Dave - if you want to pat yourself on the back for winning a debate that wasn't even being had, go right ahead.
My stance on fighting is this:
Fighting has its place in the game as a reaction to someone taking liberties with defenseless players who are simply trying to play within the "context of the game" as you like to put it. The key word here is reaction. I don't believe it is as strong of a deterrent to cheap play as officiating. If the officials on the ice would call the game the way it is supposed to be called, and if the guy in charge of supplemental discipline (or the union) would have the cajones to fine and/or suspend some of these repeat (and even first-time) offenders more severely than is already happening, I think the game would clean up immensely. I also disagree with fighting as a way to "spark" your team if you're getting your asses handed to you on the scoreboard. Again, instigator rules and such are supposed to help curb that crap. I hate watching blowouts turn ugly, just for the sake of being ugly.
As to your debate that you're supposedly having...
I don't believe I stated that fighting is to be used as the major deterrent for cheap-shots. I stated that it is a reaction to the low-lifers that use the "context" of the game to make disgusting, intent-to-injure type plays on guys that are just trying to play the game. You cited European hockey and it's lack of fighting as some sort of proof that fighting doesn't belong in the game because they still have cheap-shots taking place. Again, the cause-effect relationship isn't that fighting eliminates (or deters) cheap shots. The point I'm trying to make is cheap shots result in fighting. If you properly enforce and clean-up the cheap plays - the plays you don't seem too upset about because they happen while the puck is in play - you would have much, much less fighting. If I were commissioner, I wouldn't be focusing on fighting, so much as the garbage that leads to fighting.
I wonder how the first fight ever happened in hockey. Now, I wasn't there so I can't know for sure, but I bet it wasn't just because a couple guys decided to go for fun. I'm guessing there was probably some type of "incident" that led up to it. See what I'm saying? Sure, the "incidents" still happen in today's game despite fighting being allowed...but what came first...the incident or the fight? Clean up the crap within the "context of the game" and I bet fighting wanes considerably.
I also find it odd that you somehow give a pass to players who supposedly use the "context of the game" to take runs at other players who are simply trying to move the puck and score. How is a player that blindsides a puck-carrier high, or cross-checks someone into the boards from behind any less disgusting in your mind than two men who agree to go toe-to-toe, each man knowing full well what could be coming his way? I guess guys have free run as long as the puck is in play, right? But, God forbid the gloves come off after the whistle...
