We should bring back honorable duels.

"Sorry, I didn't know that you were unaware of the definitions were, that is what I get for assuming. " "Honor: honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions." This definition works perfectly: The only person who can know what their beliefs are are themselves, which means that as long as the duelers believe in what they're doing (going to win), it's honorable. This means that any and all duels are "honorable", and buys into EVERY one of my impacts. Extend my case. "Duel: a prearranged combat..." The definition I provided in my R1 is still the definition for duel in the round, as I have provided justifications on why to prefer mine over his. 1. No, I don't think consent equates fairness. Fairness/Justice is "giving each their due", the only thing consent does in relation to fairness is say that consent overrides, and justice and fairness don't matter. Therefore, he doesn't impact to "fairness", only to "consent". 1b. Consent isn't a justification that something is good. Refer to PartI.2 in my R1. His link to fairness is arbitrary; just because there's a definition doesn't mean that it's true. He provides no justification for why this is true. Integrity has no impact in the round. 2. There is no proof that legalizing violence will lead to civilized combat, UNLESS you define "civilized" as "within the law", in which I would have to agree. What my position is, is saying that by legalizing duels, you aren't getting rid of violence at all, and that is what we ought to look towards. I've never talked about collateral damage yet, but sure, let's take that on. He says "it would reduce the amount of collateral damage." 1) KRITIK: YOU DON'T VOTE FOR PEOPLE WHO CALL THE KILLING OF INNOCENTS "COLLATERAL DAMAGE". WHAT THE H*** IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN; SUDDENLY WE'RE NOT ONLY LEGALIZING VIOLENCE, BUT DEHUMANIZING THE VICTIMS? 2) No Warrant: I don't see any reason to why this is true, other than what I mentioned earlier about defining things: Collateral damage is lessened as a result of its legalization. He also says "Hypothetical, if two guys get into a dispute, if they agreed to a duel at a later time, they would have a chance to cool off and possibly get over the incident all together." Well, that's my point: It's ALL HYPOTHETICAL. He has NO way to prove that we can make ALL duels honorable. 3. His statement that "The duel could be over anything" directly links into my impacts from my case in my R1: His admit in your definition and on this point that "the duel[s] could be over anything". His direction, from "we should bring back all duels" in order to reach the resolution, won't pass because he can't prove that there's less or no innocent deaths. Now, he also talks about how there's going to be an official to enforce that. First of all, he hasn't provided a plan on how to do it, he just says "there are going to be officials". Under this interpretation and under the assumption that he doesn't want any "collateral damage" then we'd basically have hire a LOT of people. As we know, our country is pretty stressed for cash right now, we had a 73.5 trillion dollar deficit in OCTOBER LAST YEAR. Or, we could go in the other direction, by setting up some sort of "Office of Legal Violence", and placing offices in cities. His case is based on the "hypothetical" assumption that everyone will be sane and rational and go to this office to wait in line to go into some sort of room where they duel it out. That's not about to happen. The people that would be smart enough to do that would already have planned out a duel anyways, leaving him NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER. Second, the official doesn't really matter at all, as even when we look to his definition it says "according to an accepted code of procedure, esp. to settle a private quarrel". This means that the code is ACCEPTED by THE DUELERS, and THE OFFICIAL is only there to see that the code is enforced. Which might as well be a "lets take over the world and kill everyone" contract. Also, like seriously, He's LEGALIZING VIOLENCE. He says that the justification for that is consent and the impact of that is less innocent deaths, but that's NOT true AT ALL because the INSTANT you legalize VIOLENCE, the INSTANT you place the decisions of some sociopathic individual over the general well-being of the society, we've basically screwed over the world. If our government is going to say "VIOLENCE IS OKAY IF YOU COME TO US", that gives people the image that "VIOLENCE IS OKAY", which BRUTALIZES society, as we have seen when SEGREGATION WAS LEGAL. I don't think it's necessary to uhh, post pictures of what happened in Birmingham in 1963, but yeah, that's basically what'll be happening if we legalize this stuff. That, plus a lot on top of it. 4. This argument is based on his definition, and my definition for "duel" has reasons while his has none, so we look to mine. Therefore, it falls. His second part is an anecdote without a citation, which is, what I read from a previous debate from a debater whose name I forgot to write down, "double fallacy :)". 5. Well, you're wrong. I'm saying that the very existence of legalized violence leads to the consequences I have presented. Anyways, I have a problem with uhh, one of his arguments. It reads, "Well, the point of a duel is honor!". Well, the point of MY ARGUMENT is DUELS AREN'T GOING TO BE ABOUT HONOR. You want some proof? Well, it's right in my opponent's case. "Violence - look, we live in a violent world, man. This country was founded on violence. Who's kidding who?"-Bruce Willis It's because of movies like these (I'm assuming its from a movie) and all this popular culture about how being an "original GANGSTER" is "cool", it's this GLORIFICATION OF VIOLENCE that will almost ENSURE that "MOST" duels will NOT be about 'honor'. This whole idea of idealistic violence, IT AIN'T GONNA WORK. Morals? THEY AREN'T COMMON SENSE IN SOCIETY TODAY. What does that impact in this debate? Even if some duels are honorable, we ought not bring back honorable duels because the needs of a society outweigh the 'needs' of an individual. Oh yeah, ABUSE: shifting advocacy: he defines "duel" twice. From >"Most duels with pistols didn't end in death either, it was more common that both parties selected first blood as the resulting end to the duel." To >"A duel is a fair fight, that is the whole point. " His position is that when we legalize duels, then we're going to be cutting down on violence because theres less innocent deaths, and because the duelers are honorable anyway. But this doesn't solve spur of the moment violence, and also doesn't prove how duelers are going honorable. he just hopes they will be, and says "most situations", when there is no evidence cited, no anecdotal proof provided, nor analytics to why it is true. In short, his position isn't warranted at all, and even if it was, just because duels are honorable doesn't mean that we ought to bring them back. His case goes as follows. 1 Duels->Honor 2 Honor->Good 3 Good->Should 4 Should->Vote PRO I took out his link on the second link: He defined it clearly for us, that as long as someone thinks they're doing the right thing, they're honorable. This links directly back into my society impacts, which he HASN'T refuted AT ALL, and since the needs of a society outweighs the 'needs' of an individual, you vote CON.