Not so realistic as pointed out, and I could see a problem if the refs become hated for the blood money and other reasons:
(Jump to 7:46 to see what I mean)
Just a funny scene from the classic comedy “The Wrong Box”
I would think there will be trouble once refs (as money would corrupt this IMHO) figure out that it will be on their best interest to incite duels.
This finally gives me a chance to reference my copy of The Only Approved Guide Through All the Stages of a Quarrel: Containing the Royal Code of Honor; Reflections Upon Dueling; and the Outline of a Court for the Adjustment of Disputes; with Anecdotes, Documents and Cases, Interesting to Christian Moralist Who Decline the Combat; to Experienced Duellist, and to Benevolent Legislators by Joseph Hamilton first published in 1829. Damn, they sure did have long book titles back in the day.
I think it was on the History Channel that Sonny Barger said something about how great it would be if everybody could settle any kind of dispute with their fist. That’s really great when you’re an individual who knows how to hurt people but for the vast majority of us it’s going to be a bad thing. It might be difficult to exercise free speech when I have to worry about some yahoo challenging me to a duel because he doesn’t like the fact that I’m pro-choice. Yes, I can certainly turn down the duel, but there’s going to be significant social pressure on me to accept or look like I do not have the courage of my convictions.
Odesio
What is the result when duelling is legal? If you are a top duellist you are able to get away with absolutely anything, because anyone who annoys you can be threatened with challenge unless they back off. The actual result of legal duelling is to make a king of anybody with the fastest sword.
You would also see professional duelists pop up. People who could be paid (in secret) to instigate challenges.
Best case scenario, you would need to have legally defined rules and a legally sanctioned dueling ground, with certified referees who would need the power to kill duelists who break the rules. You would need protocols on who picks the weapons, and you would need weapons that anyone could reasonably use. If the results had a legal standing (e.g. winning the duel or having your opponent refuse the challenge is the same as a court finding in your favor in a libel suit), then it would give a legal advantage to those with training and/or natural abilities at fighting.
It is a romantic notion that you could deal with someone who wronged you or yours, but was not punished by the legal system for some reason (a rape case with insufficient evidence for example), but it would either give an unfair social/legal advantage to those with the resources and abilities to kill, or create a requirement for the government to provide duel training to all citizens. Either way, not something I can get behind.
Jonathan
Being able to maim or kill another person reflects on very few disputes. You may notice that there is no correlation between fencing skills and being right, except perhaps being right about one’s fencing skills.
And what about the many people who don’t accept this premise?
In other words, if a person does not accept that we are free to do ANYTHING with our bodies, how do you propose to convince that person that dueling is a good thing? What is wrong with society that dueling would correct?
But the challenged party gets to pick the weapons. Say you call me out for some reason. Fine, it’s on. Go time. Man up and meet me on the field of honor. I choose Silly String at 5 paces. 
Note: I am not threatening to squirt silly string at Lemur866. I do not own any Silly String, and do not know if it is still sold.
You could murder someone and all you need is a couple of bogus witnesses and a corrupt or lax notary and you’re in the clear.
Even easier is your opponent agrees to the duel, but you fix his gun so it doesn;t shoot, or drug him so he can’t shoot straight, or any of a dozen things.
That reminded me of this story:
The 19th-century German leader Bismarck was offended by Rudolf Virchow, a physician and politician, and challenged him to a duel. Virchow, had the choice of weapons.
He selected two sausages, one of which had been inoculated with a then almost 100% deadly disease, histories do not agree if it was Cholera or Trichinosis, but the infected sausage was identical to the healthy one. He then offered Bismarck his choice. The two would then eat the sausages.
Bismarck thought that was too gruesome or weird and he called off the duel.
Would you care to explain the reasoning behind your assertion that duelling should be treated in the same way?
IOW, X and Y want to fight a duel. This will occur on private property, and all participants are doing so consensually. Do you assert that they should be automatically arrested and/or institutionalized? Do you believe the same for other life-threatening, consensual behaviors?
And, as a follow-up, do you believe it is justified to steal from babies? 
Regards,
Shodan
It’s very simple.
Anybody who agrees to fight a duel is obviously too crazy to be allowed to fight a duel. Only people who refuse to fight a duel are sane enough to be allowed to fight a duel.
A lot of people misunderstand the concept behind a duel. It was not for the purpose of killing your opponent because you found him obnoxious. If you wanted to kill somebody, there were safer ways to do it. The purpose of a duel was to display the willingness to risk your own death.
Let’s say that you and the Duke of Earl have really strong feelings about cola. You think Coke is the best cola and he thinks Pepsi is the best. Heated words are exchanged on the issue (in modern times, they’d keep flaming each other on message boards like this one). Eventually one person challenges the other to a duel.
Now the challenged person has a choice. He asks himself “Do I really care so much about cola that I’m willing to stand there and let another person shoot a gun at me?” If the answer is no, then you say “Having thought it over, I’ve decided to switch to root beer.” If the answer is yes, then you fight.
The fight itself doesn’t resolve the issue. If you win, it doesn’t mean you proved Coke is better than Pepsi. It just means that you and the Duke both proved that you take your soft drinks really seriously and you have to respect each other’s opinion.
Duelling was the equivalent of “put up or shut up”. It was a way to call people on their bullshit. If they backed down, they were no longer taken seriously. You had pwned them and all their bases are belonged to you.
In any case, I don’t mind the proposal a bit. In fact, all objections could be easily met by having an official police presence, mandatory questioning beforehand, and the deed done in a public arena set aside for such a match. Frankly, it’s arguably more civilized than what we have now, and since duels need not be to the death, could permit and encouraged arguments to end. I concur with Little Nemo as to the nature and purpose of duels.
Could I challenge someone because he ended every post with “Valete”? I suspect that a lot of people here would volunteer to be my second. 
This is true today, though. All you need to cook up a bogus story of self-defense are a couple of willingly corrupt witnesses.
That’s some catch.
Regards,
Shodan
There are degrees of life-threateningness, and we certainly do legally regulate or prohibit behavior depending on how life-threatening it is.
The fatality rate for participants in a duel to the death is by definition guaranteed to be at least 50%. (The actual figures would be slightly higher due to the occasional cases where both participants are fatally injured.)
Show me any other legally permitted activity where the casualty rate is that high. Hell, not even soldiers sent into ground combat run up that kind of butcher’s bill.
So no, there is absolutely no logical necessity for permitting consensual fatal dueling on the grounds that we permit other risky behaviors. It makes sense to regulate behavior based on degree of risk, and the risk level of participating in a duel to the death is crazyfuck high.
**Non-**fatal duels of various types, as I noted, are already legal.
I disagree. Precisely in a thread in the SDMB I leaned, to my surprise, that duelling had been completely legal in some south american countries as late as 1997 or so.And if we didn’t hear about all those Argentinians killing each other is because… well, society had moved on and the whole concept was archaic.
Society does peer pressure people all the time to do violent stuff like joining the army. Would you ban that too?
(Cool. I get to play the Libertarian nutjob in a thread! I’ve always wanted to do this!)
So, to avoid the possibility of professional duelists, we should instead have government-supplied ‘semi-suicide booths’, which you’d deposit fifty cents, enter, and then there would be a precisely 50% chance that the box would kill you. These boxes would be installed in pairs, side-by-side, and would only start working when both boxes had been activated. Then, ten minutes into every drunken barfight, one guy could shout, “Oh yeah?? If you’re so certain coke is great, prove it in the booths!” And then the other guy would shout, “Yeah, let’s go!!” And then they could go down, get in the boxes, and prove their bravery.
As an added bonus, we could rig it so that the paired boxes always either kill both particapants, or neither. That way it eliminates the “coke is better because I got lucky” aspect of it.
The government would maintain the boxes, as a pulbic service for removing stupid people (or drunken people?) from society.
I think it’s fine as long as they use the Dreyfus Protocol instead of the Ellington Protocol…and if their one bullet is a paintball pellet. Wearing the mask is, of course, optional…
Other than that I think it’s a silly idea and I can’t see any benefit to it…while all of the reasons it IS a bad idea have pretty much been expressed in the thread already. But since no one mentioned either the Dreyfus or Ellington protocol I figured I’d put in my two cents (and cheap at double the price!) worth.
-XT