TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Should We Bring Back Duelling?

Go To

melloncollie Since: Feb, 2012
#26: Jan 30th 2011 at 1:14:50 AM

Man, if your reasoning for this is "young men need an outlet for violent urges", then we'd be better off institutionalizing hunting and requiring everyone to wrestle their food to death.

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#27: Jan 30th 2011 at 1:16:32 AM

Now there's an idea, pay people to capture live animals and make them fight to the death with humans in the arena.. Human is killed or knocked unconscious, the animal goes free.

The anti-hunting people might feel a little better, since now they can't say "BUT GUNS ARE UNFAIR, THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE A CHANCE!"

And Venison tastes so much better when you've squeezed the life out of it yourself..

JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#28: Jan 30th 2011 at 1:22:00 AM

I'd like it instituted, if only so that I could challenge political leaders to a duel and hopefully get them to stop their policies if I win.

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#29: Jan 30th 2011 at 1:45:03 AM

Politicians would cheat and abuse the system see historical examples.

edited 30th Jan '11 1:45:19 AM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
Funnyguts Since: Sep, 2010
#30: Jan 30th 2011 at 1:47:08 AM

^^Also that's a great way to break democracy. I guess if you enjoy living in a... a... *goes and looks up the word that means 'rule by force'*

Edit: The best I found was Ochlocracy, but that applies more to a mob of people than organized duels. Close though.

edited 30th Jan '11 1:50:49 AM by Funnyguts

Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#31: Jan 30th 2011 at 1:47:09 AM

Yes, but make a written contract that has to be signed in the presence of somebody with authority.

Fight smart, not fair.
JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#32: Jan 30th 2011 at 1:53:49 AM

Have a duelling committee, and allow seconds to participate in duels should the challenger/challengee be too old/sick. Also, didn't a VP duel someone in America once and that didn't lead to the end of democracy.

Funnyguts Since: Sep, 2010
#33: Jan 30th 2011 at 1:56:09 AM

^It happened once, and wasn't to change policy. Speaking of, that reminds me that most duels at the time had you intentionally miss your opponent, instead of actually trying to injure or kill them. It was just stupid pointless formality. This thread is suggesting even farther.

JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#34: Jan 30th 2011 at 1:58:54 AM

I'm not suggesting it with any degree of seriousness, just as a minor side thing.

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#35: Jan 30th 2011 at 2:10:48 AM

Or on a larger scale, where armed conflicts are set in smaller scale where A and B countries have a territory dispute, and settle it using C amounts of troops each with specific rules on gear and winning conditions for the scenario.

Sure, people still die, but we can do this at mock battlefields away from civilization, and only volunteer soldiers die. Whoever trains the most badass and elite force that can topple anyone else is essentially going to win the most disputes and get what they want the most, but it saves us from all these proxy wars of the current modern era.

I've always found it to be an interesting concept. Say with Georgia, the US decides to represent them and have a 600 on 600 fight against Russia, only Small Arms are allowed, and there is a specific victory condition other than attrition being a win by default. Whoever wins the engagement wins the territory.

Funnyguts Since: Sep, 2010
#36: Jan 30th 2011 at 2:11:10 AM

^^That was not clear from your post.

If you can't tell I find the whole dueling idea regressive and ridiculous.

^We couldn't do it with paintballs, Gundam Fights, or diplomacy? If those don't work to end a conflict, I can't imagine killing a tiny force off in one skirmish will stop countries from just invading with a full force anyway.

edited 30th Jan '11 2:13:12 AM by Funnyguts

JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#37: Jan 30th 2011 at 2:15:23 AM

Oh, sorry. Well I thought it would be pretty hard to take seriously. I mean its flippin' deulling, it can't really be "brought back".

And that is the problem there Barkey, military leaders won't abide by the set of standards if they think they can win another way.

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#38: Jan 30th 2011 at 2:18:42 AM

That's what MAD is around for. You don't need a huge standing army if every country has nukes, because it means the end of the world.

Then the only snafu is if the wrong person gets control of a country, which is an unfortunate reality.

I think I'd just like any excuse to bring back blood sport though.

edited 30th Jan '11 2:19:22 AM by Barkey

Funnyguts Since: Sep, 2010
#39: Jan 30th 2011 at 2:22:09 AM

Oh good, giving everyone nukes will prevent them from ever being used. It's not like anyone's ever going to be sore about losing a skirmish enough to snap and invade despite the danger of nuclear war.

Missed your edit.

Another edit: I am disappointed with Wikipedia's articles on displacement/catharsis and sublimation. I was hoping to use them if the subject came up.

edited 30th Jan '11 2:31:27 AM by Funnyguts

DarkDecapodian The Prodigal Returns from the fold Since: Apr, 2009
The Prodigal Returns
#40: Jan 30th 2011 at 2:43:27 AM

@ melloncollie: I'm afraid I'm still going to side with the duelling idea, for the sole reason that deer don't piss me off.

Aww, did I hurt your widdle fee-fees?
Funnyguts Since: Sep, 2010
#41: Jan 30th 2011 at 3:08:32 AM

I propose that instead of creating a taxpayer-funded dueling system people instead agree to stop their fighting, leave each other alone for a while, and go off and find better ways to handle their anger such as transferring it into something creative, which is more likely to reduce anger over the long term than trying to displace it. After that, those involved either leave each other be, or meet up and try to apologize and/or work out their differences. It's far more constructive and less violent. Besides, you have to stop or prevent a fight to demand a duel as suggested by the OP, so stopping or preventing a fight to encourage sublimation doesn't seem any less reasonable.

BlueNinja0 The Mod with the Migraine from Taking a left at Albuquerque Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
The Mod with the Migraine
#42: Jan 30th 2011 at 3:49:55 AM

I would totally watch televised Rose duels if they were on. Although, I doubt any of the duelists would be as awesome as Undocumented Features.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
myrdschaem Since: Dec, 2010
#43: Jan 30th 2011 at 7:15:19 AM

Only if you use something like stone, scissors, paper. Or possible Card Games. Seriously, no. I still don't get why some students in Europe are even training for duels when it's illegal...

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#44: Jan 30th 2011 at 7:33:38 AM

I propose that instead of creating a taxpayer-funded dueling system people instead agree to stop their fighting, leave each other alone for a while, and go off and find better ways to handle their anger such as transferring it into something creative, which is more likely to reduce anger over the long term than trying to displace it. After that, those involved either leave each other be, or meet up and try to apologize and/or work out their differences. It's far more constructive and less violent. Besides, you have to stop or prevent a fight to demand a duel as suggested by the OP, so stopping or preventing a fight to encourage sublimation doesn't seem any less reasonable.

Fuck you, pussy.

Kidding, but really, I would prefer a dangerous world to one where everybody is passive aggressive as hell, and the one day I decide to punch someone in the face it isn't culturally accepted.

Funnyguts Since: Sep, 2010
#45: Jan 30th 2011 at 7:46:02 AM

Sublimation is not passive agressive.

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#46: Jan 30th 2011 at 7:50:17 AM

That would be a side-effect of such behavior, I don't think the human race is capable of not having immediate outlets for stress and aggression.

Though I've always been more of a verbal stress release person. A good "Fuck you" makes my heart warm.

Funnyguts Since: Sep, 2010
#47: Jan 30th 2011 at 7:59:17 AM

And controlled duels don't seem that immediate, unless you require every bar in the country to be a block away from a sanctioned area.

Kino Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: Californicating
#48: Jan 30th 2011 at 8:12:46 AM

We cold make that mandatory.

FrodoGoofballCoTV from Colorado, USA Since: Jan, 2001
#49: Jan 30th 2011 at 8:34:46 AM

The way dueling worked in the old days, ...Or So I Heard, is that if someone insulted you, they could challenge you to a duel. I'm not talking jokingly calling someone an obscenity, I'm talking something there would be a lawsuit over today, or making a serious accusation of infidelity. That tended to keep the courts free of frivilous cases, and kept society polite because you knew that if you crossed some line of reasonable behavior, there was a possibility your "victim" could kill you for it.

  • Children in many families were brought up to have a religious devotion to their "sense of honor" to encourage people not to abuse the system.
  • If you refused to challenge an accusation your peers felt should warrant a duel, or refused a duel when your peers felt it the challenge was justified, you were assumed to be guilty until proven innocent, and were "without honor", which often resulted in ostracism. In some subcultures, this was considered a Fate Worse than Death.
  • If you won, it was presumed any accusations against you that led to the duel was false. The belief was that righteous anger would allow the innocent man to win, and if not, then that must be the will of God.
  • If you lost, in some subcultures you were assumed guilty but had "paid your debt to society" and were either forgiven or executed for the crime (often this was a Mercy Kill).
  • In other subcultures, if both duelists let their opponent take a shot at them without flinching, both were forgiven.

But eventually it fell apart. The problem was that some people realized that winning a duel was a "get out of jail free card", so if you wanted to kill someone, you could train to become an expert duelist, and then goad your target into a duel. Something similar could happen again, where dueling essentially became an excuse to beat people up without external penalty. It could also result in people who avoided conflict becoming second - class citizens.

The other thing that ended dueling was the U.S. Civil War and World War I. The death tolls that resulted from what had previously been seen as honorable ways to fight tanished the reputation of "honor". Unfortunately, that has led us to a world where, amung other things, we get lawsuits and required reporting over a cup of spilt coffee or a tiny dent in a car.

edited 30th Jan '11 8:37:29 AM by FrodoGoofballCoTV

Kino Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: Californicating
#50: Jan 30th 2011 at 8:37:48 AM

I was just about to bring that up; some of us are good with a gun or a sword.cool


Total posts: 88
Top