The point of a duel is not to find a winner.
The point is, it PROVES there was an insult and incident because both participants agree to fight over it. It draws a line in the sand and says, "You must apologize or cross it". The winner isn't "right" and the loser "wrong" (though at some times and places people said God guided the hand of the right) - it's merely a situation that can only be settled with blood.
It's not about killing your opponent, it's about clearing the air. It's about SHOWING up to the duel so your honor is intact. It's about how you behave when fighting the duel.
The purpose of the duel is to clear the air by putting both participants in mortal danger, which is why I would say that duels to surrender should have a chance of death.
To refer back to pistol duels (the only kind I know anything about, really), the main idea is that both participants would likely remain unscathed, especially if they did it at a fair distance. They often only took one or two shots at eachother and the pistols were inaccurate as all hell, but it proved the honor of both men because they willingly risked their lives, and it would put their grievances aside.
The entire purpose of my suggestion is so that "winning" and "losing" are less important.
