Dueling, where a man challenges his peer to Pistols at dawn was a popular and manly way to settle disputes up until the 1820's. Clearly the public interest will be piqued and the outcome is not necessarily the death of one of the combatants. The belief of the challenger must be such that the risk of injury or even death is worthy of the dispute, the winner by God's will, the winner of the argument. In obvious addition it should be added that the right to challenge persons of high order shall be determined by the court. A personality such as Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn would otherwise be subject to constant challenge. Suffice to say a standoff with pistols should only be possible for those of equal status: Thus Jeremy could challenge Boris, but the rest of the country, even with sufficient grudge as now is the case, could challenge neither. How would the outcome of such masculine determination be reported in the press. Would the best events be televised? For the more mundane disputes of "Were you looking at me" would the virtuous triumph due to their sober nature or would the animal instinct of the baser man be racking up scores like a German fighter pilot on the Eastern Front? I, of course, as a civilised man of this TL, find this whole concept despicable. But if by some warp and weft of God's will, it became possible, I am asking the collegiate of this forum to describe the very possible monstrosity this might entail.