There's a political test by Ok Cupid that asks if two people should be allowed to have a duel to the death. I find it fascinating in the modern era that some might actually answer "yes" to such a question. I, for one, do not believe it is good for citizens to have free reign to fight to the death. We are supposed to be civilized. However, we do seem to have a culture that embraces violence in entertainment, so there are some unfulfilled urges. I supposed a fight to the death might help with those urges, but should we as a society allow such a battle to take place without the participants having the threat of legal liability afterward? In case anyone is wondering, the test says that I am a centrist.

I hereby challenge anyone who answers "yes" to a duel to the death.

One warning...I cheat so expect to be dead as soon as the duel begins.

I didn't vote yes, so I think i'm safe from Dan's cheating ways

I personally think that a duel is made for, well, idiots. Any problem no matter how hard can be solved with worlds, not bullets. It's a matter of both sides being able to work things out.

I also believe that anyone who says that it's their right to have a duel, I urge them to find a time machine and go back to the 1800's where duels happened once in a blue moon.

"Sir you have assaulted my honor, I challenge you to a duel with swords" (You may have reach due to length, but I am more efficient with the stabs! )

I did not answer Yes or No. It really depends on what context a duel is in. Western traditions with guns are basically marksmanship and speed of a trigger, which seems pretty stupid. Ancient eastern tradition has more agile sword motions for challenges to the death, which is stupid in the contemporary sense but on another level very honorable for two warriors to fight in order to prove fighting prowess. I think it is an interesting show of honor and fierce determination on both sides to prove a certain point. However, you are supposed to take care of the slain family members after they have fallen to you in a duel just as you would your own. That idea did not reach western traditional duels and made bitter rivalry between families inevitable. Shakespeare was right about the tradition being a "pox on both your houses"!

Maybe, I watched too much highlander re-runs as a kid!

Swords are fun. I took fencing in high school. Although, don't expect to win because I made sure your sword was made of tin while mine was made with tempered steel.

Thank goodness. Everyone seems to be voting, "Not just no but HELL no!"

My weapon of choice is the broadsword...

I think I would opt for a katana myself.

Believe it or not, but I've been thinking of this on and off over many years, though usually from a SF perspective (aliens kidnap me and put me in an arena to fight for their amusement. They make the mistake of giving me the choice of weapons....)

My weapon of choice is a kilogram of antimatter, held in a magnetic containment unit fitted with a deadman switch. If I die, the containment unit fails and the antimatter does what antimatter does when it comes in contact with matter.

Anyone who wants to watch the duel (and a large chunk of the surrounding neighbourhood) goes up in a big explosion if I lose....

umm...what if the aliens are nihilistic and love to die?

Well, the last traditional duel, i remember famously, was the Hamilton v. Burr duel that destroyed the federalist party and ushered in the beginnings of the Democratic party's predecessor.

That duel had a dramatic impact directing the US on a new path and maybe even helping ferment the turmoil that would lead to the Civil war.

I grant you that a katana is a beautiful and elegant weapon and quite deadly in skilled hands.

The big two-handed broadsword usually weighs 60-80 pounds. Most people have trouble holding it much less doing anything dangerous with it. If someone is strong enough to use it, it can really destroy things. It'll slice through a 4 X 4 like match sticks.

Another two vicious weapon that don't get the respect that they deserve are the battle ax and the war-hammer. Either one can do a whole lot of damage.

The old nuclear hand grenade trick: for when you gotta go and want to take them all with you.

A physical challenge is the last resort of a beaten man.

I voted no,

------> pacifist <-------


On the other hand, IF for whatever reason I entered into a serious physical fight in which I felt my life were in danger I almost certainly would fight to the death. I'm extremely disinclined to give up in general, and if I gained the upper hand I probably would kill my opponent because I would consider him/her too dangerous to allow to live. I would not consider it immoral to kill under such serious circumstances.

Same would apply if the aggressive life threatener were advancing on my child/lover/family/friend.

So really I guess I'm a pacifist with a clause.

I voted No, and I made the OK-Cupid test for confirmation. It confirmed what I allready know, I am a socialist !!
About my answer, it doesnt mean I will not fight to death if I'm attacked. Its self defence, and each law in every country accept it !

Kill them all and let jebus sort them out.

Answered yes: on condition that both persons consent to the duel and its done in a public forum with spectators I can charge to watch.

Also, my personal weapon of choice would be the warhammer. Always loved the looks of those things

Duels for the last hundred years at least had to be stopped at the first drop of blood. We live in civilized states, so killing each other seems a bit... medieval. And how can you gloat over the person you defeated if you killed him? So, no, no, no.

Sure. If two reasonable people want to kill each other, well, they can go right ahead. Doesnt bother or affect me, so why should I care?

Just to play devil's advocate what if one of the two people were your lover, mother, or brother?