Why isn dueling legal

Further, he assumes all duels are to the death: flawed. Many are to first blood. TURN: He writes: "i f killing a person becomes legal, the mere act of homicide becomes socially accepted".

He conceded to my honor point see later and that killing will happen anyway, so what really becomes socially acceptable is honorable killings. Convsersly, wild lawless street brawls become more condemned, promoting more honor and less crime. Aretaic ethics This argument suffers the same problem as his util. Further, this contradicts his util. For instance, the extermination of murderers benefits over all by discouraging murder, but if killing is always wrong than his position leaves no way to solve the dilema.

Both of his points of advocacy advocate competing moral perceptions, and since tere can only be one proper morality, he refutes himself and has no ground to stand on. I win by default. He brings up a lot of rhetoric about how killing is barbaric, and Regardless, there is no conflict with my poisition if the state should promote moral action. Recall that these moral mechanisms require a broader principle, and the NAP allows for consensual dueling. Killing is not always wrong, self defense and capital punishment are morally acceptable slayings for instance, and if an individual chooses to risk their life in a free exchange such as driving a car, riding a rollercoaster, drinking heavily or engaging in a duel the state has no right to violate their self autonomy to protect them from themselves.

Advantages Cuts down on 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. Honor Conceded. His only response is that declining a duel would lead to dishonor implicitly conceding that honor increases-vote pro.

Compare this to the status quo where the options are violence or violence instead of violence or dishonor. Government He gives no purpose for the government other than "protecting common interest", a vague and subjective term. My opponents arguments fail to justify his position, and even accepting his my advantages outweigh.

Thanks Con. Your arguments are much appreciated and I'm pleased that this debate took such a unique and thought provoking turn. First, extend the contradiction in my opponents definition of the state. He tries to argue it away by pointing out that governments initially arose out of the consent of the governed, but it does not follow that their descendants are bound to the same agreement.

You don't show agreement by complying when the result for not doing so is imprisonment or fines, enforced by a million man army. This is significant because my opponent bases his case around what the state ought to do, and yet the very definition he bases this on has a fatal flaw. Utilitarianism My opponent completely drops my entire critique of utilitarianism, accusing me of committing an unnamed fallacy in which I take "extreme scenarios" of utilitarianism that he agrees are unfair.

Count this as an implicit concession about the failings of Util. Moreover, if you are convinced by this re-read my arguments against utilitarianism and you'll see that each example falls within what util. At this point, you have to vote Pro because my opponents position is based on a moral principle that he's failed to defend from my attacks. He makes no response to the point that there needs to be the backdrop of another principle like the NAP to evaluate what constitutes the maximization of human well being.

He says that the merits of util. Compare this to my case, where the non aggression principle is implied in round 2 and explicitly invoked in round 3. My opponent has made no argument against the NAP, and as such has conceded to it. It's a mountain to climb to negate the resolution now, as my opponent would need to somehow show that consensual relations between two individuals constitutes an act of aggression.

He has not, and indeed cannot and his failure to address the NAP shows that dueling along with all other consensual relations is indeed a right and must be allowed. Consider the NAP an objective moral fact when weighing this round because he makes no response to it. I honestly only brought it up because the worldview it seemed like he was espousing is one that irks me beyond all belief.

Aretaic ethics My opponents position here makes no sense. He argues first that util. So basically, dueling is bad because utilitarianism says its bad, except that there's no real right or wrong, except when there is.

His position is self contradictory. Never in the entire debate does he really say why we need to value Aretaic "ethics" anyway. I say ethics in parenthesis because this too needs principled morality in order to apply value judgements--a principle he's failed to provide. My opponents argument can be summed up as follows: The state should promote moral behavior. Dueling is immoral. Dueling should be banned.

First, his complete concession to my attacks on util. Secondly, there are other ways to discourage immoral behavior than banning it.

Look to how banning drugs has failed. Third, he drops my argument about how he's advocating competing moral systems. He even admits that there is a contradiction between util. If the worldview he presents is flawed than you cannot negate the resolution based on that worldview.

He agrees that both capital punishment and self defense can be justified. This defeats his argument about how killing is always wrong, and moreover he refused to respond to the fact that duels aren't always to the death.

Very very very few fights a modern duel would most likely be an honorable and contractual fight start out without the intent to kill, and indeed it is the lawlessness and lack of honor that ultimately leads to deaths in street fights. To be clear, this is a turn argument. If life is inherently valuable, letting people fight in situations where they're less likely to kill eachother is beneficial.

Dueling bad 1. He didn't weigh his harms against my advantages. His disadvantages need to be ignored because at this point in the debate, its been firmly established that dueling is a right under the NAP which he's dropped.

Rights protection outweighs subjective advantages note that I have held throughout the entire debate that dueling is societally good besides being a right.

He dropped the worst problem I saw with his argument, which was that he values human well being without providing any actual reason to value humans on their own. He says that life is to be inherently valued, but the worldview advocated only values humans as a means to an end. Parts of a whole. Collective cogs in societies machine. This, ladies and gentlemen, is not the valuation of life.

Truly valuing humanity means placing rights above all, as the recognition of rights the interpretation of moral situations is what distinguishes humanity from the rest of the animals on earth. Sacrificing these rights for collective well being a subjective term if there ever was one is a complete affront to all that is objectively valuable in humanity.

TURN: Not recognizing rights as more important than collective well being leads to moral perversion. Refer to his Nazi example for this one.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and anything can be justified as being for "the greater good" if enough people share your desires. I realize that my opponent was just trying to show how dueling is bad, but just listing a multitude of reasons without weighing them isn't a compelling case, especially given that util. However, in case you fallback to util. Violence In my last round, I gave many reasons and explanation as to how violence will be somewhat reduced.

My opponent quotes this and then says simply that he disagrees, no meaningful rebuttal or anything. This drop equates to a concession.

He also concedes that less private property will be destroyed. Honor Completely conceded. He simply says this is not a good enough reason to legalize dueling. Yet he concedes that gaining back our sense of honor would lead to less murder, rape, and property crime. It seems incredibly improbable that the negative effects of dueling can outweigh all this. Under a utilitarian framework, taking steps to regain honor is an inherent good.

Therefore the resolution is affirmed under my moral framework, and his. Government My opponent argues that he's provided a purpose for the government. Not exactly. He advocated a state with a self contradicting definition enforcing moral codes that he hasn't backed up, who's failings he's conceded to. His only response is that many states prohibit people from driving without a seat belt, but this is no reason to vote con.

Just as he implies that the law is good, I can imply it's bad by stating that I think it's a stupid regulation created solely to generate revenue. In conclusion, the NAP supports dueling and has been conceded to. Pure utilitarianism is flawed, but even accepting it, concessions in this round make dueling legalization look promising. My opponent insists on the fact that I've contradicted myself on the definition of state. She argues that people don't actually agree to having a state, but comply to it to avoid negative consequences.

This consequences can in fact occur if someone openly challenges law and order, but it's because the agreement refers to a sound majority, not to one or two individuals.

Take for example Cheran, a little town in Michoacan, Mexico. Here, the majority of the people didn't agree to the state, government and laws, so they overthew the local governments and have established an "anarchist" model. If this should happen to a large scale, the agreement would effectively break.

The fact that people vote, work, pay taxes and continue with their lives at least the majority means they agree to having a state. Utilitarianism Again, I am not arguing in favor of an utilitarian state or for utilitarianism as the ultimate system of justice. Like my opponent said, I admit the flaws of pure utilitarianism and agree to the fact that it cannot be applied in every case. I am using an utilitarian approach for dueling and its legality if this debate was about another topic, maybe utilitarianism had a moral deficiency which would render it not viable.

However, this is not the case and I think I've demonstrated that dueling is not convinient under such approach. Moreover, I've demonstrated there is no immorality or injustice in judging this issue under utilitarianism. The benefits it produces to society are a valid way to decide on the legality of an issue, as long as higher values are not compromised.

In this case, higher values are not compromised, on the contrary, my other approach aretaic ethics shows how it's virtuous to keep dueling illegal.

The NAP is an incomplete principle and it should not be taken as a valid normative of law. The NAP basically works so that the action is not unjust, which is fine, but completely neglects important factors like virtue, human value or benefits. The fact that legalized dueling does not break the Non-Aggression Principle is barely a good enough reason to make it legal.

I retake my seat belt example; it doesn't break the NAP but governments still value human life enough to fine those who attempt against it. It's the same case with some self-destructing drugs. I stand the NAP alone is incomplete and therefore an insufficient system of legality. Aretaic Ethics My opponent noted a contradiction, and maybe it is my fault for being so vague in defining my arguments.

I apologize for this. I said there is no specific way to determine the goodness or badness in actions. This is to say you cannot take any action and consult a chart or something similar that tells you its moral value.

However, moral value can usually be determined with much objectivity. In the case of killing, the moral value of the action is beyond obvious and rises from the premise that life is the basic unit of society, meaning its protection is the virtuous choice. My opponent keeps mixing up the two normatives I proposed to consider the legality of dueling. They are independent from one another, and the purpose is to show both are, separately, successful against her dueling case.

Even in the land of the free, fighting in public is illegal. It is disorderly conduct that disturbs the peace. And keeping the peace is part of the social contract.

Mutual combat is an old common law concept that allowed two consenting adults to fight without fear of being prosecuted. This means that duelling is still legal according the Texas penal code. The law states that any two individuals who feel the need to fight can agree to mutual combat through a signed, verbal or implied communication and have at it fists only, however.

Aaron Burr slays Alexander Hamilton in duel. In one of the most famous duels in American history, Vice President Aaron Burr fatally shoots his long-time political antagonist Alexander Hamilton.

Dueling was seen as barbaric and senseless, especially after the Burr-Hamilton duel in which fueled the anti-duel movement. Grown adults may have well brought this issue to litigation. Instead, the five-year-old wanted to join in a formal physical confrontation with rules, limits, safety considerations, and under the watchful eye of trained professionals.

Had the sparring match actually happened, it would have been a contest of Olympic Sport Taekwondo. This is a bit different from a street brawl or playground fight. How was this done? The dueling seconds were friends of the disputing parties in a duel. Many litigants in civil cases would benefit from such oversight that ensures attempts at reconciliation before continuing further. To make this all nice and legal would be litigants should go through Professional Dueling Seconds.

These professionals should be trained in martial arts, inter-personal conflict resolution, and legal arbitration. The job of these professionals would be: primarily, to determine if the dispute is something that could be decided by a duel; secondly, to seek equitable resolution between the disputing parties; lastly, to ensure that the combat is carried out so that neither party has uneven advantage over the other even if it would mean the second fighting in place of one or both of the disputants.

These professionals could be trained with less schooling than is required for a legal degree. While I am not using the term Martial Arts to apply exclusively to Asian martial arts, the Asian martial arts can be looked at as representative in terms of training time. This could be done concurrently with the other training in arbitration, and inter-personal conflict resolution.

These new Professional Seconds could be finished with training and entering the workforce with only the expense of a bachelor degree.

This should help hold expense down, as these persons would not have costly educational debts to recover from, at least not as costly as a law degree. Lower expense would open this method of dispute resolution to many who feel they would not be able to afford the court costs associated with a legal suit, and fees could be recovered from the losing party.

Going through such professionals would help eliminate unfair advantage between combatants, as would happen with an elderly woman and young construction contractor challenging each other. It would be the job of the second to fight for the disadvantaged party; the other party would have the option of either fighting themselves or also being represented by the second. Non-lethal forms of combat can be used such as boxing, wrestling, mixed martial arts, fencing, or even arm wrestling.

This writer prefers fencing with wooden sword under the rules of the Traditional Chinese Sword League , but that is because this writer practices Tai chi and Tai Chi swordsmanship.

Legal dueling could even be made into a public event with paid sponsorship generating an entire industry. Moreover, such a system could keep the court system clear so that other legal actions could be accomplished more swiftly. On the surface, dueling was a violent, archaic ritual that relied on seemingly irrational social conventions that are almost impossible to imagine today. Under the surface, it was a very rational method of managing disputes in an elite society lacking acceptable alternatives to unrestrained violence.

Similarly, litigation appears to be a costly, archaic ritual often relying on seemingly irrational social conventions that may be impossible for some future generation to imagine. Perhaps, the solution to this dilemma is to bring back the duel but updated for the modern age. Cromagnon is far more apropos. Why must I suffer physically because some brute disagrees with something I did? It should be noted, that this article is a Satire, not a serious piece.

The main point is not, that we should bring back the duel, but that the current system shares far too much in common with the aggressive nature of the duel. What needs to be found is a system more representative of what Sifu Bill Phillips describes at the beginning of the essay.

Since being called a liar has little significance outside of a marriage or a punishable crime and women no longer have an honor to defend…dueling died out. Give the attorneys boxing gloves and let em duke it out. That might reduce the cost of insurance and medical care in one fell swoop, plus provide entertainment for boring courtrooms. This post was great! And I have to totally agree with Chris here. When I grew up duels were a way to sort things out among us kids… you had a discussion with someone?

Well, everybody made a cypher and you bumped heads.. Of course, the winner got to be the one who was right lol. I just plundged in it and started reading.. Sorry Liam..

It is okay, Will. I figured at some point somebody would forget they were reading a guest post.