Duelling should be legal

As I put in the comment section I am impresed with my opponents resolve to debate he even challenged me to a duel ! Of course I can add requirements let"s lock at what I wrote: I proclaim the definition of dueling to be the use of organized violence between two consenting adults to settle feuds Now let"s break this down: 1- I proclaim the definition of dueling to be the use of organized violence I didn"t mention how it would be organized, if I can say how it will regulated, it shall take place etc" 2- between two consenting adults I and my opponent have no problem with this part as long as the consent is authentic. 3- to settle feuds This part is understood. My opponent is making a logical fallacy called argument from silence. An argument from silence (in Latin argumentum e silentio) is a conclusion based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence. http://en.wikipedia.org... Well now that we got this out of the way. Rebuttals: No way to prove consent Wrong since it"s regulated by the police consent can be proved quiet good. With signed consent. Gang shootouts Gang shootouts would happen but away from the general populace. What is an improvement to shooting in an alley. Remembering the definition of duel : I proclaim the definition of dueling to be the use of organized violence between two consenting adults to settle feuds. So it would solve shooting in alleys where it could hit by-standers and reduce criminal population what isn"t a problem to me or to society. Police could harness information from the duels. Like who is a hot-head? Who is suspected to be in a criminal gang? Assuming you buy my opponent"s resolutional analysis, I still win That"s a big assumption isn"t it , Sir? This is a big assumption, since it should be pretty clear that what my opponent is doing here is completely unfair. What he is advocating is beginning to look less like dueling and more like fencing. He could even add a requirement that "you cannot attempt to kill the other person, only injure. I"m don"t know if my opponent has ever read the code duello . You know the set of rules written to regulate a Duel. Code Duello : https://www.sos.mo.gov... I"m starting to doubt if my opponent has read the rules if he had done so he wouldn"t call what I"m proposing fencing. Although I do not agree with all the rules depicted in the Code Duello my opponents Remarque about what I want to be dueling to be like fencing is bordering to outright madness. Now I will address my opponents concerns about my actual argument and not the version he debated at the beginning. 1.It is a huge waste of police resources. - My says that police has something better to do then over-see duels. Now I want my opponent to open his mind to the fact that murders where two parties were attempting to kill each other would not need to be cared for in prison. It costs quiet allot to keep people in prison an average estimate would be 129,44$ a day. http://www.lanecounty.org... Not considering that innocent by standers would not be at risk as private property would not be at risk. Duels are not that numerous that it would take allot of police forces to regulate. To prove this I"m going to quote a person from 1834. Early 19th century travel writer Harriet Martineau notes ,,It is understood that in New Orleans there were fought in 1834 more duels than there are days in the year.15 in one Sunday morning" It is to be noted that this traveler wrote the number 15 to show a extremely high number . So 15 duels are considered an high number. It woudn"t take long to monitor 15 duels at all. If only one of this 15 duelist would murder if he could not participate in the duel the money gain in avoiding imprisonment and trial would already profit society. So having police at duel places would be of benefit to society. And I specified a dueling field so the police isn"t going nowhere the duelers are coming to the police. 2.It would be bad for society. Here are the reasons my opponent lists. -Utilitarianism posits that we should not adopt a policy if it has a net negative effect on society. Proof to me that Utilitarriansim should be followed if you don"t this argument isn"t worth considering. -If neither party has broken the law, society has deemed the transgression to be minor enough that it is not worthy of punishment and therefore it is most definitely not worthy of death. Society loses out if people are killed over minor transgressions. People aren"t subjects to society . Peoples lives aren"t property of society. If people consent to a duel I don"t see why this notion of society that is foreign to me should keep them from doing a duel. -Dead duelers leave behind grieving families. So do innocent by-standers that get shoot when gang shoot outs happen . If criminals want to die let them die in duel not on our streets where innocents could be shoot . Innocents. Mothers grieving innocents vs. Mothers grieving criminals Why are we discussing this ? Again repeating my arguments. -No dead from innocent by-standers . -Reduction of criminal scum. (sorry typo I meant population) 3.Third, vigilante justice is bad for the legitimacy of the justice system. A society appears inhumane and "Wild West values" prevail if people do not go through the court systems to settle their disputes. Eventually, the stigma for turning down a duel becomes so high that duels become the favored means for settling disputes. Entire communities can castigate people who go to court, rather than settling their feuds through duels. This undermines our criminal justice system. My opponent has to prove that stigma for turning down duels is going to arise until he does this his argument is invalid. Secondly I would want to comment a phrase from my opponent Wild West values I"m starting to think that you don"t know what duels are". Well I would like to add that duels are the best thing since sliced bread Joker out !