Would you duel a sworn enemy?

[Dr.Rieux]

I’m a lover, not a fighter.
Okay, I’m not that much of a lover, either.

[ectype]

50% is bad odds. If I have a sworn enemy I think I’m allowed to bring in my gang.

[Wakinyan]

When I was young, yes.
As a father of three, no.

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

Hmmm…if I do, would I get his stuff?

If I win, I mean.

[GIGObuster]

http://www.pathguy.com/virchow.htm

I served in the German parliament as a leader of the progressives, while continuing my medical work. I led the opposition to Bismark’s 1865 demand for an inflated military budget. Bismark was so angry that he challenged me to a duel. This entitled me to select the weapons, and I chose “two pork sausages – a healthy cooked sausage, to be eaten by me, and an uncooked sausage loaded with trichinella larvae, to be eaten by Bismark.”

I think something was lost in translation there, in an early version in Spanish that I read, it was clear that the 2 sausages looked the same and that Bismark was the one that was going to choose.

A Princess Bride like duel 100 years earlier than William Goldman ever imagined.

[AdmiralCrunch]

@Dr. Virchow

This entitled me to select the weapons, and I chose “two pork sausages – a healthy cooked sausage, to be eaten by me, and an uncooked sausage loaded with trichinella larvae, to be eaten by Bismark.”

How the hell did this work? Don’t duelers have to use the same weapon? I understand he’s not being serious, but can’t Bismark just toss his sausage away and beat the life out of him?
How about beverages? I’ll have a beer, while my opponent has to drink a bottle of poison. Or even pistols. I’ll have a Desert Eagle, while my opponent has to use a non-functioning derringer replica that gives him AIDS when he pulls the trigger.

If we can use these rules, I’d have no problem dueling anyone, provided they challenged me first. In real life, I don’t know anyone I want to kill and I doubt I’d be much good at killing them given fair odds with a sword or gun.

Edit: Beaten to the punch, but it gives me an opportunity to try out this new edit feature.

[Lemur866]

Except back when people really did fight duels, it wasn’t like in the movies. If you were an expert swordsman, you could do anything you wanted, and if anyone didn’t like it? Challenge them to a duel, and you literally get away with murder. Duelists could insult and degrade anyone they wished, in all honor, and everyone else had the choice of either sucking it up, or ending up dead.

[silenus]

And since it was the challenged party that had the choice of weapons, the duelist always went with their strength.

[RikWriter]

I have no enemies worthy of hating.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

What? No shotgun duel option? I want to get Teddy Roosevelt on somebody!

[Bobotheoptimist]

After pondering this question for several minutes in a row, disregard my previous answer. The OP used the word “honorable”, and an honorable pistol dual is not to my liking. I’ve read that one procedure was something like - separated by an agreed upon distance one would aim their inspected but personal weapon at the other, and fire when a third party drops a handkerchief.

Not enough opportunity for skill to save my bacon in that kind of pistol dual. Maybe for honor I’d be willing to play that game, but a sworn enemy is getting his butt sniped.

[GIGObuster]

Speaking of weird duels, this thread reminded me of the duel between the French and the German in Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines, and I found a clip of it at YouTube:

“I choose balloons!” said the French to the pompous German general.

- YouTube

(The duel starts at 2:15)

[Hilarity_N.Suze]

I will fight barehanded. The TSA bitch can be armed with my 3-ounce bottle of hand lotion.

Hey, what the hell. She can have my nail clippers, too.

[Frank]

Though GIGObuster almost saved the day, I’ll move this from CS to IMHO.

[threnodyangelfire]

Bah. Only to death? You should be duelling to the pain

Wesley: “To the pain” means the first thing you lose will be your feet below the ankles. Then your hands at the wrists, next your nose.

Humperdink: And then my tongue, I suppose, I killed you too quickly the last time, a mistake I don’t mean to duplicate tonight.

Wesley: I wasn’t finished! The next thing you lose will be your left eye, followed by your right.

Humperdink: And then my ears, I understand! Let’s get on with it!

Wesley: WRONG! Your ears you keep and I’ll tell you why. So that every shreik of every child at seeing your hideousness will be yours to cherish. Every babe that weeps at your approach, every woman who cries out “dear God, what is that thing?” will echo in your perfect ears. That is what “the pain” means. It means I leave you in anguish. Wallowing in freakish misery forever

[GuyNblueJeans]

[QUOTE=Gundam_Cricket]
What do you mean by “no one else were to know of it?” Does that mean no witnesses?

I threw that in there because I doubt most people would want to live the rest of their lives with people whispering, “Oh, that’s the person that killed someone in a duel.”

It’s best to keep things nice and tidy.

[GuyNblueJeans]

@Frylock

It depends on what makes him my worst enemy.

Is it that he tries to kill or otherwise serious harm members of my immediate family? Then maybe I’d be willing to settle it that way, if for some reason law enforcement were not an option.

Is it that he keeps me from getting promoted at work? Then no.

Is it that he changes the channel when I’m watching TV?

**In your case, we’ll make believe that it stems from years ago when you suckered him into distributing Amway and, just as you were about to unleash him on the world, you said, “It’s your lucky day; 'cause today you’ll get a chance to earn my respect.”

And so he’s hated you ever since.

-FrL-

…

[GuyNblueJeans]

@Pochacco

Sir, the proper use of a duel is not to “settle a grudge”. It is to answer an affront to one’s honor. So duelling secretly is nothing more than common thuggery.

The point is not to kill your opponent – although often that happens. The point is to demonstrate that as a gentleman your good name means more to you than life itself and that your word is backed by your blood. This means that the act MUST be performed PUBLICLY … albeit often with a modicum of subterfuge to prevent the meddlesome authorities from intervening … .

I stand corrected. But if I could, I would challenge you to a duel for having embarrassed me!

[GuyNblueJeans]

@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

Hmmm…if I do, would I get his stuff?

If I win, I mean.

I had intended to write this post using an eccentric billionaire owning an island and using it to invite people that hate each others guts to sign a deal that would allow them to fight to the death and collect a goodly portion of the world-wide pay-per-view revenue with the winner getting, oh, let’s say half of the profits and the loser’s beneficiaries getting 2%.

It would be great entertainment, especially if during the hype leading up to the contest much was said about each contestant, as to put a human touch on it would allow each viewer to root for their favorite. (Can you imagine Rosie O’Donnel vs. the “Donald” … stalking each other with .22-cal. mini-machineguns in a tropical setting?)

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@Baldwin

Pistols, no. Swords, possibly.

Yes.

I would, however, cheat. In multiple ways, in fact.