We should bring back honorable duels.

So, first I want to start my round with a question. Why does the person have to be honorable for the act to be honorable? Your talking about the intentions of the people in the duel. That is not the point at all. Their intentions don't matter at all. As long as they follow the agreed upon rules what isn't honorable about that? Now your comparing a duel, a 1 on 1 battle, to Birmingham in 1963? Why don't you just compare it to Hiroshima in WW2? That would be just as ridiculous. Your totally warping the whole topic with your interpretations of simple words. you think fights that would happen anyway, taking place, would lead to bombings? Well that is all shades of idiotic. If that were true there would be bombings all over America every day. Here is a statement I want you to oppose. Having 2 men fight in a controlled environment, to rules agreed upon by both parties, is WORSE than having them just brawl it out where ever the dispute took place? I know fighting is illegal, but it happens everyday. To say that making it legal as long as you do it in a proper manner with rules and witnesses, there is a problem there? The fights are going to happen anyway, why not regulate them? As for the official that would witness the duel. What do you call those people that watch over our safety? You know, the guys with guns. Police! Yeah, them. Why can't they do it? Odds are if the two parties just fought where ever they were the police would end up there anyway right? Hell, I bet the cops would rather see a duel then clean up a brawl. It would probably be quicker and easier to document than a shootout in somebody' s house. I don't see how paying police is a bad thing. Actually, I bet there would be less man hours and less paperwork than at a regular fight. As for the Bruce Willis quote it was not from a movie. A liberal activist was asking him how he can morally make such violent movies. Which brings up another point my opponent tried to make. I never said legal duels would eliminate violence, that is just ignorant. I said it would reduce it. It would. If you could just use a little common sense. Ok, you wrote way to much for me to respond to, but most of it was irrelevant or I acknowledged it. I don't have that much time. But I think I have made my point a few times without have to try and break down every word my opponent used to respond. My opponent spent more time attacking my wording than attacking my points. Which goes to show that my points are too simple and logical to attack. In closing. A fight that would happen anyway, being placed in a regulated environment, with rules agreed to by both parties, with an officer present to witness the duel, is a lot safer than just some bar room brawl. My opponent compared a duel to a church bombing. He says that the people aren't honorable who would duel. Well, I defy that by saying the people don't have to be honorable, just the duel, and duels have been around for thousands of years, including england in the 1800's, their society didn't collapse. I don't know about you, but I would rather people fight in a regulated, controlled, environment. It is much safer to the combatants and to those around them. That cannot be denied if common sense is applied. http://laughingwolf.net...