Dueling should be legalized

Time got away from me, this round will be short.Observe:I. The purpose of this debate is not to assess whether or not dueling is good, but rather if it should be legal. II. We can only assess what should/should not be legal when operating a under a compelling framework that provides proper justification for the existence of the state. For this reason, my main contention will be that dueling should be legal because states exist to protect rights. The only justifiable role of the State is to protect the rights of it's people. Give the State the arbitrary authority to revoke rights and harm its people, and you've destroyed it's purpose in the name of some mythical goals. 1. Dueling is a rightThe consenual and contractual engagement in a fight with established rules falls under the scope of voluntary relations. The only people harmed in a duel are the participants themselves (compare this to street or gang fights, which often destroy innocent bystanders or at the very least create a public disturbance), and as long as the property owner consents to have the duel take place on his property, there are absolutely no rights violated. My opponent must somehow prove that rights come from the collective, or society (a tall order since it is overwhelmingly self evident that rights belong to individuals, who can use them as they please if they dont harm others), otherwise his entire position is illogical because the prevention of dueling would thus be a violation. Without even specifying any advantages I can already claim victory in the debate since rights should be protected.Advantage one: Legitimitizing dueling could cut down on other acts of violenceOftentimes people want to engage in physical combat with one another--that is obvious. Unfortunately, these kinds of barbaric and unruly fights can harm innocent bystanders who get caught up in the way. These brawls usually take place on public property, damaging it and forcing the collective taxpayers to pay for the cleanup (blood all over the streets at the least). There are no spoken rules, guns, knives, or allies may be invoked at any time with no immediate reprecussion such as forfeiture of the fight, often escalating what was supposed to be a 1 on 1 battle to a small gang war. Moreover, since there is a set of "unspoken rules" that if violated by the winning party will encourage the losing party to seek vengeance for supposed "cheating" on the part of the winners, potentially leading to destructive gang warfare. The crips and the bloods have claimed over 15,000 lives in their famous fued[1]. I am not foolish enough to believe that the effect will be very large, but large scale legalization of dueling will generate publicity and make the more honorable sort of street fighters see a way out of the wide scale violence that can occur from street brawls. If even one innocent life could concievable be saved, you affirm. Advantage two: Promotes a sense of honor. Mcgrath compares fights in the "wild" west with today[2]:" the men involved were both young, healthy, armed, and willing .... Yes, men (and some women) went about armed and male combatants killed each other, mostly in fights where there were somewhat "even chances." On the other hand, the young, the old, the female, and those who chose not to drink in saloons and display reckless bravado were rarely the victims of crime or violence. Moreover, dirty, low-down scoundrels got their just dessert" While these were also not formal duels, they came out of a time period where formal dueling (even if illegal) was widespread and considered an honorable method to settle conflicts. This sense of honor, held by virtually all people, would not, for instance, permit the destruction of innocent life, forced intercourse with women, or theft, things all extremely widespread in todays degenerated society. McGrath goes further, comparing two frontier towns with modern cities:"The United States as a whole averages three times as much robbery per capita as Bodie and Aurora. Burglary and theft were also of infrequent occurrence in the mining towns. Most American cities today average 30 or 40 times as much burglary and theft per capita as Bodie and Aurora. The national rate is ten times higher .... There were no reported cases of rape in either Aurora or Bodie .... Today, a rape occurs every five minutes"And these towns, back when society was held together by a prevailing sense of honor, were among the lowest and most lawless places in the entire United States (hence the name wild west). Again, note that I do not believe that the legalization of dueling is the only thing we must do to regain our lost honor, but it is a step in the right direction.Advantage three: Supports governments proper purposeAs previously explained, the purpose of the government is to protect rights, not take them away. Hoppe sums it up nicely when he explains the progression of the United States federal government over the centuries[3]:"Two-hundred years later, matters have changed dramatically. Now, year in and year out the American government expropriates more than 40% of the incomes of private producers, making even the burden on slaves and serfs seem moderate in comparison. Gold and Silver have been replaced by government manufactured paper...the meaning of private property, once seemingly clear and fixed, has become obscure, flexible, and fluid...every detail of private life, property, trade, and contract is regulated and reregulated by ever higher mountais of paper laws...the committment to free trade and non-intervensionism has given way to a policy of protectionism, militarism, and imperialism." We have lost our way under a government that fails to protect the rights of its citizens. The way forward to true progress is not more government, but less. The government must recognize that its duties do not include babying its citizens, but rather creating an environment where they can make their own choices and suffer their own consequences. Vote Pro. Sources:1. http://www.pbs.org...;2. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. Democracy: The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001. USA. 34. Print.3. Ibid, 278-279