We should bring back honorable duels.

"No doubt you've discovered loyalty is no longer the currency of the realm, as your father believed. . I'm afraid currency is the currency of the realm. " - Lord Cutler Beckett, Pirates of the Carribean 2 Because Beckett describes society today, I negate: "we should bring back honorable duels". Responses to PRO: "Duels were fair fights on matters of honor or disputes. " 1) No evidence that they were fair fights. Also, since he put out "duels were fair fights" as a true statement, that means he must prove that ALL duels were fair fights. 2) Precedent does not justify the future. I liked coloring when I was in kindergarten. I prefer shading with my 0.5mm Papermate G-Force pencil now. 3) Conditional again; resolution/topic does not specify how we're only going to be using duels to settle matters of honor or disputes. "Bringing duels into modern day society would reduce violent crime. They settle disputes and do not necessarily have to end in death. " 1) No justification, as there is no specification of what modern duels will be like. 2) "I aimed for his leg but he tripped and so uhh, yeah. Headshot. My bad. " 3) How the h*** does it reduce violent crime? The rest will be responded in-case. With that said, CASE: PART I: 1) He says specifically in his case, "If we brought back legal duels". The topic talks about honorable duels. Hmm. Let's see. A) He provides no definition of honor. Since I don't know what honor is either, that means there is no definition of honor in this round and therefore you can already vote CON. By the way, does honor describe the duel or does honor describe what is being dueled for? (I really don't see how it's honorable to kill, period. ) But onto a more concrete response, B) It's completely nontopical. Legal duels do not mean Honorable duels. Even given that there is a definition of honor, he has yet to provide a link between the two. Even then, C) He says he will allow legal duels in the world of the PRO, but allowing duels to be legal does not mean that duels will be honorable. There's no way you can bring back ONLY honorable duels, EVEN IF you can somehow read people's minds and conclude that both have intentions driven by honor (1. no def of honor 2. impossible to determine intentions), EVEN IF he changes his position to not "let[ting] the combatants pick the rules of engagement[s]", there's absolutely no way that you ONLY bring back honorable duels, unless you somehow make a government that can monitor all that. That's a completely different argument that I won't waste my time on unless you bring it up. 2) He says, "there would be a reduction in violent crime due to it being a legal fight". Let's see. He says "reduction in crime" because "it is now legal". Hmm. Obviously this is true, as crime is due to a breaking of law, and legalizing it will intuitively lead to less crime! However, this does not lead to less VIOLENCE, which outweighs CRIME for obvious reasons if they were ever separated. Which brings me to another important point, EVEN IF we take "we should bring back honorable duels" to be true, the PRO never reaches affirming the resolution, as it would lead to ridiculous things such as "the amount of vandalism, hate crimes, terrorist acts, incest, cannibalism, robberies, arsons, and rapes dropped to none because they were all LEGALIZED! " Unless he's going to argue that all of those things are justified, or that law dictates morality instead of the other way around, you can't affirm. Of course, I'd be happy to take him up on that. .. . PART II: "Duel" was not defined. I define it from Dictionary. Com as "any contest between two persons or parties". This should be preferred over the first definition because we have used this word even though the age of the colt 45 pistol duels are no longer common. "Yraelz and Logical-Master are dueling it out in the topic [Under the below listed rules my opponent will lose this debate]", or as we more commonly see it used, "X boxer and Y boxer are dueling it out in the ring". C1) Duels still exist. You negate off of this because the resolution/topic assumes that honorable duels don't exist today, and because duels exist today, it can reasonably be assumed that there are some honorable duels out there. C2) Even if you look to the first definition, you still affirm, because those types of "duels", the ones that require an agreement to a set of preset rules, also still exist today. They're just called life-or-death contracts: Proof - . http://seattlepi.nwsource.com..., Example of usage - . http://chinascope.org...