Total votes: 1
For the argument: First off, Pro and Con both exercised a beyond average level of competency in their arguments. For that, I applaud them both. The debate certainly entertained me. That said, I felt that the ideas that Pro advocated for as reasons for the legality of dueling are simply incompatible with the reality of the modern world, which Con contested and put down with admirable skill. Specifically, the turning point, for me, was when Con made note of the cycle of violence and the story of Romeo.
For the sources: Nothing significant to expand upon. Logic was the predominant source of persuasion in this debate, not quality of sources.
For legibility: Similar levels of legibility were displayed by both debate participants. Pro used an interesting format that was pretty unique and definitely meshed well with the principles he was preaching, though it read slightly poetic, which isn't my flavor. Con used a pretty basic, organized format that was crystal clear and to the point, though it read a little long.
For conduct: Nothing significant to expand upon. They behaved with equal amounts of respect and dignity for the other.