Welp... I was gonna leave something for my second round. But I caught one of those viral infections flying around and had to go to the doctor and was vomiting mucus and coughing a lot. Today is the first day I felt normal in almost a week.
Yeah but, currently, scientists have found that yhe planet is in a state of genetic decay. The global gene pool has literally been eroding at unprecedented rates:
https://www.dandc.eu/en/article/biodiversity-eroding-and-impacts-human-health-are-not-understood
https://www.dw.com/en/biodiversity-loss-is-humanitys-greatest-threat/a-62113416
1. Dictionary for all words is Merriam Webster's dictionary.
2. Definition of evolution: the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization.
3. Definition of hoax: something established on fraud and fabrication
In handsome people with big dicks (or tits, for women) are the survivors who procreate then why are most people procreating with out-of-shape, dopey slobs who don't even have big equipment?
Seriously, look around, 99%+ of the world is fucking other people. And most people do end up getting married and having children anyways. You can't yell me 99% of the world is handsome with big dicks or tits. So evolution has, if anything, stagnated 6000 years ago at best for virtually every species on the planet.
I could do that for sure. But why should I when Wylted did not make that clear at the start?
People have been using the comments for their sources for years now. Why is it suddenly bad when I do it? It isn't as if I am continuing my argument in the comments section, as that would blatantly violate the character count limit, since it is phrased "characters per argument," meaning if I go over that, and start posting the rest of my argument in the comments section, then that is clearly going over the argument count.
But your job as a mod is to enforce the rules, not people's feelings. What rule have I broken? Where did Wylted ban citations in the comments before I accepted? Why do I need to agree to rules halfway through the debate?
You're a mod. It is your job to make rulings on these things. If it isn't banned in the beginning or by the website, then am I forced to agree to post-agreement rules?
If we allow people to make rules for the debate after the debate begins, where does it end?
Someone can just go "dude that source shouldn't be used." And now that's a rule.
Unless it is expressly forbidden, I think it is a dangerous precedent to allow people to make rules after the debate begins. We should only be judged on what we agreed to at the start. If not then why can't Wylted just make rules halfway through like "wrong dictionary." Or "wrong format" or "no sources from xxx"?
If we allow it here, then it opens the door wide open to blanket rules AFTER the debate begins, on a whim.
Why should I agree to last-minute rules that do mot break site-wide rules or guidelines? Oromagi and I did it in my voter fraud debate. People do it all the time on here. I'd understand if nobody did this, but people do it all the time. So why do I have to follow a new rule halfway through the debate to ban something that is commonly practiced on the site already?
It's not my fault you failed to make that clear in the debate description.
In fact you made nothing clear in the debate description. I could write complete gibberish and it could be accepted. I could write my argument in French and put my citations in leet speak if I so choose. You did absolutely nothing to prevent me from doing so.
You had a perfectly valid description with which to make use of your "stipulations" and you decided not to. Ergo, I don't have to post my citations in the debate because you made no law against it. I don't have to agree to your post-debate additions last minute. They weren't there when I started. That's on you for not doing so.
Oh for sure the US military commits acts of terror all the time. But so does Islam. Believing both isn't mutually exclusive.
Virtually every government commits acts of terror. That makes them all terrorists. Iran, though, commits significantly more than most, and Islam is its religion.
Well, considering at least 8 people were hospitalized after receiving the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, and considering thousands were hospitalized with heart attacks and heart problems due to the mRNA vaccine, I'd say putting yourself at risk of dying by taking a vaccine just to have an inferior vaccine immunity is also not a great tradeoff.
It may be too late to chime in here, but to me, if a religion pushes acts of terror, it is pushing terrorism. RM conclusively proved Islam pushes acts of terror. So it is a terrorist religion. Wish I could have voted but I'm seeing this too late.
It would be interesting to see a debate over whether any singular regulation is better than no regulation at all. Because liberals and libertarians generally have a fundamental disagreement on which would be better.
To a libertarian, for the overwhelming majority of regulations and government departments out there, things would be better without its existence and the regulations. But liberals believe that most regulations and government departments are better than none at all.
That is the real debate here. So to answer it, I believe a true-to-the-issue debate of whether any regulation at all, could be something everyone loves or something difficult to defend, makes society an inherently better place than no regulations.
Gosh I want to take this just for fun, lol. I just may in a couple days if nobody else does. Idk. But I don't think you want to debate a polemics practicer on this one.
Also, fwiw, I am not a "vaccine doubter." The data does show that if you are 65+, getting the vaccine has almost no serious side effects and is successful at preventing COVID-19 compared to other age groups. So, scientifically, the COVID vaccine is practically harmless for the elderly.
But what remains to be seen is whether negative immunity from the vaccine also extends into the elderly.
But mRNA vaccines in general are still experimental. They are different from traditional vaccines, in particular inactive virus vaccines, which were used to fight smallpox successfully.
It's a hard sale to tell me vaccines don't work, particularly because I've been vaccinated myself in the past. It is just this particular vaccine that has not really been shown to work all that well in studies and been shown to have an unusually high prevalence of dangerous side effects.
Considering COVID-19 has a 99.5%+ survival rate in non-immunocompromised adults under the age of 65, why take an experimental vaccine that comes with serious side effects like heart attacks, bell palsy, blood clots, and more? I've also already had both original COVID and Omicron. So I am naturally immune. There's no reason to get a vaccine if you are immune already. That's what the point of vaccines were supposedly for, making someone immune.
But the study I cited was a 1 to 1 ratio between vaccinated and unvaccinated people controlling for comorbities to make the populations the same. This is completely different than doing what the WaPo epidemiologist is saying people are doing.
What the WaPo epidemiologist is saying is people sre looking at raw, un-normed case data and making unquantified observations. This isn't what the study did. The study quantified the data, defined the data, and made it as similar as possible to the unvaccinated so a really accurate model was drawn. And they found the vaccines were the only difference between the infection rates of the groups. All other variables were controlled.
The WaPo epidemiologist is right that many are just looking at the raw case numbers and not going deeper. They did it with the unvaccinated for 2 years, now they are doing it with the vaccinated. But the study did not do this. It actually controlled for variables and built two similar populations of the same size in a 1 to 1 ratio as much as possible, even getting the same distribution of age and comorbidities.
I'd be willing to debate the existence of God with you. But my argument is completely different from what PRO did here, so idk whether you'd want to or not.
If you are looking for someone to debate philosophical models of God's existence, then Lxam would probably be better. But if you're looking to debate the existence of God in general, then I'm down. I think God's existence is the only logical conclusion there is.
We can do it while we also do the chemotherapy debate.
Honestly, my approach would have been to sidestep PRO's line of reasoning entirely, use a completely different definition of "secure" (since neither a dictionary nor a definition was provided in the description) and then built my case off that.
I'd also make some case about Merriam Webster being a joke dictionary written by hacks (there's NO SHORTAGE of academics and experts who state this) and, if necessary, go into the lexicographical origins of "secure" to prove my definition is more reliable. PRO would be forced to defend his definition, which is the crux of his whole argument, and the debate sides in my favor from there, since I have successfully discredited his dictionary and therefore his definition, and remade the debate in my favor.
And THAT is why I always say which dictionary I am using for debates. Because someone actually did something similar to ME before and demolished me. I had to spend the whole debate on damage control and fighting two fronts instead of arguing the topic.
"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."
Well if it incorporates other things than grappling then it isn't grappling. If it, by its very nature, disagrees with its own classification, then it can't be that classification. It is a hybrid form. Virtually every form of martial arts is not one style. They are all hybrids of everything. TKD has grappling in it. Kung Fu has judo in it. Wing Chun has submission holds. These are all elements of grappling. Therefore they are not "striking" arts.
"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."
First of all, that is NOT what that is used for. When I was taught TKD, they told me never to use that for knives because they can simply just stab you instead. The High Inward Strike is designed for grabs to throw the person off-balance because their momentum will be redirected across their body. You are supposed to follow it up with kneeing them into the side to crack their ribs. But even moreso, they said it is generally a weak block for mostly everything else and should be substituted for an outward block because an inward strike will likely not stop the momentum of a punch.
Knife defense is usually only taught at much higher levels and is mostly locks and submissive holds with disarming techniques. But even so, at my do jang they said "this stuff is all for show. It probably won't work in the real world. The best thing to do when they have a knife is to de-escalate the situation. If you can't de-escalate the situation, then redirect the blow using simple blocking techniques. But you will probably get stabbed or sliced."
"Similarly, you can't learn to punch properly using the punches from TKD and if you attempt it, will just feel extremely awkward."
idk where that black belt got their black belt, but that punch was the exact opposite of what I was taught. First of all, any TKD instructor who is worth their salt will tell you NOT to completely extend your arm like that. Second of all, you are supposed to aim with the index and middle finger nuckles, which will concentrate the punch into its most potent positions, which she did not do. Third of all, the punch loses its potency and power when you do NOT snap your fluid punch motion. It is those three combinations that make the punch powerful. Without it you might as well just slap them.
The blocking in TKD is also insufficient. It will almost always NEVER work."
I've actually successfully blocked many a punch using my TKD training. So I can tell you from experience that that is a load of horseshit. At my do-jang, we had weekly sparring classes. They allowed head punches and kicks and basically everything except groin shots and breaking bones. The blocks work. Let me tell you, they do.
But back to that video. In my do-jang, we NEVER told people to use those blocks for fights. They were considered those "just for show" blocks that wouldn't work in the real world. The blocks we were taught to use for sparring are the redirection of the punch and the leg block that muay thai fighters often use. This is because a kick from a seasoned pro would require kicking force to counter. Plus, it allows a fighter to retaliate with a kick of their own. For punshes we used the in to out block and snapped it in place with complete force while making sure the top third of the forearm was used. This takes advantage of the weaker inner forearm bone that is also extra sensitive to pain and also redirects the punch outward and away from the body, allowing the TKD fighter to counter with a punch or a kick by redirecting their opponent's energy.
In short, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. My do jang actually took the time to teach us what works and doesn't work in the real world, not in the fantasy land of TV movies and forum debates and tournaments. Granted, most do-jangs do not teach sparring, and this is a mistake, but mine did, and I am thankful for it. They also complained that most do-jangs do not properly teach techniques. Thankfully, mine did, and we practiced it in sparring class, so we knew it worked.
I will try to get to this one.
I also owe AustinL and Lancelot a vote on their prison debate.
Care to vote? It's a technical full forfeit since Wylted forfeited 3 out of 4 rounds.
Welp... I was gonna leave something for my second round. But I caught one of those viral infections flying around and had to go to the doctor and was vomiting mucus and coughing a lot. Today is the first day I felt normal in almost a week.
I'll just take your word for it.
Yeah but, currently, scientists have found that yhe planet is in a state of genetic decay. The global gene pool has literally been eroding at unprecedented rates:
https://www.dandc.eu/en/article/biodiversity-eroding-and-impacts-human-health-are-not-understood
https://www.dw.com/en/biodiversity-loss-is-humanitys-greatest-threat/a-62113416
Btw, I will accept if these changes are made:
1. Dictionary for all words is Merriam Webster's dictionary.
2. Definition of evolution: the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization.
3. Definition of hoax: something established on fraud and fabrication
4. Arguments one week, not 2 days.
5. One forfeit = auto-loss
In handsome people with big dicks (or tits, for women) are the survivors who procreate then why are most people procreating with out-of-shape, dopey slobs who don't even have big equipment?
Seriously, look around, 99%+ of the world is fucking other people. And most people do end up getting married and having children anyways. You can't yell me 99% of the world is handsome with big dicks or tits. So evolution has, if anything, stagnated 6000 years ago at best for virtually every species on the planet.
Why don't you just do judicial decision instead of public voting?
CON has no BoP? Why bother lol
For real or are you joking?
Welp... I'm awaiting my vote to be reported lol
Now, are we gonna debate or are you gonna continue trying to impose rules after-the-fact?
Now why would I type in Tesla ads when that is off-topic from the debate? I might as well just resign in that case since I'd lose anyways.
The character limit is clearly there FOR ARGUMENTS. It is labeled "characters per argument." It is not labeled "characters per round."
If you think sources are the same as an argument, then why bother even typing an argument? Why not just list articles and call that an argument?
You and I both know they are different things.
I could do that for sure. But why should I when Wylted did not make that clear at the start?
People have been using the comments for their sources for years now. Why is it suddenly bad when I do it? It isn't as if I am continuing my argument in the comments section, as that would blatantly violate the character count limit, since it is phrased "characters per argument," meaning if I go over that, and start posting the rest of my argument in the comments section, then that is clearly going over the argument count.
Thanks for clarifying.
Fair enough. I had thought this would have fallen under mod discretion, but I can see your side of things.
Thoughts?
But your job as a mod is to enforce the rules, not people's feelings. What rule have I broken? Where did Wylted ban citations in the comments before I accepted? Why do I need to agree to rules halfway through the debate?
You're a mod. It is your job to make rulings on these things. If it isn't banned in the beginning or by the website, then am I forced to agree to post-agreement rules?
If we allow people to make rules for the debate after the debate begins, where does it end?
Someone can just go "dude that source shouldn't be used." And now that's a rule.
Unless it is expressly forbidden, I think it is a dangerous precedent to allow people to make rules after the debate begins. We should only be judged on what we agreed to at the start. If not then why can't Wylted just make rules halfway through like "wrong dictionary." Or "wrong format" or "no sources from xxx"?
If we allow it here, then it opens the door wide open to blanket rules AFTER the debate begins, on a whim.
Why should I agree to last-minute rules that do mot break site-wide rules or guidelines? Oromagi and I did it in my voter fraud debate. People do it all the time on here. I'd understand if nobody did this, but people do it all the time. So why do I have to follow a new rule halfway through the debate to ban something that is commonly practiced on the site already?
The website prevents plagiarism already. So you didn't have to. The website doesn't prevent citations in the comments. So you had to.
No. I am telling you that you did not forbid it.
It's not my fault you failed to make that clear in the debate description.
In fact you made nothing clear in the debate description. I could write complete gibberish and it could be accepted. I could write my argument in French and put my citations in leet speak if I so choose. You did absolutely nothing to prevent me from doing so.
You had a perfectly valid description with which to make use of your "stipulations" and you decided not to. Ergo, I don't have to post my citations in the debate because you made no law against it. I don't have to agree to your post-debate additions last minute. They weren't there when I started. That's on you for not doing so.
You're currently in 10 debates? Where do you find the time???
As any shrewd debater should do. There's no law against reporting debates.
I will try to get to this one.
Round 1 Sources:
[1] https://www.justfacts.org/education
[2] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_302.20.asp
[3] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_326.20.asp
[4] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_326.10.asp
[5] https://californiapolicycenter.org/race-preferential-college-admissions/
[6] https://www.housecallpro.com/resources/news-press/trending/trade-school-vs-college/
[7] https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2017/07/13/new-york-fed-highlights-underemployment-among-college-graduates/?sh=2803107540d8
[8] https://www.aier.org/article/sorry-bernie-bros-free-college-will-cost-you/
[9] https://www.aei.org/articles/what-european-countries-sacrifice-for-free-college/
[10] https://checkyourfact.com/2017/11/30/fact-check-have-10000-dreamers-lost-their-daca-status/
[11] https://thedispatch.com/article/did-rep-dan-crenshaw-shout-at-a-0/
Is this reserved for anyone?
I'd be happy to schedule it. I have two upcoming debates with AustinL and Whiteflame.
"they are not following islam"
But they ARE following the Quran and pedophile rapist Muhammad.
Last I checked, the Quran is the gold standard of Islam, not imams and councils.
Oh for sure the US military commits acts of terror all the time. But so does Islam. Believing both isn't mutually exclusive.
Virtually every government commits acts of terror. That makes them all terrorists. Iran, though, commits significantly more than most, and Islam is its religion.
Ergo, Islam is a terror organization.
https://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/terrorism.htm
https://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/terrorist.htm
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/ACLURM001331.pdf
https://www.unaoc.org/repository/8412Jihad,%20Holy%20or%20Unholy%20War,%20J.%20Esposito.pdf
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/jihad-crime-and-internet-content-analysis-jihadist-forum
I could go on and on, but the point is, there's a reason Islam is the religion with the most amount of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers.
Well, considering at least 8 people were hospitalized after receiving the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, and considering thousands were hospitalized with heart attacks and heart problems due to the mRNA vaccine, I'd say putting yourself at risk of dying by taking a vaccine just to have an inferior vaccine immunity is also not a great tradeoff.
So, you're basically an opportunist, like most members of government.
It may be too late to chime in here, but to me, if a religion pushes acts of terror, it is pushing terrorism. RM conclusively proved Islam pushes acts of terror. So it is a terrorist religion. Wish I could have voted but I'm seeing this too late.
Are you one of those "zionists rule the world" people?
It would be interesting to see a debate over whether any singular regulation is better than no regulation at all. Because liberals and libertarians generally have a fundamental disagreement on which would be better.
To a libertarian, for the overwhelming majority of regulations and government departments out there, things would be better without its existence and the regulations. But liberals believe that most regulations and government departments are better than none at all.
That is the real debate here. So to answer it, I believe a true-to-the-issue debate of whether any regulation at all, could be something everyone loves or something difficult to defend, makes society an inherently better place than no regulations.
Gosh I want to take this just for fun, lol. I just may in a couple days if nobody else does. Idk. But I don't think you want to debate a polemics practicer on this one.
I'll try to get to this one this weekend, but if not I'll get to it during the week.
Also, fwiw, I am not a "vaccine doubter." The data does show that if you are 65+, getting the vaccine has almost no serious side effects and is successful at preventing COVID-19 compared to other age groups. So, scientifically, the COVID vaccine is practically harmless for the elderly.
But what remains to be seen is whether negative immunity from the vaccine also extends into the elderly.
But mRNA vaccines in general are still experimental. They are different from traditional vaccines, in particular inactive virus vaccines, which were used to fight smallpox successfully.
It's a hard sale to tell me vaccines don't work, particularly because I've been vaccinated myself in the past. It is just this particular vaccine that has not really been shown to work all that well in studies and been shown to have an unusually high prevalence of dangerous side effects.
Considering COVID-19 has a 99.5%+ survival rate in non-immunocompromised adults under the age of 65, why take an experimental vaccine that comes with serious side effects like heart attacks, bell palsy, blood clots, and more? I've also already had both original COVID and Omicron. So I am naturally immune. There's no reason to get a vaccine if you are immune already. That's what the point of vaccines were supposedly for, making someone immune.
But the study I cited was a 1 to 1 ratio between vaccinated and unvaccinated people controlling for comorbities to make the populations the same. This is completely different than doing what the WaPo epidemiologist is saying people are doing.
What the WaPo epidemiologist is saying is people sre looking at raw, un-normed case data and making unquantified observations. This isn't what the study did. The study quantified the data, defined the data, and made it as similar as possible to the unvaccinated so a really accurate model was drawn. And they found the vaccines were the only difference between the infection rates of the groups. All other variables were controlled.
The WaPo epidemiologist is right that many are just looking at the raw case numbers and not going deeper. They did it with the unvaccinated for 2 years, now they are doing it with the vaccinated. But the study did not do this. It actually controlled for variables and built two similar populations of the same size in a 1 to 1 ratio as much as possible, even getting the same distribution of age and comorbidities.
Are you a Goy Boy, wylted?
I'd be willing to debate the existence of God with you. But my argument is completely different from what PRO did here, so idk whether you'd want to or not.
If you are looking for someone to debate philosophical models of God's existence, then Lxam would probably be better. But if you're looking to debate the existence of God in general, then I'm down. I think God's existence is the only logical conclusion there is.
We can do it while we also do the chemotherapy debate.
How do you know he isn't a zionist?
Remind me to return to this one
Eh... Fuck it. I'll accept.
Honestly, my approach would have been to sidestep PRO's line of reasoning entirely, use a completely different definition of "secure" (since neither a dictionary nor a definition was provided in the description) and then built my case off that.
I'd also make some case about Merriam Webster being a joke dictionary written by hacks (there's NO SHORTAGE of academics and experts who state this) and, if necessary, go into the lexicographical origins of "secure" to prove my definition is more reliable. PRO would be forced to defend his definition, which is the crux of his whole argument, and the debate sides in my favor from there, since I have successfully discredited his dictionary and therefore his definition, and remade the debate in my favor.
And THAT is why I always say which dictionary I am using for debates. Because someone actually did something similar to ME before and demolished me. I had to spend the whole debate on damage control and fighting two fronts instead of arguing the topic.
Remind me to come back to this one. As a member of the Right-Wing Libertarianism community it'll be fun to read lol
Well, if it is wrong then it isn't real TKD.
"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."
Well if it incorporates other things than grappling then it isn't grappling. If it, by its very nature, disagrees with its own classification, then it can't be that classification. It is a hybrid form. Virtually every form of martial arts is not one style. They are all hybrids of everything. TKD has grappling in it. Kung Fu has judo in it. Wing Chun has submission holds. These are all elements of grappling. Therefore they are not "striking" arts.
"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."
First of all, that is NOT what that is used for. When I was taught TKD, they told me never to use that for knives because they can simply just stab you instead. The High Inward Strike is designed for grabs to throw the person off-balance because their momentum will be redirected across their body. You are supposed to follow it up with kneeing them into the side to crack their ribs. But even moreso, they said it is generally a weak block for mostly everything else and should be substituted for an outward block because an inward strike will likely not stop the momentum of a punch.
Knife defense is usually only taught at much higher levels and is mostly locks and submissive holds with disarming techniques. But even so, at my do jang they said "this stuff is all for show. It probably won't work in the real world. The best thing to do when they have a knife is to de-escalate the situation. If you can't de-escalate the situation, then redirect the blow using simple blocking techniques. But you will probably get stabbed or sliced."
"Similarly, you can't learn to punch properly using the punches from TKD and if you attempt it, will just feel extremely awkward."
idk where that black belt got their black belt, but that punch was the exact opposite of what I was taught. First of all, any TKD instructor who is worth their salt will tell you NOT to completely extend your arm like that. Second of all, you are supposed to aim with the index and middle finger nuckles, which will concentrate the punch into its most potent positions, which she did not do. Third of all, the punch loses its potency and power when you do NOT snap your fluid punch motion. It is those three combinations that make the punch powerful. Without it you might as well just slap them.
The blocking in TKD is also insufficient. It will almost always NEVER work."
I've actually successfully blocked many a punch using my TKD training. So I can tell you from experience that that is a load of horseshit. At my do-jang, we had weekly sparring classes. They allowed head punches and kicks and basically everything except groin shots and breaking bones. The blocks work. Let me tell you, they do.
But back to that video. In my do-jang, we NEVER told people to use those blocks for fights. They were considered those "just for show" blocks that wouldn't work in the real world. The blocks we were taught to use for sparring are the redirection of the punch and the leg block that muay thai fighters often use. This is because a kick from a seasoned pro would require kicking force to counter. Plus, it allows a fighter to retaliate with a kick of their own. For punshes we used the in to out block and snapped it in place with complete force while making sure the top third of the forearm was used. This takes advantage of the weaker inner forearm bone that is also extra sensitive to pain and also redirects the punch outward and away from the body, allowing the TKD fighter to counter with a punch or a kick by redirecting their opponent's energy.
In short, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. My do jang actually took the time to teach us what works and doesn't work in the real world, not in the fantasy land of TV movies and forum debates and tournaments. Granted, most do-jangs do not teach sparring, and this is a mistake, but mine did, and I am thankful for it. They also complained that most do-jangs do not properly teach techniques. Thankfully, mine did, and we practiced it in sparring class, so we knew it worked.
It definitely EMPHASIZES grappling, but it isn't technically a grappling martial art. Just like TKD emphasizes striking, but it ISN'T a striking art.
A true grappling art is greco-roman wrestling. There aren't punches or kicks in it at all.