Amazon.com Widgets
  • Mutual consent and a defined rule set, location, etc..

    If there is a dispute between individuals they should be allowed to have a duel to settle the dispute. However there is should be rules for this, so that it does not fall into the category of "barbarism". Rules: Mutual consenting parties, defined rules and regulations (which would be governed and enforced), there must be a time period between the duel date and date that the duel was applied for (to prevent unnecessary deaths because of hype of the moment events) , must have definite locations for where the duel takes place. I am sure I have missed a few but these are just a broadstroke to give you an understanding that this would be a regulated, constitutional, and ethical (ambiguously) approach for dueling to settle disputes.

  • People should be allowed to follow what they believe is right.

    In modern times courts have too much power already. If consenting individuals wish to settle their conflict without wasting time and money, they should have the right to in a way that will not involve others. And a regulated duel to the death will be much better than getting revenge through murder.

  • People should follow what they believe is right.

    In modern times courts have too much power already. If consenting individuals wish to settle their conflict without wasting time and money, they should have the right to in a way that will not involve others. And a regulated duel to the death will be much better than getting revenge through murder.

  • People should follow what they believe is right.

    In modern times courts have too much power already. If consenting individuals wish to settle their conflict without wasting time and money, they should have the right to in a way that will not involve others. And a regulated duel to the death will be much better than getting revenge through murder.

  • It should be regulated with a unbiased third party overlooking

    You cannot take out aggression out of human nature , it has what helped us survive . There all ready tons of activity there, that are dangerous .Even if we don't allow dueling , we can't stop fights that occur everyday. It would be better to legalize it than turn turn a blind eye in that direction much like prostitution.

  • Consenting adults should be allowed to do as they see fit to themselves

    Who are we to tell an adult what they can and cannot do to their own body? Where is the line drawn? There are many dangerous activities people willingly engage in. Diving, sailing, riding motorcycles, gymnastics, boxing, etc. Not to mention operations that are not ideal for health. Tattoos carry some risk. Should we ban all dangerous activities? Should we ban motorcycles and alpine skiing? Boxing and UFC? Football and basketball? I think no.

    So, you want to draw a line? Where? It becomes arbitrary. Each of the listed activities carries a certain percent chance of grievous bodily harm or death. So does dueling. So, no greater than 10% per hour spent in an activity? No more than 5%? No more than 50%? It is hard to quantify because there is not a reasonable point at which to draw the line. Life comes with a guarantee of death so we cannot draw the line at 0%. So the only place where we can draw the line is nowhere. Consenting adults ( of sound mind and body etc.) can engage in whatever activity they please provided it will not cause harm to a non-consenting party. In defense of dueling in particular, provided it is in a private place with no chance of harming someone who is not participating then there is not a logical argument against it.

  • Men and honour

    If someone insults you, then you should be allowed to defend your honour, as it used to be in Britain , that is how large Street fights could potentially be avoided if disputes were settled with gentlemanly finess and honour. I believe it should be legal being as in the houses of parliament there are places to hang ones sword.

  • If it's regulated, then yes.

    People killing in the streets is chaotic, but if there were strict guidelines and procedures set to dueling such as: rules, location, weapons, consent, then it should be legal. Nobody would be forced to take part in a duel and no innocent bystanders would be hurt if the rules were followed. This would have a positive impact on many aspects of the economy.

  • If it's regulated, then yes.

    People killing in the streets is chaotic, but if there were strict guidelines and procedures set to dueling such as: rules, location, weapons, consent, then it should be legal. Nobody would be forced to take part in a duel and no innocent bystanders would be hurt if the rules were followed. This would have a positive impact on many aspects of the economy.

  • Dueling is barbaric.

    Dueling is ancient and barbaric. It should not be legal. Society has come far enough to know that no good can come out of fighting and violence. People need to sit down and discuss their disputes. If people are unable to do so respectfully, they should obtain a neutral mediator. If all else fails walk away. Dueling is never the answer.

  • No blood on the streets

    Should dueling be legal. My opinion is no. Would you really want a gun fight on the sidewalk every time two people got mad at each other? Where your kids play. The idea that this barbaric act should be legal is beyond me. We don't want any more blood on the streets then their already is.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.