Poll: Should dueling be legal?

[liquidangry]

Drunk guy: Hey there pretty girl
Me: hey, thats my girlfriend stop flirting with her
Drunk guy: fuck off *****
Me: dude, we've been dating for 5 years... go away. Shes with me
Drunk guy: I'll do what i fucking want to!
Me: ???? You can't just do anything you want.
Drunk guy: hell yes i can. *pushes*
Me: WTF!? get lost
Drunk guy: I challenge you to a duel
Me: .... (Thinking to self) FUCK... *looks at girlfriend* FUCK.... ok, meet me outside.


NO. ABSOLUTELY NO. I do not feel like getting into a fight to the death with every drunken jackass who hits on my girlfriend. I've come to blows or nearly come to blows often enough with people. I really don't want it to be for my life the next time it happens. NO. It was a bad idea before and it's a bad idea now.

This:

More people voted yes than no?

I... I...

What?

Learn to say no, perhaps?

I am wholeheartedly in favour of duels, since both parties would have to agree, and I am a strong proponent of personal liberties. I think that if two people want to fight each other, either till death or submission, that should be allowed.

You honestly believe it would end with me saying no? That's...just...retarded and naive. Not fighting him makes me lose face both with him, the people and around me, and most importantly with her. That's the whole point of dueling. Loss of face or the fact that they won't listen to words. Fights to the death aren't some sort of recreational activity. Nobody does them because they WANT to. They do them because they feel that superior (as in the case of the drunk) or because they're forced into it (me). I say no, he just keeps hitting on her. You obviously have never had a girlfriend. Just let him hit on her and make her uncomfortable as shit and see if you get laid that night. No, she'll be pissed at you. My original point stands. Come back with a better thought out argument than say no. LOL...

 

[teknoarcanist]

ITT: Nerds who took fencing classes.

 

[blaize2010]

Yes as long as both consent to that. It will kill stupid ppl xD, plus u could always decline if u didnt wanted to duel(plus getting oftenly challenged by someone u dont want to duel should have a punishment by law for the idiot thats annoying you)
Sword duels are beautiful to watch, the problem is that players cant play at their full strength because they fear they will kill somebody.

Now all schools should have sword dueling class. I would love to duel, but not to death xD, not skillful enough

Stupid ppl deserve to die, parents could whine, its their fault though that their kid is an idiot because by high possibility they are stupid too. Crying, or wanting revenge simply proves that they are stupid. Anger decisions are stupid, and ppl who take decisions in such time are stupid therefore deserve to die

i am a person who would take on anyone if they insulted my mother, father, sister, or my friends. i would not allow people to push around or insult people. neither does my brother, or for that matter anyone i am friends with. if he were to die, or i were to die, defending our friends from someone, would that make us stupid, or brave. if, in a drunken moment, when my girlfriend was called a whore, and i fought someone, and they killed me, would that then be stupid, or brave? if i were to not fight, would i then be smart, or a coward. i will fight for people i love, especially family. so does that make me stupid, or honorable? and does that make you a genius, or a *****?

 

[Zantos]

Original duels were a bad idea to start with and a bad idea now.

I saw an idea in here for non-lethal duels. Less effective, but totally better than a small claims court.

 

[Odegauger]

The idea that two consenting parties can do whatever that want to eachother, as appealing an idea as it sounds, it's still flawed - what if one or both of the parties are in no condition to make a big decision? What if one of the parties is a selfish, manipulative snake? There's just a boatload of issues related to the idea - it'd basically be rolling out the red carpet for all the date-rapists and con-men of the world. Stupidity and irresponsibility, as bad as they are, are not good reasons for innocent people to be epically fucked over.

 

[lucky_sharm]

I'd say yes to dueling, but only if both parties consent to it and if it's nonlethal dueling. Witnesses and maybe authoritive figures should be there, too. A fight maybe, but not to the death.

ITT: Nerds who took fencing classes.

There's more kinds of dueling than fencing, ya know.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

Duelling is profoundly dumb.

The fact that we're supposed to trumpet personal freedom and that some people will inevitably want to agree to try to kill each other doesn't make it any less dumb. To make matters worse, ask yourself when people are likely to agree to a duel - when nothing really important is at stake and while they're capable of making clear, rational decisions?

In the overwhelming majority of cases, if you were to ask a rational outsider whether a duel was justified, they'd answer that it wasn't. It's relatively hard to find situations where a duel seems objectively to be the best course of action. People agree to duels because they're not outsiders and they're typically not acting rationally. By outlawing duelling, we're basically protecting people from making mistakes with dire, permanent consequences while they're in a temporary state.

 

[Odegauger]

Yes as long as both consent to that. It will kill stupid ppl xD, plus u could always decline if u didnt wanted to duel(plus getting oftenly challenged by someone u dont want to duel should have a punishment by law for the idiot thats annoying you)
Sword duels are beautiful to watch, the problem is that players cant play at their full strength because they fear they will kill somebody.

Now all schools should have sword dueling class. I would love to duel, but not to death xD, not skillful enough

Stupid ppl deserve to die, parents could whine, its their fault though that their kid is an idiot because by high possibility they are stupid too. Crying, or wanting revenge simply proves that they are stupid. Anger decisions are stupid, and ppl who take decisions in such time are stupid therefore deserve to die

i am a person who would take on anyone if they insulted my mother, father, sister, or my friends. i would not allow people to push around or insult people. neither does my brother, or for that matter anyone i am friends with. if he were to die, or i were to die, defending our friends from someone, would that make us stupid, or brave. if, in a drunken moment, when my girlfriend was called a whore, and i fought someone, and they killed me, would that then be stupid, or brave? if i were to not fight, would i then be smart, or a coward. i will fight for people i love, especially family. so does that make me stupid, or honorable? and does that make you a genius, or a *****?

Stupid, stupid, smart, stupid, and neither - in that order.

 

[The Code]

gladiator duels would be awesome

and so we have become Rome, ladies and gentleman. might as well get out the grapes and togas and go for a full blown corrupt government

I don't think we need the grapes and togas for that at this point.

OT: I think duels would be an excellent way to settle most disputes. The possibility of being challenged to a duel, not to mention everyone being armed, would encourage politeness in society that has been absent for far too long. A polite society is an armed society, after all. There's also the fact that, if everyone is armed, the rate of criminal activity goes down dramatically. There's a town near the East Coast of the USA that passed a law some time ago. It says that if you can carry a firearm, you have to by law. The crime rate in that town plummeted as a result. Let's face it, if you're a mugger and you want to rob a guy in an alley, are you really going to try if there's a good chance he's packing?

The established legal system would also lose a great burden from smaller cases, thus freeing up more resources to dedicate towards more serious cases. The demand for lawyers would lessen, and legal fees would diminish as a result. Proper swordsmanship and/or firearm handling would take a more important role in society, and with such knowledge comes fewer cases of accidental deaths from said weapons. If duels were to be legitimate, there would have to be impartial witnesses to verify the challenge, and a dedicated arena of some sort to minimize the threat to bystanders of the event. The construction and maintenance of these areas alone would create a new branch of the construction industry. Staffing these facilities would bring in additional jobs as well.

If the duel ended in the death of one of the challengers, said death would open more jobs for others to fill, and lessen the amount of resources taken up by that person. Being challenged to a duel could only be legitimate if both parties were of sound mind and body at the time of the challenge, i.e. not drunk, high, or in any state where one's judgment or perception is impaired.

There are probably more points to address that I haven't mentioned, but there are still many more benefits to properly legalizing duels. Don't be afraid to let me know.

 

[Roland07]

Sorry but duelling is pretty close to murder.
You back down, you'll be laughed at, ie, lose your "honour"; you take it all the way, and you'll either lose your life, or take someone else's.

Wasn't it duelling that took the second US president's life?

I think you're all underestimating modern society's total absence of backbone. It is considered an insufferable outrage if too many pickles end up on your giant-mega-burger. If the person who messed up the order could just declare a duel, how often would the whiner accept just to save face. I'm pretty sure reason would prevail most of the time, and people wouldn't risk their lives about the honor our culture gave up over a hundred years ago. As long as it is made acceptable to back out, it would at least stop people causing a bunch of trouble for reason they don't even care about, just because they think they can sue.

Whiner: "Waiter, you gave me the wrong drink, this is unacceptable, I demand a full refund-"
Waiter: "AT DAWN WE DUEL!"
Whiner: "Here's your tip..."

You don't really understand how the societies that had dueling worked, do you.

Waiters were low class and could never demand a duel on someone of a higher class. Back in the day when there were duels it went something like this--if you were noble and a poor person upset you, you just beat them, or had your servants beat them...and no court would do anything about it. Nobles were the law and could rape and abuse any poor person they felt like. And still keep their "honor" in tact...because lower classes didn't have rights.

That isn't a world I'd like to go back to.

And we still have honor killings today. This usually involves fathers murdering their daughters because they don't like who they are dating.

Great.

My point was that our society=/=every other society that had dueling. Generally, societies based on deontological ethics produce dueling and classism, as you described it. Our culture (by which I mean Western) tends to prefer Utilitarian ethics, so I think dueling which be much less of a social ailment if you just transplanted it into a culture with our Utilitarian ethics. Most people's lives are more important to them than their dignity in our culture, so the issue of not being able to turn down a duel kind of to solve itself. It would also make people less willing to gripe, and generally act douchey if they're going to have to deal with someone hellbent on dueling them half the time you do so.

In all seriousness, I don't want to live in a culture with dueling, I'd get challenged frequently, I imagine. But it does seem like an interesting concept to transplant a custom form a deontological culture into a Utilitarian one.

 

[Odegauger]

ITT: Nerds who took fencing classes.

"I disagree with what you say, so I will pry some ill-conceived freudian excuse out of your post, in an effort to make your position look bad without making an actual argument."
Go fall down a mine shaft.

 

[Kortney]

Yup. What two consenting people do is none of the government's business.

What about the huge strain on emergency services, family and resources?

Do you have any idea how much cost and effort is involved in treating just one person?

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Grrr. I'm angry.

Case in point.

 

[Dr Snakeman]

Drunk guy: Hey there pretty girl
Me: hey, thats my girlfriend stop flirting with her
Drunk guy: fuck off *****
Me: dude, we've been dating for 5 years... go away. Shes with me
Drunk guy: I'll do what i fucking want to!
Me: ???? You can't just do anything you want.
Drunk guy: hell yes i can. *pushes*
Me: WTF!? get lost
Drunk guy: I challenge you to a duel
Me: .... (Thinking to self) FUCK... *looks at girlfriend* FUCK.... ok, meet me outside.


NO. ABSOLUTELY NO. I do not feel like getting into a fight to the death with every drunken jackass who hits on my girlfriend. I've come to blows or nearly come to blows often enough with people. I really don't want it to be for my life the next time it happens. NO. It was a bad idea before and it's a bad idea now.

This:

More people voted yes than no?

I... I...

What?

Learn to say no, perhaps?

I am wholeheartedly in favour of duels, since both parties would have to agree, and I am a strong proponent of personal liberties. I think that if two people want to fight each other, either till death or submission, that should be allowed.

You honestly believe it would end with me saying no? That's...just...retarded and naive. Not fighting him makes me lose face both with him, the people and around me, and most importantly with her. That's the whole point of dueling. Loss of face or the fact that they won't listen to words. Fights to the death aren't some sort of recreational activity. Nobody does them because they WANT to. They do them because they feel that superior (as in the case of the drunk) or because they're forced into it (me). I say no, he just keeps hitting on her. You obviously have never had a girlfriend. Just let him hit on her and make her uncomfortable as shit and see if you get laid that night. No, she'll be pissed at you. My original point stands. Come back with a better thought out argument than say no. LOL...

Or you could just say no, then knock his ass out. Or just leave.

If duels were legal, they would be an absolutely last resort, and you would really only duel those who you felt really deserved it. In your "drunk guy" scenario, there would be no need to agree to the duel if other forms of conflict resolution would work just as well.

Basically, it would make no sense to actually accept every challenge that came along. Some jackass hitting on your woman wouldn't be worth killing, so you can just dismiss him like you normally would.

 

[willsham45]

Both sides have to agree to it and it can be done in many ways, guns, swords hell i am sure slaps and rock paper scissors (lizard and spok if you want to use those rules) if you really wanted to. And nether side has to do it they just forefit and it does not even have to involve murder, first blood to the torso, first person on the floor, first person to get hit.

It would make a nice alternative to some of the simpler court battles, murder and theft would have to be done the old fashioned way but land disputes and the like would be well solved the older fashioned way in the form of a duel, hell it would make PE classes in school more important.

But then again big companies that are prone to getting these sorts of complaints will start hiring specialist duellers to win the fights...then maybe tournaments will start to help find the best fighters.

 

[ranyilliams]

honestly think that if both parties consent, yep it should be 100% legal. If someone is stupid enough to agree to do this type of thing. By all means, LET THEM DO IT.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I could get behind sanctioned fisticuffs for dueling, but lack of single shot pistols would make pistol duels a little difficult to contain, and even then, that one bullet has to go somewhere if you miss. Swords I'm a bit more lenient about, but really, any fight that requires a duel to settle can be done with fists.

 

[AstylahAthrys]

I would support it 100% if people still had honor and there was some sort of strict legal standards for it. I don't think it would be feasible in today's society, though, seeing as the class system is muddled and society is just totally different.

Also, technically, non-lethal duels are legal already, right? I mean, if two people want to sort out an argument with wooden swords, paintball guns or toy lightsabers you can do that already.

 

[Zinaxos]

Yes and No. Yes because I'd duel everyone I know and No because everyone I know would be dead.

 

[Volkov]

no. strength/fencing/shooting ability is NOT, never as been, and never will be, a virtue. and i don't think it's possible to legalize dueling without implying that strength/fencing/shooting ability are, in fact, a virtue.

a handful of more delicate legal arguments could also be raised, probably. euthanasia? suicide? burden on medical insurance companies if the loser survives? is it consider murder if one cheated? it's an enormous and completely unnecessary can of worms, because again - being stronger does NOT make you right, and the only purpose of duels was, in fact, to determine who is more honorable/right, while it really only determined who is stronger.