We should bring back honorable duels.

"Why does the person have to be honorable for the act to be honorable? Your talking about the intentions of the people in the duel. That is not the point at all. Their intentions don't matter at all. As long as they follow the agreed upon rules what isn't honorable about that? " His definition says "honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions", which means that it's a person evaluating themselves. Bites back into all my impacts. His second point, "as long as they follow the agreed upon rules", means that all of my arguments that consent is outweighed by the good of society stand true. "Now your comparing a duel, a 1 on 1 battle, to Birmingham in 1963? Why don't you just compare it to Hiroshima in WW2? That would be just as ridiculous[. .. ]" I never compared it to Hiroshima. Therefore I don't link into any of his impacts on "ridicule". My point in relating this topic to Birmingham is that legalizing duels will brutalize society. This is proven in society today. "Here is a statement I want you to oppose. Having 2 men fight in a controlled environment, to rules agreed upon by both parties, is WORSE than having them just brawl it out where ever the dispute took place? I know fighting is illegal, but it happens everyday[. .. ]" Alright then. Let's see. First of all, that's not what the topic is, all I have to do is oppose your position. I've never advocated that we should have people brawl it out wherever the dispute takes place, in fact, I think any reasonable person can assume that my case takes on a pacifism standpoint, that we shouldn't be allowing violence to happen AT ALL. THE POSITION YOU GIVE ME TO ARGUE IS COMPLETELY NONTOPICAL. Your situation is that WE EITHER LEGALIZE BRAWLS WE DON'T LEGALIZE THEM AND THEY HAPPEN ANYWAYS. What I'm saying is LEGALIZING THEM LEADS TO ***MORE*** BRAWLS IN THE STREETS, LEADS TO ***MORE*** BRUTALIZATION IN SOCIETY, AND THAT WE SHOULD JUST THROW AWAY ALL THAT AND GO WITH JUST THE STATUS QUO; I. E. , ILLEGALIZING VIOLENCE. Just because "it happens every day" DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD LEGALIZE THEM. YOU KNOW WHAT? VANDALISM HAPPENS EVERY DAY. HATE CRIMES HAPPEN EVERY DAY. TERRORIST ACTS HAPPEN EVERY DAY. INCEST HAPPENS EVERY DAY. CANNIBALISM HAPPENS EVERY DAY. ROBBERIES HAPPEN EVERY DAY. ARSONS HAPPEN EVERY DAY. RAPES HAPPEN EVERY DAY. OH YES, I'M -VERY- SURE THAT LEGALIZING THEM WILL JUST MAKE SOCIETY BETTER. REGULATING VIOLENCE IS SURELY GOING TO MAKE THINGS BETTER. HOW? HMM. I DON'T KNOW. YOU JUST SAY "IT IS", AND JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. ABSOLUTELY NO SOLVENCY, AND EVEN THEN, NO WARRANTS WHATSOEVER. Trying to straw man me? Ain't about to happen. (For debaters keeping track of new arguments, I made the list argument up in Part I, point 2. ) Second, your definition says rules will be decided by the combatants. They might as well just say "We'll kill everyone in the city, then kill each other". I'm sure that's going to solve innocent deaths in your case. And even if that's not the case, you never respond to "I aimed for his leg but he tripped and so uhh, yeah. Headshot. My bad. " This applies to the judge. And the witnesses. They can just claim it to be an accident. All those "honorable" points you mention? They all fall because honor is self-determined. "Ok, you wrote way to much for me to respond to, but most of it was irrelevant or I acknowledged it. I don't have that much time. But I think I have made my point a few times without have to try and break down every word my opponent used to respond. My opponent spent more time attacking my wording than attacking my points. Which goes to show that my points are too simple and logical to attack. " 1) no warrant: Just because I wrote a lot doesn't mean it's irrelevant 2) irrelevant: I'm sorry he doesn't have that much time 3) The only time where I called him out on wording is on the K. 3b) As a result, I spent more time attacking his impacts than his wording. 3c) Wording is important anyways. There's a difference between a "legal" duel" and an "honorable duel". Extend Point 3 from R2. 4) STRAIGHT TURN: His very short R3 just goes to show you that my points were too good for him and he couldn't figure out how to take down my arguments. His arguments seem simple, but they're not, because they imply a lot more than he says. As with any case, he gives out only the good side of what he's going to be causing. I show you that NOT ONLY is the wording of his arguments important, but ALSO the ideas. Regardless of whether or not legal duels will cause innocent deaths, it will lead to brutalization of society. The only response he has to this is "that's ridiculous". STRAIGHT TURN AGAIN, you reject HIS because HE'S the one that's going to be linking into the really ridiculous impacts. At this point, I can just take his point about Hiroshima along with it, STRAIGHT TURN AGAIN, he leads to nuclear bombing and due to that, the breaking of MAD will happen, and he leads to Nuclear War. GG. "My opponent compared a duel to a church bombing. " Where? Someone tell me? I must be blinder than I thought. The CLOSEST POINT I get to that is saying duels will LEAD TO church bombings. "Well, I defy that by saying the people don't have to be honorable, just the duel, and duels have been around for thousands of years, including england in the 1800's, their society didn't collapse. " 1) Precedent is not a reason to go PRO. Look to my VERY FIRST response set in R1. 2) "people don't have to be honorable". Extend R2 Point 3. "It is much safer to the combatants and to those around them. That cannot be denied if common sense is applied. " 1) Extend R2 Point 3. Posting an article with no analysis does not get you anything in a debate round. I can just go to google and find "DUELING BAD" articles, but unless I explain how they work and what impacts they make inside of a debate, they're meaningless. THESIS/MAIN POINT. He brutalizes society by legalizing duels. This outweighs any sort of consent, even if they agree to only fight each other, and outweighs people of the immediate surroundings. "He says that the justification for that is consent and the impact of that is less innocent deaths, but that's NOT true AT ALL because the INSTANT you legalize VIOLENCE, the INSTANT you place the decisions of some sociopathic individual over the general well-being of the society, we've basically screwed over the world. If our government is going to say "VIOLENCE IS OKAY IF YOU COME TO US", that gives people the image that "VIOLENCE IS OKAY", which BRUTALIZES society, as we have seen when SEGREGATION WAS LEGAL. I don't think it's necessary to uhh, post pictures of what happened in Birmingham in 1963, but yeah, that's basically what'll be happening if we legalize this stuff. That, plus a lot on top of it. " (R2 Point 3) There's no response to this except "it's ridiculous". First, ridicule isn't a reason to reject and second, turn, the impacts apply to him. The things dueling does to society are so ridiculously horrible, you reject his case.