Duelling should be legal

Ok my opponent is an adult that is responsible for her self. If she reads: I proclaim the definition of dueling to be the use of organized violence between two consenting adults to settle feuds for the rest of this debate. And she accepts to debate me she consents to debate with me following this rule. But she didn"t she accepted to debate me after my very clear proclamation of a rule to be used in this debate. The rule being : I proclaim the definition of dueling to be the use of organized violence between two consenting adults to settle feuds for the rest of this debate. If she wasn"t sure of what she was getting herself in: However, I had assumed that the word 'organized" in the phrase "organized violence" meant the same thing as the word 'organized' in the phrase "organized crime," which simply means "orchestrated on a large scale. " She should have asked me what organized means. But she didn"t ask she accepted to debate me after I made this proclamation. Now to Bluesteel if you feel you didn"t know what you were accepting into you can leave the debate at any time and I"ll tell the voters just not to vote. No problem if you want to leave. So my way of organizing duels is still valid. Now that we got this straight some of my opponents points are not longer valid after establishing that my way of organizing duels is still valid. - gang shootouts - cheating during duels -proving consent I only have to refute my opponent from C3. - My opponent responds that he will advocate that we adopt the Code Duello, which is an Irish code of dueling created in 1777. However, my opponent's assertion does not square with his own advocacy position since the Code Duello contemplates duels mainly with guns. For example, the Code says, "If they will not decide or cannot agree, the matter must proceed to two shots. " However, my opponent stated that he advocated limiting duels to swords. He undermines his own advocacy position. The Code Duello also does not require that duels take place in secluded areas nor that police oversee the duel. Quote: Although I do not agree with all the rules depicted in the Code Duello. I used to Code duello to show my opponent that my propositions do not make dueling lock as a boring fencing sport. I used to show that dueling is not what you see in westerns. I never advocated the code duello this is what I advocated: -I proclaim the definition of dueling to be the use of organized violence between two consenting adults to settle feuds -I suggest there to be a field where people could duel. -The duel would be overseen by the police. -the police would give the weapons. My opponent has to refute this and not his made up versions of duels that only take place in movies. Extend C3: unadministrable My opponent argues that duels cannot be administrated because there are no rules for dueling. I argue duels should give the roles of seconds to the police. Two consenting adults go to the police sign the consent and duel with pistols. Pistols (duelling pistols) give an equal opportunity to both parties of winning. Police over sees the duel. Duels are taped. So now duels have rules. Problem solved. Secondly my opponent starts going on that police bias and corruption could permit cheating. Highly unlikely since the duels are being taped. Extend C4: utilitarianism My opponent says duels are bas for society ince we should keep people alive and than the dead of members of society would have a negative effect" Again they consented to it they are not hurting any one else so I ask my opponent why not. People live the society to means of immigration all the time. Society seems not to have problems with leaving members behind so this point is not valid. After my opponent says if a witness challenges a perpetrator instead of denouncing him to the authorities it would hurt the justice system. I argue that this will be a very rare case since most people would simply duel the offender and have a note given to the police if they were to die. Let"s make it like this to settle this I"ll make a poll and we"ll see if it common enough to be a point against dueling. Quote: Lastly, dueling wastes police resources (either overseeing it or trying to investigate whether it was actually murder). No since the duels would take place in front of the police and would be taped not very much nvestigation would be needed. Now this is what pissed me off because it showed that my opponent doesn"t read propelly trough the material. This is what I said: 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. THERE WERE NOT FOUGHT 15 DUELS EVERY DAY DID YOU EVEN READ THIS PROPERLY ? Extremly high number let"s 5 would be more accurate. And even that is extremely high but let"s just stay with that. An anonymous author writing in 1839 estimated that blood was drawn on in every seventh duel with a fatality in every 14th. Making the math that would make only 69125 deads every day if the duel rates stayed the same since the 18th century. But my opponent forgets that new Orleans was the capital of dueling it would be like to calculate the gambling rate in Las Vegas and multiplying it by all the cities in the US and declare that number to be the gambling rate in the US. But since we have no hard records of duel frequencies in all the cities of the country we have to assume that the number 69125 should be reduced but how much I would like that to be in of my opponent. Please be fair about it. So not that big of a number. Consents Since my opponent has not refuted this points. -Dueling would reduce criminal population. -Be a economic advantage. -Protect innocent by standers -Dueling would introduce honorable values into our society.