Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

We should put gang fights in gladiator arenas

ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 10:04:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Points of Contention:

- Gangs are going to kill each other anyways, why not give them an audience and glorify it as a sport?

- Profits from tickets could go to police to help fight gangs who still kill each other on the streets.

- No bystanders would be shot if people watched it from a protected area or on TV from a distance, vs. where on the streets bystanders can be killed.

Also, consensual duels should be allowed for viewing, the winner of the duels or gang fights gets a nice commission from bets and the ticket profits.

So we have:

-Economy stimulus
-Prevents deaths of bystanders
- Entertainment for American People
- Turns something society frowned upon in to a fun sport that people can watch over a few beers and a bet on TV.

Any counter arguments?

Of course the duel has to be consensual.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 10:07:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, for one, it's impossible to ensure all agreements are truly consensual, and these agreements are just too high-stakes for that.

Second, it's just an extraordinarily barbaric thing for a society to publicly support.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 10:09:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Orrr, we could invest resources in ameliorating the circumstances that would make gang life attractive in the first place.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 10:10:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 10:07:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Well, for one, it's impossible to ensure all agreements are truly consensual, and these agreements are just too high-stakes for that.

Each gang leader and the members involved would have to sign a contract before going in to the arena.

Second, it's just an extraordinarily barbaric thing for a society to publicly support.

Not really, these people are counter productive to society and are peddling drugs to children out on the streets, why not let them kill each other off without hurting anyone else?

I would watch this gladiator gang fight with a beer and some friends as entertainment.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 10:11:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 10:09:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
Orrr, we could invest resources in ameliorating the circumstances that would make gang life attractive in the first place.

What makes the gang life attractive, peddling drugs to children? Shooting other people so you can have territory to peddle drugs to children?

People who consider this an attractive lifestyle are not worthy of life anyways.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 10:11:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 10:10:47 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:07:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Well, for one, it's impossible to ensure all agreements are truly consensual, and these agreements are just too high-stakes for that.

Each gang leader and the members involved would have to sign a contract before going in to the arena.

That's meaningless.

Second, it's just an extraordinarily barbaric thing for a society to publicly support.

Not really, these people are counter productive to society and are peddling drugs to children out on the streets, why not let them kill each other off without hurting anyone else?

I would watch this gladiator gang fight with a beer and some friends as entertainment.

Gladiator combat still carries a tacit support for the violence by society.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 10:15:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 10:11:48 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:10:47 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:07:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Well, for one, it's impossible to ensure all agreements are truly consensual, and these agreements are just too high-stakes for that.

Each gang leader and the members involved would have to sign a contract before going in to the arena.

That's meaningless.

No it isn't, you can give away all your belongings while still alive to someone and leave yourself homeless with a contract, why is a duel any different?

Second, it's just an extraordinarily barbaric thing for a society to publicly support.

Not really, these people are counter productive to society and are peddling drugs to children out on the streets, why not let them kill each other off without hurting anyone else?

I would watch this gladiator gang fight with a beer and some friends as entertainment.

Gladiator combat still carries a tacit support for the violence by society.

True, but I still think that reducing actual violence while making a profit outweighs the negative societal impact. At any rate, claiming we should restrict individuals rights to benefit the collective is authoritarian doctrine, we should let the scumbags of society who would shoot each other over name calling or a lose bet do so anyways.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 10:17:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 10:11:45 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:09:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
Orrr, we could invest resources in ameliorating the circumstances that would make gang life attractive in the first place.

What makes the gang life attractive, peddling drugs to children? Shooting other people so you can have territory to peddle drugs to children?

People who consider this an attractive lifestyle are not worthy of life anyways.

Worthy of life? That's a conjunction of utterly meaningless words. We live and we act according to the circumstances that surround us sociologically and biologically. We know that violence and gang life and illegal drug street-hierarchies come with destitution, and if we take on the role of the humanitarian physician, to reverse the prevalence of this circumstance and its consequence is our Hippocratic oath.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 10:18:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 10:15:02 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:11:48 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:10:47 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:07:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Well, for one, it's impossible to ensure all agreements are truly consensual, and these agreements are just too high-stakes for that.

Each gang leader and the members involved would have to sign a contract before going in to the arena.

That's meaningless.

No it isn't, you can give away all your belongings while still alive to someone and leave yourself homeless with a contract, why is a duel any different?

I'm pretty sure you CAN'T on that. However, as I said, death, slavery, etc. contracts are WAY too serious to assume consent on.

Second, it's just an extraordinarily barbaric thing for a society to publicly support.

Not really, these people are counter productive to society and are peddling drugs to children out on the streets, why not let them kill each other off without hurting anyone else?

I would watch this gladiator gang fight with a beer and some friends as entertainment.

Gladiator combat still carries a tacit support for the violence by society.

True, but I still think that reducing actual violence while making a profit outweighs the negative societal impact. At any rate, claiming we should restrict individuals rights to benefit the collective is authoritarian doctrine, we should let the scumbags of society who would shoot each other over name calling or a lose bet do so anyways.

My point is that this plan is way too realpolitik and frankly immoral for a society to adopt.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 10:23:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 10:17:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:11:45 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:09:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
Orrr, we could invest resources in ameliorating the circumstances that would make gang life attractive in the first place.

What makes the gang life attractive, peddling drugs to children? Shooting other people so you can have territory to peddle drugs to children?

People who consider this an attractive lifestyle are not worthy of life anyways.

Worthy of life? That's a conjunction of utterly meaningless words.

If someone's existence is composed of detriment to society, they are not worthy of being supported by such a society.

We live and we act according to the circumstances that surround us sociologically and biologically. We know that violence and gang life and illegal drug street-hierarchies come with destitution, and if we take on the role of the humanitarian physician, to reverse the prevalence of this circumstance and its consequence is our Hippocratic oath.

It is not the government's job to regulate society and culture, that is a destructive path.

Why should we make laws, in essence, to protect people from themselves?

If people can not make mature decisions that a level headed, composed adult would make, that is not my business or yours to intervene.

It is not the government's job to regulate people and their actions unless it effects someone else, letting thugs kill themselves off in an enclosed arena does not effect us negatively, it produces revenue and keeps lethal gang fights off the streets.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 10:23:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 10:04:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Points of Contention:

- Gangs are going to kill each other anyways, why not give them an audience and glorify it as a sport?

- Profits from tickets could go to police to help fight gangs who still kill each other on the streets.

- No bystanders would be shot if people watched it from a protected area or on TV from a distance, vs. where on the streets bystanders can be killed.

Also, consensual duels should be allowed for viewing, the winner of the duels or gang fights gets a nice commission from bets and the ticket profits.

So we have:

-Economy stimulus
-Prevents deaths of bystanders
- Entertainment for American People
- Turns something society frowned upon in to a fun sport that people can watch over a few beers and a bet on TV.


Any counter arguments?

Of course the duel has to be consensual.

Not just gangs, but all people who have disputes with one another, who choose to freely enter the arena should be allowed to resolve their personal disputes like gladiators on regularly scheduled intervals. The only stipulation would be that they would have to use gladiatorial weaponry. Lions or rhinos might also be added to the ring for the audience's benefit.
Tsar of DDO
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 10:25:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 10:18:40 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:15:02 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:11:48 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:10:47 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:07:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Well, for one, it's impossible to ensure all agreements are truly consensual, and these agreements are just too high-stakes for that.

Each gang leader and the members involved would have to sign a contract before going in to the arena.

That's meaningless.

No it isn't, you can give away all your belongings while still alive to someone and leave yourself homeless with a contract, why is a duel any different?

I'm pretty sure you CAN'T on that. However, as I said, death, slavery, etc. contracts are WAY too serious to assume consent on.

Second, it's just an extraordinarily barbaric thing for a society to publicly support.

Not really, these people are counter productive to society and are peddling drugs to children out on the streets, why not let them kill each other off without hurting anyone else?

I would watch this gladiator gang fight with a beer and some friends as entertainment.

Gladiator combat still carries a tacit support for the violence by society.

True, but I still think that reducing actual violence while making a profit outweighs the negative societal impact. At any rate, claiming we should restrict individuals rights to benefit the collective is authoritarian doctrine, we should let the scumbags of society who would shoot each other over name calling or a lose bet do so anyways.

My point is that this plan is way too realpolitik and frankly immoral for a society to adopt.

Agreed, it was more of a philosophical debate on the morality of it, not if it is adaptable to society, we have too many philanthropistic fools.

Also, what is morality and how can we assume that there is a universal moral code that should apply to all?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 10:26:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 10:23:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:04:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Points of Contention:

- Gangs are going to kill each other anyways, why not give them an audience and glorify it as a sport?

- Profits from tickets could go to police to help fight gangs who still kill each other on the streets.

- No bystanders would be shot if people watched it from a protected area or on TV from a distance, vs. where on the streets bystanders can be killed.

Also, consensual duels should be allowed for viewing, the winner of the duels or gang fights gets a nice commission from bets and the ticket profits.

So we have:

-Economy stimulus
-Prevents deaths of bystanders
- Entertainment for American People
- Turns something society frowned upon in to a fun sport that people can watch over a few beers and a bet on TV.


Any counter arguments?

Of course the duel has to be consensual.

Not just gangs, but all people who have disputes with one another, who choose to freely enter the arena should be allowed to resolve their personal disputes like gladiators on regularly scheduled intervals. The only stipulation would be that they would have to use gladiatorial weaponry. Lions or rhinos might also be added to the ring for the audience's benefit.

Or we could let them take in their guns and the losers weapons would be distributed to the militia, even more savings for the taxpayers.

gosh this idea is getting better and better.

leelelellee
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 10:28:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 10:26:43 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:23:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:04:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Points of Contention:

- Gangs are going to kill each other anyways, why not give them an audience and glorify it as a sport?

- Profits from tickets could go to police to help fight gangs who still kill each other on the streets.

- No bystanders would be shot if people watched it from a protected area or on TV from a distance, vs. where on the streets bystanders can be killed.

Also, consensual duels should be allowed for viewing, the winner of the duels or gang fights gets a nice commission from bets and the ticket profits.

So we have:

-Economy stimulus
-Prevents deaths of bystanders
- Entertainment for American People
- Turns something society frowned upon in to a fun sport that people can watch over a few beers and a bet on TV.


Any counter arguments?

Of course the duel has to be consensual.

Not just gangs, but all people who have disputes with one another, who choose to freely enter the arena should be allowed to resolve their personal disputes like gladiators on regularly scheduled intervals. The only stipulation would be that they would have to use gladiatorial weaponry. Lions or rhinos might also be added to the ring for the audience's benefit.

Or we could let them take in their guns and the losers weapons would be distributed to the militia, even more savings for the taxpayers.

gosh this idea is getting better and better.

leelelellee

The spectacle would end too quickly. I want to see a good fight. Guns are not conducive to that end. Tritons and spears, however, are. Swords, maces, cats 'o nine tails, etc. are fine too.
Tsar of DDO
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 10:31:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 10:28:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:26:43 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:23:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:04:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Points of Contention:

- Gangs are going to kill each other anyways, why not give them an audience and glorify it as a sport?

- Profits from tickets could go to police to help fight gangs who still kill each other on the streets.

- No bystanders would be shot if people watched it from a protected area or on TV from a distance, vs. where on the streets bystanders can be killed.

Also, consensual duels should be allowed for viewing, the winner of the duels or gang fights gets a nice commission from bets and the ticket profits.

So we have:

-Economy stimulus
-Prevents deaths of bystanders
- Entertainment for American People
- Turns something society frowned upon in to a fun sport that people can watch over a few beers and a bet on TV.


Any counter arguments?

Of course the duel has to be consensual.

Not just gangs, but all people who have disputes with one another, who choose to freely enter the arena should be allowed to resolve their personal disputes like gladiators on regularly scheduled intervals. The only stipulation would be that they would have to use gladiatorial weaponry. Lions or rhinos might also be added to the ring for the audience's benefit.

Or we could let them take in their guns and the losers weapons would be distributed to the militia, even more savings for the taxpayers.

gosh this idea is getting better and better.

leelelellee

The spectacle would end too quickly. I want to see a good fight. Guns are not conducive to that end. Tritons and spears, however, are. Swords, maces, cats 'o nine tails, etc. are fine too.

True, but maybe we could just categories for the duels.

Maybe to make it even more entertaining you would have to spin a wheel for your weapon, it could be as weak as a tooth pick or as strong as a chaingun. LOL
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 10:33:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 10:31:55 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:28:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:26:43 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:23:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/9/2013 10:04:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Points of Contention:

- Gangs are going to kill each other anyways, why not give them an audience and glorify it as a sport?

- Profits from tickets could go to police to help fight gangs who still kill each other on the streets.

- No bystanders would be shot if people watched it from a protected area or on TV from a distance, vs. where on the streets bystanders can be killed.

Also, consensual duels should be allowed for viewing, the winner of the duels or gang fights gets a nice commission from bets and the ticket profits.

So we have:

-Economy stimulus
-Prevents deaths of bystanders
- Entertainment for American People
- Turns something society frowned upon in to a fun sport that people can watch over a few beers and a bet on TV.


Any counter arguments?

Of course the duel has to be consensual.

Not just gangs, but all people who have disputes with one another, who choose to freely enter the arena should be allowed to resolve their personal disputes like gladiators on regularly scheduled intervals. The only stipulation would be that they would have to use gladiatorial weaponry. Lions or rhinos might also be added to the ring for the audience's benefit.

Or we could let them take in their guns and the losers weapons would be distributed to the militia, even more savings for the taxpayers.

gosh this idea is getting better and better.

leelelellee

The spectacle would end too quickly. I want to see a good fight. Guns are not conducive to that end. Tritons and spears, however, are. Swords, maces, cats 'o nine tails, etc. are fine too.

True, but maybe we could just categories for the duels.

Maybe to make it even more entertaining you would have to spin a wheel for your weapon, it could be as weak as a tooth pick or as strong as a chaingun. LOL

We could, but duels are boring. Gun make killin' and dyin' so efficient and would put the audience at risk. So, no guns. Better to use ancient weaponry.
Tsar of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 10:51:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 10:04:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Points of Contention:

- Gangs are going to kill each other anyways, why not give them an audience and glorify it as a sport?

- Profits from tickets could go to police to help fight gangs who still kill each other on the streets.

- No bystanders would be shot if people watched it from a protected area or on TV from a distance, vs. where on the streets bystanders can be killed.

Also, consensual duels should be allowed for viewing, the winner of the duels or gang fights gets a nice commission from bets and the ticket profits.

So we have:

-Economy stimulus
-Prevents deaths of bystanders
- Entertainment for American People
- Turns something society frowned upon in to a fun sport that people can watch over a few beers and a bet on TV.


Any counter arguments?

Of course the duel has to be consensual.

the only spoils the "winners" should get, should be not to be charged with any crimes.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 10:57:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
because why the fvck would the gangs agree to this? It would also increase the number of gladiators to non-gang related issues.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 11:08:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 10:07:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Well, for one, it's impossible to ensure all agreements are truly consensual, and these agreements are just too high-stakes for that.

Second, it's just an extraordinarily barbaric thing for a society to publicly support.

What if they only showed private support for it, that's how our govt has gotten away with doing barbaric things up to this point.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 11:26:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 11:17:47 PM, Wnope wrote:
You assume gang members are interested in fair fights.

This. +1
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 11:27:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, inherent in the idea of "glorifying" something as a sport is seeking to have it culturally perpetuated.

I'm not sure how glorifying teens killing each other is going to make gangs any less attractive to other teens.

If your attitude is "anyone who might join gangs isn't worth protecting" then social policy gets quite simple. But you'd be shocked what growing up around gangs in a broken home does to what would otherwise be an "average" person.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 11:58:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 10:57:18 PM, darkkermit wrote:
because why the fvck would the gangs agree to this? It would also increase the number of gladiators to non-gang related issues.

Just a deterrent so they can get away with fighting other gangs, you know how some gangs fight for some false sense of 'glory', what's more glorious to them then having their rival gang clapped up on public TV?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 11:59:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 11:17:47 PM, Wnope wrote:
You assume gang members are interested in fair fights.

Maybe some won't be, just a way for them to relieve their senseless fights of drug territory in a place where bystanders won't get hurt.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 12:01:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 11:27:21 PM, Wnope wrote:
Also, inherent in the idea of "glorifying" something as a sport is seeking to have it culturally perpetuated.

I'm not sure how glorifying teens killing each other is going to make gangs any less attractive to other teens.

It's not, it's a way to stop bystanders from being killed in shootouts, also a nice revenue source and entertainment for the public.

If your attitude is "anyone who might join gangs isn't worth protecting" then social policy gets quite simple. But you'd be shocked what growing up around gangs in a broken home does to what would otherwise be an "average" person.

I can agree to a point there, but I don't believe in using societal coercion to make people not do certain things.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 1:49:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2013 12:01:27 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:27:21 PM, Wnope wrote:
Also, inherent in the idea of "glorifying" something as a sport is seeking to have it culturally perpetuated.

I'm not sure how glorifying teens killing each other is going to make gangs any less attractive to other teens.

It's not, it's a way to stop bystanders from being killed in shootouts, also a nice revenue source and entertainment for the public.

If your attitude is "anyone who might join gangs isn't worth protecting" then social policy gets quite simple. But you'd be shocked what growing up around gangs in a broken home does to what would otherwise be an "average" person.

I can agree to a point there, but I don't believe in using societal coercion to make people not do certain things.

When everyone was using knifes and baseball bats, duels meant something in order to show who is tough. But once guns became the status quo, domination over other gangs is done through assassination and fear. Terrorizing the other group out of existence. Duels promise certainty and safety, the exact opposite of what gang murders aim to do. Hits squads and assassins are the norm for warring gangs today.

The most deaths that come from duels are almost always arising from an on the spot status-based interactions Aaron McGruder of "Boondocks" satirically named "N*gger Moments." I don't think saying "yo, dawg, I challenge yo' @ss to a legally sanctioned duel of arms" has quite the street cred of pulling a gun out at a moment's notice.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 2:51:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/10/2013 2:30:51 AM, CanWeKnow wrote:
Let's just level our ghettos and rebuild. Lol...

Funny thing, we TRIED that in Chicago. They just forgot the 'rebuild' part and ended up embedding decentralizing gangs all over the city leading to an increase in turf disputes and homicides.