving target abuse], winning resolutional analysis (that duels are legalized without any other restrictions) [coupled with the arguments on gang violence, innocent bystanders, and difficulty of proving consent], or even under my opponent's framework (that he can change the topic to whatever he wants) [I still win on utilitarianism of up to 35 million deaths per year being wasteful for society], Vote Con.