ll. Mutual Semantic Confusion
Craig asserts that the inanibility to prove atheism leads you with agnosticism.
William Hitchens asserts that there is a huge leap from deism to theism.
The implementation of other styles isn’t significant enough for it to be considered a hybridized version, so it invariably falls into one category.
Your dojo is exceptional, but what you are taught is not accessible in most TKD dojos. McDojo’s and ATA are to blame for this.
The majority of current TKD dojos teach what was demonstrated in the videos. Infact, the only way for TKD to be useful nowadays is to cross-train in other styles.
BJJ may not be a 'pure' grappling style like Greco Roman-Wrestling because of the use of strikes but it is still technically categorized as grappling.
Now the defense they teach in TKD like the High Inward Strike which is generally taught to people to defend against people with a blade is fundamentally useless.
Similarly, you can't learn to punch properly using the punches from TKD and if you attempt it, will just feel extremely awkward.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67wTxE11EGk
The blocking in TKD is also insufficient. It will almost always NEVER work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7L9ImZH3Jo
TKD teaches some throws, but the use of grappling is minimal. So minimal in-fact, that it is unable to be used.
So this may mean that it isn't a PURE-striking sport, but it still falls under the category of striking.
“BULLSHIT! The women Ted bundy chose were built like dolls/barbies. They couldn't have outgrappled him, he's the type of dude that had wrist-flexing exercises regularly, he trained that strangle and grapple technique to the hilt. Also, he had tortured them for days before killing them, raping them multiple times. The only hope they had was effective striking but they were so scared they didn't know what to do.“
Strawman. Out-grappling implies that they overpowered him, I only said put up enough resistance to last long enough to escape.
“ In fact, it is instinctual to grapple back during a rape. I am sure many of them tried. The instinct when grabbed and overpowered is to push and grapple back. The less instinctive thing is to knee them hard in the stomach because you feel so weak and powerless you underestimate how that can affect their breathing and make them loosen their grip elsewhere. Effective striking was his victims' only hope and he intentionally had abused and malnourished them a lot before killing.”
Grappling and striking would be necessary in this scenario. There is no logical reason to believe only one could save them.
“One of Bundy's victims was 12 years old. My opponent's sick and vile advice is this 12 year old could have out-wrestled a grown man. Mos tof his victims were slim early-20s.”
Nope. Never made that claim.
You frequently resort to the use of straw-mans to make hyper-emotional arguments.
I was only referring to the women.
It’s semi-difficult to treat this debate as a logical discussion but I welcome the challenge. We’re both playing roles when you think about it.:
1. You pretend to be funny.
2. I pretend to take you seriously.
Situational awareness and intuition will more often than not allow you to anticipate whether you’ll be dogpiled or engaging one person the whole time.
It’s all about reading the room and in the chance you are outnumbered, any resistance is futile.
If you are getting coffee and a guy in line is alone and yelling at the waitress, you intervene and tell him to stop. Then he gets mad and challenges you to a fight in the parking lot, it is pretty safe to use grappling.
If you’re at a party and your friend gets drunk so you exchange harsh words and it turns into a fight, the likelihood of other people jumping in to go against you is unlikely. They’re probably going to try and break it up.
Likewise, if a perpetrator/instigator is with a group, then I’d say you wouldn’t grapple. But it’s usually pretty easy to tell if more people are going to jump in.
Against someone with a blade, most trained fighters (if they're wearing a belt.) remove their belt and wrap it around their arm to defend against the blade. Their arms are going to get stabbed, it's almost inevitable.
If someone is carrying a beer bottle, crow-bar, or baseball bat, then in this situation a grappler is practically the god of the domain. The ways in which a grappler can take control over this scenario are numerous.
If the martial artist in your video did take up grappling despite her build being incompatible with the sport, could she use it against people her own height and size?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGwcUJTDkqE (Skip to 2:09)
In this second video, there is a demonstration of the superpowers of grappling. The 250 charges the 150 grappler, tackles him, but the 150 uses the momentum to roll on top.
Similarly, knowing grappling can help because if you're trying to outrun someone and they tackle you and you have no ground game, you're screwed. However, if you have decent grappling experience and a big guy tries to tackle you, then you can counter by performing a sprawl and then putting him in a headlock while proceeding to choke him out.
Maybe. Being a versatile fighter is therefore the solution.
I won't deny that there are certainly situations where striking is better. But there isn't always a size gap between two people in a fight, so I'd say in most situations where the possibilities are limitless, grappling is more beneficial as its diversity is more adaptable. (Not always the case.)
Andy Kaufman never lost a wrestling match against women. Nowadays, if a prime Andy Kaufman time-traveled to 2022, a BJJ chick would fold him like a pretzel.
In most random fights, it is better to use grappling styles as a means of self-defense as opposed to striking styles. (At least, in general.)
(You never know the factors such as the height or build of the enemy, so grappling is more preferable as a style in unpredictable circumstances for everyone.)
The angle in which I'll be defending this point is from legality and adaptability.
I'm not entirely sure what you were trying to accomplish with this.
It's one thing to say I didn't provide a source, it's another to deliberately try and find fault by alleging misconduct, and then walk it back at the same time.
*inability.
I made a typo.
ll. Mutual Semantic Confusion
Craig asserts that the inanibility to prove atheism leads you with agnosticism.
William Hitchens asserts that there is a huge leap from deism to theism.
You got it sir
You broke the rules too.
We’re even
I WON’T GET A STARBUCKS GIFT CARD????!!!????
😡😡😡
I can’t wait to get my gift card!
I love vanilla frappucinos.
Thank you, friend!
Could you cast a vote please?
Because of my interest in the subject of Capitalism vs Socialism, I'll read any books you suggest.
The implementation of other styles isn’t significant enough for it to be considered a hybridized version, so it invariably falls into one category.
Your dojo is exceptional, but what you are taught is not accessible in most TKD dojos. McDojo’s and ATA are to blame for this.
The majority of current TKD dojos teach what was demonstrated in the videos. Infact, the only way for TKD to be useful nowadays is to cross-train in other styles.
Old Barney Kenobi demonstrating once again why he’s one of the best Jedi.
BJJ may not be a 'pure' grappling style like Greco Roman-Wrestling because of the use of strikes but it is still technically categorized as grappling.
Now the defense they teach in TKD like the High Inward Strike which is generally taught to people to defend against people with a blade is fundamentally useless.
Similarly, you can't learn to punch properly using the punches from TKD and if you attempt it, will just feel extremely awkward.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67wTxE11EGk
The blocking in TKD is also insufficient. It will almost always NEVER work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7L9ImZH3Jo
TKD teaches some throws, but the use of grappling is minimal. So minimal in-fact, that it is unable to be used.
So this may mean that it isn't a PURE-striking sport, but it still falls under the category of striking.
Wait.
Why do you say BJJ isn’t grappling?
Thank you for the kind support, sir!
You can be if you agree to be my Vice President.
Rule 2 can be declared void, given the circumstances.
“BULLSHIT! The women Ted bundy chose were built like dolls/barbies. They couldn't have outgrappled him, he's the type of dude that had wrist-flexing exercises regularly, he trained that strangle and grapple technique to the hilt. Also, he had tortured them for days before killing them, raping them multiple times. The only hope they had was effective striking but they were so scared they didn't know what to do.“
Strawman. Out-grappling implies that they overpowered him, I only said put up enough resistance to last long enough to escape.
“ In fact, it is instinctual to grapple back during a rape. I am sure many of them tried. The instinct when grabbed and overpowered is to push and grapple back. The less instinctive thing is to knee them hard in the stomach because you feel so weak and powerless you underestimate how that can affect their breathing and make them loosen their grip elsewhere. Effective striking was his victims' only hope and he intentionally had abused and malnourished them a lot before killing.”
Grappling and striking would be necessary in this scenario. There is no logical reason to believe only one could save them.
“One of Bundy's victims was 12 years old. My opponent's sick and vile advice is this 12 year old could have out-wrestled a grown man. Mos tof his victims were slim early-20s.”
Nope. Never made that claim.
You frequently resort to the use of straw-mans to make hyper-emotional arguments.
I was only referring to the women.
They’re imposing height restrictions, so catfishing as a dwarf tyrant won’t encourage female voters anyway.
You should really give up.
"My goal is not to entertain you, honey"
Good. Because you're not very successful at it.
At being consistently boring, yes.
You're 100% triggered.
It’s semi-difficult to treat this debate as a logical discussion but I welcome the challenge. We’re both playing roles when you think about it.:
1. You pretend to be funny.
2. I pretend to take you seriously.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Np!
Part of me believes you’re poking fun at the debate’s resolution.
Another part of me thinks you’re being serious.
If there’s a situation where you won’t only be struggling against one person, then it would be illogical to use grappling.
But most of the time, you’ll be able to tell.
Situational awareness and intuition will more often than not allow you to anticipate whether you’ll be dogpiled or engaging one person the whole time.
It’s all about reading the room and in the chance you are outnumbered, any resistance is futile.
If you are getting coffee and a guy in line is alone and yelling at the waitress, you intervene and tell him to stop. Then he gets mad and challenges you to a fight in the parking lot, it is pretty safe to use grappling.
If you’re at a party and your friend gets drunk so you exchange harsh words and it turns into a fight, the likelihood of other people jumping in to go against you is unlikely. They’re probably going to try and break it up.
Likewise, if a perpetrator/instigator is with a group, then I’d say you wouldn’t grapple. But it’s usually pretty easy to tell if more people are going to jump in.
Discussing the trivialities of extraordinary circumstances only derails the thread.
Any complaints against the 1v1 resolution aren't really that big of a deal.
But further mention of it will probably be ignored.
Hello, my good buddy. How are you?
Is that my cue to sound the boss music?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FM2WB0AyAjA
Most grapplers are willing to eat shots. A lot of people are untrained anyway, so their attacks can be circumvented by a proper takedown.
Against someone with a blade, most trained fighters (if they're wearing a belt.) remove their belt and wrap it around their arm to defend against the blade. Their arms are going to get stabbed, it's almost inevitable.
If someone is carrying a beer bottle, crow-bar, or baseball bat, then in this situation a grappler is practically the god of the domain. The ways in which a grappler can take control over this scenario are numerous.
I’m inclined to say no in the context of the debate.
But I believe striking is a better means of defense in a situation against someone with a blade. Grappling is useless here.
You can incapacitate them with a good few kicks to the patella and with solid boxing offense.
If the martial artist in your video did take up grappling despite her build being incompatible with the sport, could she use it against people her own height and size?
Yes. Circumstances are limitless. Weapons also apply.
My bad then.
No worries.
It was my first debate on the website, so I should have asked the other person to specify the topic more clearly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0qyyfmvGtI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGwcUJTDkqE (Skip to 2:09)
In this second video, there is a demonstration of the superpowers of grappling. The 250 charges the 150 grappler, tackles him, but the 150 uses the momentum to roll on top.
Similarly, knowing grappling can help because if you're trying to outrun someone and they tackle you and you have no ground game, you're screwed. However, if you have decent grappling experience and a big guy tries to tackle you, then you can counter by performing a sprawl and then putting him in a headlock while proceeding to choke him out.
Maybe. Being a versatile fighter is therefore the solution.
I won't deny that there are certainly situations where striking is better. But there isn't always a size gap between two people in a fight, so I'd say in most situations where the possibilities are limitless, grappling is more beneficial as its diversity is more adaptable. (Not always the case.)
Andy Kaufman never lost a wrestling match against women. Nowadays, if a prime Andy Kaufman time-traveled to 2022, a BJJ chick would fold him like a pretzel.
In most random fights, it is better to use grappling styles as a means of self-defense as opposed to striking styles. (At least, in general.)
(You never know the factors such as the height or build of the enemy, so grappling is more preferable as a style in unpredictable circumstances for everyone.)
The angle in which I'll be defending this point is from legality and adaptability.
You got it, sir
Would have made a longer post. Character limit is, unfortunately, only set to 100.
I'll tweak the description with any of your suggestions to make it fair.
I'm not entirely sure what you were trying to accomplish with this.
It's one thing to say I didn't provide a source, it's another to deliberately try and find fault by alleging misconduct, and then walk it back at the same time.
Incredible.
Same thing as a fight.
It can either refer to a bar brawl or a street fight.
No worries, it looks great!
That is precisely why Novice would never debate him.