How about a nice game of Uno?
PICK UP FOUR MWAHAHAHA
PICK UP FOUR MWAHAHAHA
Dueling does not serve as "the ultimate answer" to who is correct in a particular debate.
Similarly, just because you "feel strongly" about a position (strongly enough to risk your life in support of it) does not make you "more right" than the person who disagrees but refuses to fight over the issue.
All that dueling leads to is a world where only people willing to risk their lives have the right to speak. Freedom of speech only applies to them, and only so long as they can stay alive.
I don't have a problem with voluntary combat in a very abstract sense, but I do not want, for example, someone killing the President because they do not like his Iraq policy...
Perhaps some of those who make such personal, vile accusations should be afraid, perhaps we'd have less bullshit and a more productive, factual news media.
And don't you find it interesting that the very same freedom of speech that you so admirably support was given to you, won by a form of duel?
That would not and could not be considered a personal duel! For one thing, they'd have to challenge the entire government over something like Iraq ...how could you call that personal?
I completely disagree.
Okay, I'm convinced. We shouldn't let two consenting adults do anything that might be harmful to either or both of them. And that should include any and all sports, racing cars, sex (might get AIDS), ....nothing. Consent should be minutely examined by all in the society and agreed to by all of the people before it's accepted as approved action.
Yep, I'm convinced. Thanks, Pandaemoni,
Baron Max