THW ban boxing

I'll make my defense and my conclusion in this round. DefenseI thank my opponent for his response, now I will be posting my defense in this round also. My opponent copies my argument and just states a few sentences, he says, "Legalize duels then! " In Texas, duels are legal [1]. Also, we should legalize duels. My opponent's rebuttal is wrong. My opponent then says that baseball, and those sports are not violent. He says he will expand the point later on. My opponent says that then we need to ban so many things, and violent does not mean death. My opponent doesn't have any explanation or sources. I explained that violent basically means harmful, and killing is harmful, killing is violent. My opponent gives no source, and my opponent doesn't even rebut why those sports are not violent, when I showed they were. And american football, bump and bash into each other's heads. So not violent. Well, first of all, that will not happen with duels, as some places it is legal, and it won't be illegal, and some places they banned it, and it already happened. Sure, it might happen, but I don't see the problem with this. I showed the boxing example, but a duel example isn't that good. My opponent concedes it is entertaining. What? Then you have to vote for me because that was literally one whole argument, and 10 paragraphs of waste! !! Yeah, boxing is dangerous, so? Just because it is dangerous, do we ban it? Do we ban every single thing which is dangerous? That can't happen. My argument isn't about if it is fun, or good. Yeah, I mentioned that. It all has to do with the topic. The topic is that boxing should be banned. I am Con. Boxing shouldn't be banned. I am saying that boxing shouldn't be banned. Why? Because it is entertaining, fun, that is WHY I ACTUALLY MAKE THESE ARGUMENTS, AND THEY ARE NO RED HERRINGS, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC. My opponent says we should legalize suicide by liberty. Suicide is legal, and yeah, it should be legal, as they want to die, why should we not let them die? And, legalize duels. My opponent uses in the next paragraph, "Legalize duels, and legalize suicide. " Yeah, we should legalize them. And boxing too. My opponent says that boxing is the only violent sport, and he showed proof. This is shocking, as I showed my opponent had no proof, merely a bare assertion. Therefore, this rebuttal is false. ConclusionMy opponent's rebuttals are all on, "legalize duels then", or about suicide. Yeah, legalize it. My opponent's rebuttals are refuted if I said that. My opponent makes a bare assertion that boxing is the only sport that is violent, and my opponent concedes that it is entertaining. My opponent made no actual rebuttals, as he didn't refute anything. Vote Con. My opponent makes no good arguments, rebuttals, and just quotes to make his arguments look bigger, which sucks, as his whole argument will be smaller than my fr! ckin conclusion. Don't let my opponent steal the win. He can't defend his arguments, as I made them impossible to defend, and they are all weak. Vote Con, as you can't vote Pro in the debate, it is impossible unless it is a vote bomb. The best way for my opponent to get points is to concede.