Duelling should be legal

== Resolutional Analysis ==Extend my argument that the resolution is that "dueling should be legal," without any limits on where, when, or how the duel should take place. My opponent contends that because he said that dueling involves "organized violence" in the Comments Section that he can use the word "organized" to define strict rules for the time, place, and manner in which duels would have to be conducted. However, I had assumed that the word 'organized" in the phrase "organized violence" meant the same thing as the word 'organized' in the phrase "organized crime," which simply means "orchestrated on a large scale." [1] The word organized merely means that the violence would be legitimized on a society-wide scale, i.e. it would be written into the rule of law. To the extent that my opponent is trying to use the term "organized" to legitimize his 'moving of the goalposts,' I reject his non-standard definition of "dueling." Dueling simply means "a contest with deadly weapons arranged between two people in order to settle a point of honor." [2] This definition is more predictable because it is from a dictionary, not simply from my opponent, and it is more fair since it comports with a reasonable person's understanding of what the resolution would mean. Had I known that the resolution authorizes my opponent to place extremely strict limits on how duels occurred (by re-defining dueling), I would not have taken the debate.Thus, reject my opponent's supposed restrictions on dueling: that police must be present, that it must occur in an isolated area, and that it must involve swords. This definition of dueling is bad (1) because it is non-standard; most people would think a duel involves gun and is not administered by law enforcement, (2) because it allows my opponent to engage in a No True Scotsman fallacy by simply moving the goalposts whenever I am winning an argument against dueling in general, and (3) because it is unfair because it is not the topic I thought I was accepting. Fairness is a voting issue for reasons of competing interpretation - because as judges, you get to enforce the community norms of DDO and accepting a rule that allows the instigator to change the topic after the contender accepts is a *worse rule* than one that forces the instigator to stick with the topic that was originally intended or to the meaning that would be understood by a reasonable contender.Extend C1 and C2By his non-answer, my opponent concedes that it would be impossible to prove consent or to stop gang shootouts out in the streets unless you adopt his rules for dueling [police oversight, must be in isolated areas]. Because of this concession, as long as you refuse to allow my opponent to move the goalposts, C1 and C2 result in an automatic win for Con. Murderers will use claims of "dueling" to escape homicide charges after the fact or will use duress to force unwilling victims to duel them. Gangs will rely on the consent defense to say that gang shootouts are merely sporting events, not examples of homicide, and that innocent bystanders that are killed are no different than people who get hit by crashing cars and killed while watching Nascar.Extend C3: unadministrableIn spite of my opponent's many limitations, I have argued that enforcing my opponent's scheme is unadministrable because dueling has no clear rules. What if pacing and counting of seconds is required? Will one count with Mississippi's or Mississippi-lessly?My opponent responds that he will advocate that we adopt the Code Duello, which is an Irish code of dueling created in 1777. However, my opponent's assertion does not square with his own advocacy position since the Code Duello contemplates duels mainly with guns. For example, the Code says, "If they will not decide or cannot agree, the matter must proceed to two shots." However, my opponent stated that he advocated limiting duels to swords. He undermines his own advocacy position. The Code Duello also does not require that duels take place in secluded areas nor that police oversee the duel.My opponent's advocacy is further unadministrable because it is extremely unclear what is meant by a "secluded area." How far away from civilization must someone go? Does secluded merely mean devoid of people? Does going to an elementary school on a weekend, when no one is supposed to be present, count as dueling at a "secluded area"? Does dueling in someone's corn field count as a "secluded area"? Does someone have to drive all the way out to the Nevada desert to get to a "secluded area"?In addition, assuming police are overseeing the rules, there could be a serious problem with police corruption or bias. If one party pays a police officer to help him, the officer could simply turn a blind eye to that person firing before the duel has officially begun. Or the police officer could give the non-bribing dueler a dull sword. Alternatively, there would be serious charges of racial bias if officers allowed a minority dueler to die when cheating might have occurred. There was already so much backlash with the Rodney King beatings and the Trayvon Martin prosecution. Our society probably could not survive accusations that police officers were letting white people murder black people under the guise of dueling.Extend C4: utilitarianismUnder this argument, I win even under Pro's framework. I argued that society loses productive members if people kill each other over minor disputes. Pro's only response is that people are not "property" of the State. However, utilitarianism posits that the State can adopt rules that are in society's best interest, even if they constrict the realm of decisionmaking power of society's members. My opponent seems to take issue with paternalism to save people's lives, but such paternalism underlies a number of beneficial laws, such as laws requiring that drivers wear seatbelts. Duels will mean that people will make hot-headed bad decisions (to kill each other over minor trangressions), when had they simply been disallowed from dueling, cooler heads would have eventually prevailed.In addition, I argued that society has an interest in seeing people who are guilty of a crime prosecuted. If victims instead challenged their attackers to a duel and the victim lost, the crime would likely go unreported and unprosecuted, since the key witness is dead. However, if the crime goes unprosecuted, this erodes the deterrent and incapacitative functions of our criminal justice system, which go beyond merely securing justice for the victim. In addition, even the victim will not be avenged if the victim loses the duel.Lastly, dueling wastes police resources (either overseeing it or trying to investigate whether it was actually murder). My opponent claims that this is not *that* big a deal because dueling is infrequent. However, to support this proposition, he cites a source which says that when dueling was legal, there were approximately fifteen duels per day in New Orleans.Fifteen per day in a single city. There are 19,355 cities in the United States and 365 days in the year. Therefore, extrapolating my opponent's estimate of how many duels there would be if it were legal, that's 105,968,625 duels per year. One hundred and five *million* duels each year. That is a significant number of police resources. It is also a lot of dead bodies.Because a dueling rule is not in the best interest of society, vote Con.[1] Google dictionary [organized = arranged in a systematic way, esp. on a large scale.] [2] Google dictionary