Dueling should be legalized

Thanks to my opponent for her comment regarding my arguments, it's highly appreciated. I will first address this portion of the debate: "My first observation has been dropped and therefore conceded. As such, extend this across and ignore all of my opponents arguments save util. since they address the practical effect of dueling. I'll address them anyway, but note that the main area of discussion will occur about rights. " It is true some of my arguments address the practical effect of dueling but I believe it is absolutely vital to address the effect if we want to even consider legalization. I stated something should not be a right if its nature and effects are destructive and my whole argument is built upon that premise, supported by two normatives of law which my opponent already discussed. I know the main contention is whether or not dueling should be legal but I am using its effects to cancel out this preposition. Now, let’s discuss the "contradiction" my opponent pointed out in my definition of state and my argument. She claims I am contradicting myself because I used the word "agreement" to describe the way the state works. I will explain this misinterpretation. The origin of the state results of the implicit "agreement" of peoples to have their lives or property protected an arrangement where people "agreed" to have laws that would serve as a compulsive monopoly of jurisdiction [1]. It has to be absolute so it is not violated aleatory, but it is an agreement because we comply to such model. My opponent agreed to the purpose of the state I offered, so that's conceded. However, she points out utilitarianismis not a model of justice but of moral perversion, arguing that it does not provide justice. My opponent is committing a fallacy in which she discredits utilitarianism by describing extreme scenarios where utilitarianism is unfair. However, the debate is about dueling being legalized, not about utilitarianism. I argued utilitarianism is a viable frame to consider legality of dueling, it is irrelevant if this is true for other cases. Even in practice, utilitarianism is sometimes considered, like in the cases of taxation and fiscal laws. Having said this, I don't see my utilitarian approach to dueling legalization invalid since utilitarianism is not unfair or immoral here. I am also accused of falling in what my opponent calls "the New-Age fallacy" because I mentioned the government granting rights. Understand "grant" as: To bestow or confer. [2] Bestowing is putting to use or application. I am aware rights exist independent of governments, but they cannot be exerted without the consent of the later. So yes, rights exist and are possessed by human beings by nature, but governments are the ones who can (and have) to make them effective. For example, Jews had the right to live, but the Nazi regime chose not to bestow that right on them so they were killed and their rights not applied. I am sorry if I got into semantics, I know the rules of most debates forbid it, but if you read my whole case in context, you'll notice that my posture always stands in governments protecting rights, not creating them. Dueling bad My main objective when listing reasons against dueling was showing how an utilitarian position against legalized dueling was successful. That's the basis of utilitarianism, stating pros and cons and deciding in favor the one that outweighs. So it's not about dueling being "good" or "bad", but about showing how its disadvantages would need to make it illegal regardless or free will or autonomy. My opponent said: "Most of his justifications for maintaining the prohibition are shallowly reasoned, being a few sentences long at most or having virtually no impact like it could cost money. The implicit nature of his arguments are collectivist, which is a flawed viewpoint in that it values humans only in groups and divisions, all in the name of promoting human welfare. However theres no reason to value groups of humans if the indvidual (individualism) is not a unit of inherent value. He values humans as a mean to an end (like, if they die they can’t pay taxes), but the end is human welfare..." I think it was clear that I was just giving reasons to strengthen the utilitarian approach to legalizing dueling by posting a considerable amount of advantages. This advantages were not meant to have a large impact (like the cost advantage), they were meant to show the reader how, in those areas, banning dueling was preferable over allowing it. Moreover, each allegation is meant to be compared to its logical counterpart; e.g.: taxes being paid against taxes not being paid, just to show the benefit. My opponent (deliberately or not) took that point out of context and argued my whole approach to be individualistic, when we can see my first point in the list directly addressed the inherent value of the human life. Aretaic ethics When appealing to aretaic ethics, I was appealing to virtue, which is moral excellence. [3] I didn't think it was necessary to define moral but it is basically a system of differentiation of the good or bad value in actions. Virtue, then, refers to the good (best) value of an action. It is true that there is no specific way to determine what is "good", but it is pretty obvious that killing is not good. I don't believe there is need, but I will address both cases noted by my opponent were killing is "morally acceptable": Capital punishmentt. This is not a manifestation of virtue. The fact that some people may find it acceptable under their very own moral code is different, but this is as wrong as legalized dueling when examined from aretaic ethics. Self-defense. Here, one life is at stake at the cost of another, so (being life the greatest right) one has to disregard one of the lives and, logically and according to higher virtue, the victim's life is more worth saving. The contradiction between aretaic ethics and utilitarianism may occur, but since it doesn’t occur in this case, I find it irrelevant. Finally, I will proceed to address the advantages we've been discussing since the second round of this debate. Advantages Reduces Violence "He drops the argument that individuals who want to fight will fight, but those who wish to fight honorably will do so and therefore not damage the property of others. Moreover, since a duel is a contractual exchange which requires a sound mind, hot headed decisions to engage in combat over petty squabbles will be reduced. He also completely drops the point that rules discourage vengeance. Of course some individuals will seek vengeance from a duel with rules, but the fact is that they are less likely to do so without the perception that the other side "cheated". My advantage stands. " I concede the point that it may cut down the destruction of private property (although I don't believe this will happen to a large scale). I maintain that it is not likely to reduce violence. Honor Conceded, but still considered an insufficient reason for legalization. Government "He gives no purpose for the government other than "protecting common interest", a vague and subjective term. Prefer self autonomy over his vague analysis." Ever since the second round I've been giving purpose to the state. Upholding virtue, fostering constructive behavior, forbidding destructive, maximizing benefits for its people...the list is quite long. The same way people cannot choose to drive without seat belt (although they are only risking their own lives), people shouldn't be allowed to kill one another willingly. This purpose is counter-productive for a government that values life.Sources:[1] http://www.anthonyflood.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...