NationStates Jolt Archive

Haveing a duel should be legal because it would solve many trials and many murders. But a saber has to be the only weapon allowed to be used.

Haveing a duel should be legal because it would solve many trials and many murders. But a saber has to be the only weapon allowed to be used.

Two things, this was an issue, and another thing, are you a bush fan because one of Bush's people said to a guy on hardball who was giving him a hard time. I wish we could go back to the time where I could challenge you to a duel. CRAZY!!! To which Jon Stewart replied, "Yes people here you have the Republicans! Building a bridge to the 18th century!!!"

Zell Miller would be soooo happy if it was! :rolleyes:

Well then you just become good at duels rob a few banks then your set for life. YAY!!

...joke topic? It had better be. Your crazy theory would mean that you could get away with murder just by being a good duelist.

Haveing a duel should be legal because it would solve many trials and many murders. But a saber has to be the only weapon allowed to be used.
Would you care to state your reasoning, please? I'm having trouble seeing it. Thank you.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

Well then you just become good at duels rob a few banks then your set for life. YAY!!

How could duels being legal make it legal to rob banks. In a duel both people have to agree.

You could duel with poison pies. :)

I agree let people take care of it by them self like men and defend their honor.
But no guns only swords or just their hands

Would you care to state your reasoning, please? I'm having trouble seeing it. Thank you.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
It would just be better but to make it work both parties of the duel would have to agree. Another reason is that many of the founding fathers dueled. And it would be more honorable.

Yes! Dueling! Like the death penalty without trials!

It would just be better but to make it work both parties of the duel would have to agree. Another reason is that many of the founding fathers dueled.
I only know two. Burr and Hamilton. Hamilton ended up dead, and Burr's career was ruined. I'm don't think thats a good example to forward dueling though.

I just started a topic earlier about this but it was a bit more civilized. WHen someone on NS puts you down you can click on their name and challenge them to a game so you dont lose face. :P

It would just be better but to make it work both parties of the duel would have to agree. Another reason is that many of the founding fathers dueled. And it would be more honorable.
Duelist: I challange you to a duel for that insult.
Other party: No, I do not agree to duel with you.
Duelist: ::thrusts sword through opponent's heart::
Duelist: What? He agreed to duel when he insulted me. Don't believe he agreed?.. Well.. just ask him.

Haveing a duel should be legal because it would solve many trials and many murders. But a saber has to be the only weapon allowed to be used.
I'm all for a little ruckus here and there, but unarmed only. Fuhrermore, to allow people to slay others with sabres would NOT save many lives. Even furthermore, sabres!? What the hell? I think you're thinking of epees or foils, the pointy ones, right? Those hurt, but not nearly as much as a sabre. Cavalry Sabres are slashing weapons with a heavy blade, I've one; it's not even sharpened and a single blow could probably knock someone down. To sharpen it, which I do have the tools to do (specifically, a sharpening rod), would mean I could basically hack away most of a human's flesh. Even Fuhrermore, this is completely ignorant. So, no sabres, no swords, no killing in duels, no replacing trials with duels, and, of course, no duels. Also, your reasoning behind all of this, by which I mean lack of reasoning, makes you sound like a retard.

If you at least decided to explain your reasoning, that would have been much more effective. I'm sorry. You Failed.

Duelist: I challange you to a duel for that insult.
Other party: No, I do not agree to duel with you.
Duelist: ::thrusts sword through opponent's heart::
Duelist: What? He agreed to duel when he insulted me. Don't believe he agreed?.. Well.. just ask him.

No, to make it all well and good you would have to get written premission of both parties with witnesses.

Instead of a duel, how about a Roshambo contest?

It would just be better but to make it work both parties of the duel would have to agree.
I still don't see how it would "solve many trials and many murders" (your words). Not everyone with intent to kill would prefer a duel, as winning a duel requires that you be more skilled at dueling than your opponent. Note that even when there were legal duels, there were still illegal murders.

Additionally, I'm very leery of death as solution to problems. I'm also concerned that a legal system of dueling would be susceptible to abuse.

Another reason is that many of the founding fathers dueled. And it would be more honorable.
Not everything the Founding Fathers did was necessarily good and/or appropriate for our times.

Slightly off-topic: Alexander Hamilton pushed to have dueling outlawed in New York because his son was killed in a duel. Ironically, he himself, was killed in a duel with Aaron Burr (and he had to go over to New Jersey for it because of his own ban).

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

I'm all for a little ruckus here and there, but unarmed only. Fuhrermore, to allow people to slay others with sabres would NOT save many lives. Even furthermore, sabres!? What the hell? I think you're thinking of epees or foils, the pointy ones, right? Those hurt, but not nearly as much as a sabre. Cavalry Sabres are slashing weapons with a heavy blade, I've one; it's not even sharpened and a single blow could probably knock someone down. To sharpen it, which I do have the tools to do (specifically, a sharpening rod), would mean I could basically hack away most of a human's flesh. Even Fuhrermore, this is completely ignorant. So, no sabres, no swords, no killing in duels, no replacing trials with duels, and, of course, no duels. Also, your reasoning behind all of this, by which I mean lack of reasoning, makes you sound like a retard.

If you at least decided to explain your reasoning, that would have been much more effective. I'm sorry. You Failed.
Do you understand the purpose of the cavalry sabre? Did you know that if a soldier were caught sharpening their sabre's they would be courtmartialed?

Sorry, Im a nit picker by nature. Nit Pickers Annonymous hasn't been much help.

Do you understand the purpose of the cavalry sabre? Did you know that if a soldier were caught sharpening their sabre's they would be courtmartialed?

Sorry, Im a nit picker by nature. Nit Pickers Annonymous hasn't been much help.
what???? please explain. that seems to go against all sense, i'm curious as to the reasoning behind that.

Yes! Dueling! Like the death penalty without trials!
Hey, if I was dicta- I mean National Leader of a country, I think I should be able to execute people without question. Countries have the right to do whatever stupid things they want. Screw trials, if someone's obviously guilty, then he's dead. Now we can finally get rid of people like OJ Simpson and the guy who forced the creation of the Miranda Rights.

Do you understand the purpose of the cavalry sabre? Did you know that if a soldier were caught sharpening their sabre's they would be courtmartialed?

Sorry, Im a nit picker by nature. Nit Pickers Annonymous hasn't been much help.
Hey, don't worry, I deserve it for doing the same. One thing to note, however, is that I am not a soldier and, thusly, do not suffer from the same restrictions, especially in the privacy of my own home. What is the purpose of the cavalry sabre? You seem to clearly know better than me.

Haveing a duel should be legal because it would solve many trials and many murders. But a saber has to be the only weapon allowed to be used.


I'm sure that would thrill Mr. Miller emensely!!

So basically, if someone is good at duelling, they can get out of any crime? That makes as much sense as having a trial be whoever can draw the prettiest picture or who can tango the best.

Just a tag, just in case.

So basically, if someone is good at duelling, they can get out of any crime? That makes as much sense as having a trial be whoever can draw the prettiest picture or who can tango the best.
I don't have particularly good dueling skills. I think I'd manage to kill the person a few seconds before I mean to simply because my reflexes kick in to a snapping twig or poor timing. It's happened before.

I say no sabres, just balls-out fist to fist, people beating each other to death, while we watch and cheer.

We could charge admission also.

Better yet, we could give em chainsaws and flamethrowers, to mix it up.

http://www.ee.cooper.edu/~cufc/cufc_weapons.html[/URL]]Sabre or Saber (whichever spelling you prefer) is a descendant of the cavalry sabre, and thus has a bell guard which covers the fingers and wraps around on one side to attach at the pommel providing protection for the knuckles. The blade is roughly the same length as both the foil and the épée, however, it has a "cutting edge" as well as a point. Naturally this cutting edge is not actually sharp in modern competition sabres. It is the lightest of the three weapons, and points may be scored either with the edge (in a cutting action) or with the point (in a thrusting action).
Again, a bit of history is needed. Since fencing sabre is the descendant of the cavalry sabre, which was a weapon of war, its historical purpose was therefore to kill people. This suggests a similar need as in foil for defending one's own life before taking an aggressive action, hence sabre, like foil is a Right of Way weapon. Unlike foil, however, a cavalry sabre was to be wielded while mounted on a horse. When combating a mounted adversary, one had to keep in mind the adversary's horse... it was to be part of the spoils of war for the victors, and a good war horse was a precious commodity. While a soldier took a matter of months to train to be useful in battle, a horse took years to train. As a result, neither side wanted to hurt the horse. This is reflected in the modern rules in the target area for sabre, which is everything from the top of the hips up, including the arms and head, ie. the part of the body which could safely be hit without damaging the horse underneath. (If this reasoning sounds cold, consider that in even earlier ages archers were often used sparingly at the expense of infantry. Arrows cost money. Dead soldiers don't.)
Okay, modern sabres are rarely sharp, but originally, they were used to quite plainly kill. Your move.

what???? please explain. that seems to go against all sense, i'm curious as to the reasoning behind that.
Sabres are designed to take advantage to the mass and momentum of a cavalry soldier sitting astride a horse. The damage and trauma done by blunted weapons in this case is greater than simply cutting into someone. Breaking shoulders/hips/bones in general was the desired outcome of a sabre strike.
Sharpening a sabre caused the blade to bite into bones and get stuck, yanking them out of the hands of the cavalry soldiers as they rode by.

So basically, if someone is good at duelling, they can get out of any crime? That makes as much sense as having a trial be whoever can draw the prettiest picture or who can tango the best.
Oooo.. I like the tango idea...
I mucho like watching the tango, when done properly. Scent of a Woman anyone?

Instead of a duel, how about a Roshambo contest?

Hear, hear!

You people are not getting the point. Both parties would first have to go to a government authority to get everything in order... all the documents signed etc. etc. Then a government official would supervise the duel in a designated area.

I mean where are you getting these ideas... A good duelists robbing banks... thats just like saying a good boxer would punch all the guards out and rob banks.

Man... the idea isn't too bad. If its consentual by both parties and supervised by a government authority to prohibit cheating... why not?

You people are not getting the point. Both parties would first have to go to a government authority to get everything in order... all the documents signed etc. etc. Then a government official would supervise the duel in a designated area.

I mean where are you getting these ideas... A good duelists robbing banks... thats just like saying a good boxer would punch all the guards out and rob banks.

Man... the idea isn't too bad. If its consentual by both parties and supervised by a government authority to prohibit cheating... why not?
Why the restriction to only swords.. why not guns. Swords give advantage to the more skillful antagonist. Guns were called the great equalizers because you didn't need to be greatly skilled to be effective with it. But I digress.

You are advocating allowing people to go out and kill each other. If you can't see that as wrong, then I can't help you.

You said duelling would "solve many murders". Do you mean that it would allow murder to be committed legally, or do you mean that it would identify whether a suspected murderer is guilty using trial by combat? The first is a poor goal; the second is a poor method of achieving a goal.

Second, why only allow sabers? Why not foils, epees, pallaches, cutlasses, wakizashis, claymores, machetes, or other blades? Why not allow staves, clubs, tonfa, maces, or morningstars? Why not flails, nunchaku, whips, chains, or manrikigusari? Why not even just wrestling or bare-fisted brawling? Not only does the weapon restriction give one particular segment of the population an unfair advantage, but it also takes away the biggest advantage of the recipient of a challenge to a duel-- choice of weapons.

Frankly the world would be far better off if all the idiots killed each other this way.

You think there's an honor in piting men in battle? Historically duels were not to the death, only to first blood anyhow, so how would it solve anything? I mean, while we're at it let's build a colesseum and hold Glatorial games. We all know where that ended up.

Why the restriction to only swords.. why not guns. Swords give advantage to the more skillful antagonist. Guns were called the great equalizers because you didn't need to be greatly skilled to be effective with it. But I digress.

You are advocating allowing people to go out and kill each other. If you can't see that as wrong, then I can't help you.

Well we have proffesional boxing... We got cage fighting... And the people who participate don't live long...

So why is this so crazy? If two people want to duel to the death, why not let them? At least that way there would be a more legal and non-harmful outlet for the violence in man. Although it is obviously not proven, but I hypothesize that there would be a lot less murders, that inadvertly could harm the "innocent". Instead of some qualm between two men with homocidal tendencies endangering the bystanders, they could fight each other in open combat.... and we could probably put that on TV, we're addicted to violence anyways... so why not.

Second, why only allow sabers? Why not foils, epees, pallaches, cutlasses, wakizashis, claymores, machetes, or other blades? Why not allow staves, clubs, tonfa, maces, or morningstars? Why not flails, nunchaku, whips, chains, or manrikigusari? Why not even just wrestling or bare-fisted brawling? Not only does the weapon restriction give one particular segment of the population an unfair advantage, but it also takes away the biggest advantage of the recipient of a challenge to a duel-- choice of weapons.


Good point... any weapon... but no firearms... theres no fun in that.

You think there's an honor in piting men in battle? Historically duels were not to the death, only to first blood anyhow, so how would it solve anything? I mean, while we're at it let's build a colesseum and hold Glatorial games. We all know where that ended up.
Not exactly accurate. Duels prior to the Code Duello were frequently to the death.
And his idea isnt that far off reality now. Professional Boxing?

Well we have proffesional boxing... We got cage fighting... And the people who participate don't live long...

So why is this so crazy? If two people want to duel to the death, why not let them? At least that way there would be a more legal and non-harmful outlet for the violence in man. Although it is obviously not proven, but I hypothesize that there would be a lot less murders, that inadvertly could harm the "innocent". Instead of some qualm between two men with homocidal tendencies endangering the bystanders, they could fight each other in open combat.... and we could probably put that on TV, we're addicted to violence anyways... so why not.
Where did you get the idea that professional boxers dont live long?

You answered my question.. you can't see what's wrong with allowing people to kill each other.

Where did you get the idea that professional boxers dont live long?

You answered my question.. you can't see what's wrong with allowing people to kill each other.
Well you see killing... stuff is in our nature... Why do people go hunting? Why is that okay? Because we humans are superior to animals. Why do we simulate death and combat in movies, games, music, everything? Why do we have people volunteer for the military forces? To serve one's country? No. To kill others, to have an excuse to kill others. Our culture is based on violence and to deny that is naive. Be realistic its not going to change, its in our genes, so why restrict it when we urge for it so much? Why let it concentrate so it escapes in small doses of extreme cruelty... Why not let those who have the potential of murder lodged deep within them.... why not let them let it out on people who are willing to take it. Instead of waiting for it to burst and kill those who didn't deserve it.

Haveing a duel should be legal because it would solve many trials and many murders. But a saber has to be the only weapon allowed to be used.

For some, dueling should not only be legal, but compulsory.

Think of the improvement to the gene pool.

Well you see killing... stuff is in our nature... Why do people go hunting? Why is that okay? Because we humans are superior to animals. Why do we simulate death and combat in movies, games, music, everything? Why do we have people volunteer for the military forces? To serve one's country? No. To kill others, to have an excuse to kill others. Our culture is based on violence and to deny that is naive. Be realistic its not going to change, its in our genes, so why restrict it when we urge for it so much? Why let it concentrate so it escapes in small doses of extreme cruelty... Why not let those who have the potential of murder lodged deep within them.... why not let them let it out on people who are willing to take it. Instead of waiting for it to burst and kill those who didn't deserve it.
Dude.. seek help.

Dude.. seek help.
Yet you point out no illogic in my reasoning. I could have just as easily called you a brainwashed puppet of civilization and not explained my reasoning.

It's the naive idealism that is drilled into our heads... Killing is no natural and is bad... A soldier, when he goes to war is protecting his country... Violence is bad... yet we watch it as entertainment... Fighting is bad yet we pay people money to watch them fight on pay-per-view in padded gloves.

There is the lack logic there. Civilization forces us to deny our savagery. Read Heart of Darkness or A Clockwork Orange... They'll open your eyes.

The only problem I can see with allowing legal duels where both parties consent, is that the system would probably be abused, for example, through legally binding contracts that, under certain conditions, would force one party into a duel against their will.

Also, it would give people, particularly regular duellists, the idea that all their problems can be solved through violence, which is not really an attitude that society needs.

Other than that, I'm all for the idea of two people who fully consent and understand the consequences, being allowed to fight each other to the death. They could put it in an arena with traps and shit to make it more interesting, and put it on TV. There's enough fake death on TV that televising real death would harldy be any different; end of the day, it looks exactly the same.

Anything that influences the aristocrats to kill eachother off is fine by me.

Also, it would give people, particularly regular duellists, the idea that all their problems can be solved through violence, which is not really an attitude that society needs.

Why all their problems? If the other party does not consent, then there is a problem that cannot be solved with duels. I think thats overgeneralizing.

The system would have to be devised so that it would be extremely difficult to abuse it. Just make it like they make boxing fights, basically. If someone doesn't want to fight, it would be evident, especially if there are numerous witnesses and a governmental supervisor. And if one party chickens out and watns to stop the fight, the supervisor can stop it...

Why all their problems? If the other party does not consent, then there is a problem that cannot be solved with duels. I think thats overgeneralizing.

Well, I think it would lead to intimidation, and such like. The successful duelist, upon presented with a problem (i.e. somebody he doesn't like very much), declares his wishes for a duel, and bullies and intimidates his intended opponent until he gets what he wants.

I'm not saying this will go for all or even most duellists, but definitely some, and that's why those fools shouldn't be allowed to get what they want.

Well, I think it would lead to intimidation, and such like. The successful duelist, upon presented with a problem (i.e. somebody he doesn't like very much), declares his wishes for a duel, and bullies and intimidates his intended opponent until he gets what he wants.

I'm not saying this will go for all or even most duellists, but definitely some, and that's why those fools shouldn't be allowed to get what they want.
But how can he bully and intimidate him... especially if the person doesn't know how to use any non-firearm weapon... It would be like intimidating a person to commit suicide.

He can't really do anything to him legally and if he starts stalking him or something, he could report this zealous duelist for stalking.

Second, why only allow sabers? Why not foils, epees, pallaches, cutlasses, wakizashis, claymores, machetes, or other blades? Why not allow staves, clubs, tonfa, maces, or morningstars? Why not flails, nunchaku, whips, chains, or manrikigusari? Why not even just wrestling or bare-fisted brawling? Not only does the weapon restriction give one particular segment of the population an unfair advantage, but it also takes away the biggest advantage of the recipient of a challenge to a duel-- choice of weapons.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!

Well you see killing... stuff is in our nature... Why do people go hunting? Why is that okay? Because we humans are superior to animals. Why do we simulate death and combat in movies, games, music, everything? Why do we have people volunteer for the military forces? To serve one's country? No. To kill others, to have an excuse to kill others. Our culture is based on violence and to deny that is naive. Be realistic its not going to change, its in our genes, so why restrict it when we urge for it so much? Why let it concentrate so it escapes in small doses of extreme cruelty... Why not let those who have the potential of murder lodged deep within them.... why not let them let it out on people who are willing to take it. Instead of waiting for it to burst and kill those who didn't deserve it.
Woah, you're nuts. I mean, I'm extremely sadistic and I wouldn't go as far as to go out and kill people.
Yet you point out no illogic in my reasoning. I could have just as easily called you a brainwashed puppet of civilization and not explained my reasoning.
It's the naive idealism that is drilled into our heads... Killing is no natural and is bad... A soldier, when he goes to war is protecting his country... Violence is bad... yet we watch it as entertainment... Fighting is bad yet we pay people money to watch them fight on pay-per-view in padded gloves.
There is the lack logic there. Civilization forces us to deny our savagery. Read Heart of Darkness or A Clockwork Orange... They'll open your eyes.
You base your beliefs on Clockwork Orange? I never read it, but, uh... Wasn't he insane?

I have nothing against fighting, but actively killing people for no reason? We've evolved past Survival of the Fittest, man. It won't happen again until we evolve beyond the need for tools, like in 2001: A Space Odyssey. And that's highly disputable that we ever will.

I agree with the stipulation that other weapons, not just sabres be allowed. I for example prefer twin rapiers.

Woah, you're nuts. I mean, I'm extremely sadistic and I wouldn't go as far as to go out and kill people.

You base your beliefs on Clockwork Orange? I never read it, but, uh... Wasn't he insane?

I have nothing against fighting, but actively killing people for no reason? We've evolved past Survival of the Fittest, man. It won't happen again until we evolve beyond the need for tools, like in 2001: A Space Odyssey. And that's highly disputable that we ever will.
Our entire culture is composed of closet sadists... God are you people even reading what I'm writing? I'm not saying, hey lets all go kill people. I'm saying why not allow for two people to fight to their death if both parties are willing?

I personally would not duel... but its the principle of the matter people.

Well then you just become good at duels rob a few banks then your set for life. YAY!!
How could duels being legal make it legal to rob banks. In a duel both people have to agree.

Haveing a duel should be legal because it would solve many trials and many murders. But a saber has to be the only weapon allowed to be used.
how would it be used for trials?