Dueling should be legalized

Thanks Con. Your arguments are much appreciated and I'm pleased that this debate took such a unique and thought provoking turn.First, extend the contradiction in my opponents definition of the state. He tries to argue it away by pointing out that governments initially arose out of the consent of the governed, but it does not follow that their descendants are bound to the same agreement. You don't show agreement by complying when the result for not doing so is imprisonment or fines, enforced by a million man army. This is significant because my opponent bases his case around what the state ought to do, and yet the very definition he bases this on has a fatal flaw. UtilitarianismMy opponent completely drops my entire critique of utilitarianism, accusing me of committing an unnamed fallacy in which I take "extreme scenarios" of utilitarianism that he agrees are unfair. Count this as an implicit concession about the failings of Util. as a system of justice on it's own. Moreover, if you are convinced by this re-read my arguments against utilitarianism and you'll see that each example falls within what util. would allow (measuring moral worth as only what benefits the most amount of people). At this point, you have to vote Pro because my opponents position is based on a moral principle that he's failed to defend from my attacks. He makes no response to the point that there needs to be the backdrop of another principle (like the NAP) to evaluate what constitutes the maximization of human well being.He says that the merits of util. are irrelevant, but if the system of morality fails when applied, then obviously his position in the debate falls. Compare this to my case, where the non aggression principle is implied in round 2 and explicitly invoked in round 3. My opponent has made no argument against the NAP, and as such has conceded to it. It's a mountain to climb to negate the resolution now, as my opponent would need to somehow show that consensual relations between two individuals constitutes an act of aggression. He has not, and indeed cannot and his failure to address the NAP shows that dueling (along with all other consensual relations) is indeed a right and must be allowed. Consider the NAP an objective moral fact when weighing this round because he makes no response to it.Law I'll say here that I was mistaken about my opponents conception of law/rights but that it's entirely irrelevant. I honestly only brought it up because the worldview it seemed like he was espousing is one that irks me beyond all belief. Aretaic ethicsMy opponents position here makes no sense. He argues first that util. is the way to make value judgements, then that "there is no specific way to determine what is 'good'", and then that killing is obviously bad. So basically, dueling is bad because utilitarianism says its bad, except that there's no real right or wrong, except when there is. His position is self contradictory. Never in the entire debate does he really say why we need to value Aretaic "ethics" anyway. I say ethics in parenthesis because this too needs principled morality in order to apply value judgements--a principle he's failed to provide. My opponents argument can be summed up as follows: The state should promote moral behavior. Dueling is immoral. Dueling should be banned. First, his complete concession to my attacks on util. destroys this argument because his system for applying justice is, in his own words, "unfair". Secondly, there are other ways to discourage immoral behavior than banning it. Look to how banning drugs has failed. Third, he drops my argument about how he's advocating competing moral systems. He even admits that there is a contradiction between util. and Aretaic ethics, but feels it doesn't matter if it doesn't occur in this case, except since debate is by nature the presentation of competing world views, it matters significantly. If the worldview he presents is flawed than you cannot negate the resolution based on that worldview. He agrees that both capital punishment and self defense can be justified. This defeats his argument about how killing is always wrong, and moreover he refused to respond to the fact that duels aren't always to the death. Very very very few fights (a modern duel would most likely be an honorable and contractual fight) start out without the intent to kill, and indeed it is the lawlessness and lack of honor that ultimately leads to deaths in street fights. To be clear, this is a turn argument. If life is inherently valuable, letting people fight in situations where they're less likely to kill eachother is beneficial. Dueling bad 1. He didn't weigh his harms against my advantages. 2. His disadvantages need to be ignored because at this point in the debate, its been firmly established that dueling is a right under the NAP which he's dropped. Rights protection outweighs subjective advantages (note that I have held throughout the entire debate that dueling is societally good besides being a right). 3. He dropped the worst problem I saw with his argument, which was that he values human well being without providing any actual reason to value humans on their own. He says that life is to be inherently valued, but the worldview advocated only values humans as a means to an end. Parts of a whole. Collective cogs in societies machine. This, ladies and gentlemen, is not the valuation of life. Truly valuing humanity means placing rights above all, as the recognition of rights (the interpretation of moral situations) is what distinguishes humanity from the rest of the animals on earth. Sacrificing these rights for collective well being (a subjective term if there ever was one) is a complete affront to all that is objectively valuable in humanity. TURN: Not recognizing rights as more important than collective well being leads to moral perversion. Refer to his Nazi example for this one. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and anything can be justified as being for "the greater good" if enough people share your desires. I realize that my opponent was just trying to show how dueling is bad, but just listing a multitude of reasons without weighing them isn't a compelling case, especially given that util. has been (for the purposes of this debate) ruled insufficient. =Advantages=Remember that I win if I prove that dueling is a right, which I already have. However, in case you fallback to util. my advantages clearly outweigh. 1. ViolenceIn my last round, I gave many reasons and explanation as to how violence will be somewhat reduced. My opponent quotes this and then says simply that he disagrees, no meaningful rebuttal or anything. This drop equates to a concession. He also concedes that less private property will be destroyed. 2. HonorCompletely conceded. He simply says this is not a good enough reason to legalize dueling. Yet he concedes that gaining back our sense of honor would lead to less murder, rape, and property crime. It seems incredibly improbable that the negative effects of dueling can outweigh all this. Under a utilitarian framework, taking steps to regain honor is an inherent good. Therefore the resolution is affirmed under my moral framework, and his.3. Government My opponent argues that he's provided a purpose for the government. Not exactly. He advocated a state with a self contradicting definition enforcing moral codes that he hasn't backed up, who's failings he's conceded to. His only response is that many states prohibit people from driving without a seat belt, but this is no reason to vote con. Just as he implies that the law is good, I can imply it's bad by stating that I think it's a stupid regulation created solely to generate revenue. In conclusion, the NAP supports dueling and has been conceded to. Pure utilitarianism is flawed, but even accepting it, concessions in this round make dueling legalization look promising.