If you have any female relatives you truly care about that are ready to be proper feminists who will hold their own in a brawl and spar or even a slimmer or shorter man, you will encourage them to master striking, blocking and to be so vicious and accurate with it.
I want all mothers, sisters, daughters and more armed with more than just the good old pepper spray STRIKE WITH THE CAN move. I want a village, town, city armed with people who can take off their clothing and fucking choke a bastard out with it after throwing it to his (or her) eyes and striking their diaphragm and kicking them off balance but NOT grappling, instead staying higher and striking down, kicking the stomach and such making the person stay down arms out, not approaching them close enough for a comeback saying 'stay down' and calling the cops on speaker phone all limbs ready to attack and defend with.
That is the place I'd want to live. That is what even the skinniest of us can do with learning.
You cannot ever teach a skinny guy to outgrapple a muscular man, out-striking is hard but not unthinkable especially when cunning and dodging get involved.
America is over-saturated with this bullcrap 'everyone has a gun' mantra. Guess why guns beat everything? A bullet is a striking tool. Strikes > grapples.
Exactly, it's the inherent problem also with in-the-ring fighting as well. People only recognise and respect that people need to strike if a woman is vs a man as they all know the man will win once they grapple unless she does some ninja maneuvring to wrap her legs around his neck and not in a sexy way.
There is no way you are telling me that if you are a chinese man trained in kung fu, in a street brawl with a big white or black man that is easily going to defeat you once on the ground that you aren't going to utilise strikes unless you're on a suicide mission or clueless.
This is the inherent advantage of being bigger and heavier; you inherently intimidate and can bait your opponent into strikes. That is also why 'self defence' laws have reasonable interpretation such that moving towards someone within their personal space in a threatening way justifies striking back (very questionable where this line is drawn but to not offer any grey area means a weaker, smaller opponent can never preemptively strike in defense before someone grapples them to the floor and they autolose the fight).
I am not trolling you but this is so sketchy and voters in sketchy topics are... not that rational.
Preferable can mean ANYTHING. If I am a big man vs a small person of either gender, grappling inherently 100% is preferable to me. If I am the smaller individual, striking is 100% preferable to me. That much is obvious... Yet it also isn't.
If I one knocks over the opponent using their shorter height to its only advantage (superior center of gravity control) then strikes down on them and locks their legs via grappling technique punching them and kneeing them, did they win by striking or grappling and which was preferable?
If someone blocks, locks and utilises strikes when needed, are the locks inherently grappling? what is a block? Is that striking or grappling?
Your current definition of striking makes it out to be the most brutal muay thai end of its spectrum and inherently implies it's nastier than grappling in the fight.
I would like you to make clear that choking, Chauvin-t-George-Floyd style, is included under what grappling entails because I can think of one way you're heading here and it is inherently deceptive.
I want this to be about on-foot brawling vs on-the-ground brawling.
The only reason you've ruled out blocks and non-boxing strikes is to have a completely unfair edge here.
Both striking and grappling martial arts overlap in terms of locks but they differ in duration and purpose (grapplers enjoy locks, strikers use locks to assist/trap while further striking).
Striking is indispensible for street brawls! Imagine what you do when knives are involved, just grapple??? LOL!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42gpuhH27_c
^ You try wrestle this guy, fictional or not, if he were real. You aren't reaching his body to grapple with full consciousness LOL!
When you involve clothing, improvised weapons and improvised shields alike, suddenly you will realise why striking and the creativity and precision of it is more translatable to street brawl success than grappling. In grappling the heavier, bulkier one wins, no question. Striking is the one with the limitless skill ceiling. If you invade my home, I am sure you will win if you and I are wrestling it out, I am slim built and know my weaknesses. You are getting whipped and more before you touch me, I will turn my shirt into a whip and neck-choking rope if need be just like that. You dont understand how important striking skill is, I will lasso your wrist, yank it and disarm you before you can think what to do, if I kick your diaphragm and hand hard, then what?
This is not a threat, this is if someone broke into my home. I know my rooms better than they do, I can aim at them in the dark and trust me I would keep the lights off, flashing them if need be to leave you disoriented, I will do it until I blow the fuse. I know how real fights are won, the invader/assailant wont get to grapple me and if you do I go for neck or wrist hits and slices, this is not a threat it is a reality of what life, death, safety and getting messed up are differentiated by.
Grappling happen when idiots let each other get too close for striking to keep its power.
The problem is that you can't prove the 'good' without proving prison more bad or something and that is just too difficult because DP is directly dedicated to the most deranged criminals that don't react sanely to deterrance.
OMG I only have 2 days to reply to that. I hopefully rebut better than you later. Also Con's case naturally has to involve rebuttals by accident, I hope you will understand.
In both of your opinions, what was this debate about?
Socialism is more X than Capitalism?
Socialism is X while Capitalism is Y?
Give me quotes from the debate supporting your idea of what the debate was. This isn't mandatory, it would just help me structure my vote. Currently, I cannot catch what you guys thought you were debating beyond some mention of a tyrant named Hitler.
No. There are currently major semantic issues as society adapted wrongly and incoherently to gender vs sex.
They kept the sex terms for gender and have not yet understood what is asked or not. I am not going to engage in that debate because currently in English we don't even have a singular version of they/them that isn't as dehumanising as 'it' so I'd rather stay away from it.
The problem is that currently on official documents 'male' and 'female' are the gender options. Even if 'other' is added, the problem is male and female aren't meant to be genders, man, women, gentleman, lady etc are genders.
this makes absolutely no logical sense to me, I destroyed Pro's round 1 completely tore it to shreds and turned it against Pro.
Then Pro builds a BRAND NEW case in Round 2, I kick it in the bud and see absolutely no way for Pro to win without violating debate structure protocol and making brand new points in final Round.
Pro does this and wins by 1 tiny baseless point.
That is simply unbelievable to me and I know for a fact that this is a severe anomaly. I will just have to accept this as part of the price of being a brave instead of timid debater. I absolutely don't comprehend how I lost it, I have reread it and to me, Con clearly won this debate in multiple ways.
There is absolutely nothing about language that makes it so that the popular option is automatically the best so much so as to render the less popular one to be ruled out.
they aren't allowed to do that especially if it's along the line of a brand new contention.
I destroyed Pro's case entirely in Round 1, so Pro built a case from scratch in Round 2.
I destroy that in Round 2 so Pro tries and grasp at straw that language is a popularity contest by definition.
This is nonsense, you know it and I am done discussing it. I have to accept there is a blindspot of voter incompetence and avoid debates where the opponent is going to be able to spring brand new attacks in last round and voters will uphold it.
It is 100% a truism to say that if something is more popular it automatically is the superior option meaning the debate is a truism start-to-end. My second line of defense was defended against by a brand new final-round line by Pro that I couldn't reply to without violating the rule to not bring brand new things in last Round and it was insufficiently handled by Pro altogether but I can't explain why without violating the structure.
This was complete dirty trashbag play by Pro and you are enabling it.
You pay someone to train your future or current daughter in JiuJitsu, Judo and/or wrestling.
I pay someone to train mine in Kung Fu, Muay Thai, and/or Karate.
I know I will feel happy and safe with her vs a thug. Yours however, can't even get past his knife.
If you have any female relatives you truly care about that are ready to be proper feminists who will hold their own in a brawl and spar or even a slimmer or shorter man, you will encourage them to master striking, blocking and to be so vicious and accurate with it.
I want all mothers, sisters, daughters and more armed with more than just the good old pepper spray STRIKE WITH THE CAN move. I want a village, town, city armed with people who can take off their clothing and fucking choke a bastard out with it after throwing it to his (or her) eyes and striking their diaphragm and kicking them off balance but NOT grappling, instead staying higher and striking down, kicking the stomach and such making the person stay down arms out, not approaching them close enough for a comeback saying 'stay down' and calling the cops on speaker phone all limbs ready to attack and defend with.
That is the place I'd want to live. That is what even the skinniest of us can do with learning.
You cannot ever teach a skinny guy to outgrapple a muscular man, out-striking is hard but not unthinkable especially when cunning and dodging get involved.
America is over-saturated with this bullcrap 'everyone has a gun' mantra. Guess why guns beat everything? A bullet is a striking tool. Strikes > grapples.
Exactly, it's the inherent problem also with in-the-ring fighting as well. People only recognise and respect that people need to strike if a woman is vs a man as they all know the man will win once they grapple unless she does some ninja maneuvring to wrap her legs around his neck and not in a sexy way.
that's a sign I made a good topic. ;)
There is no way you are telling me that if you are a chinese man trained in kung fu, in a street brawl with a big white or black man that is easily going to defeat you once on the ground that you aren't going to utilise strikes unless you're on a suicide mission or clueless.
This is the inherent advantage of being bigger and heavier; you inherently intimidate and can bait your opponent into strikes. That is also why 'self defence' laws have reasonable interpretation such that moving towards someone within their personal space in a threatening way justifies striking back (very questionable where this line is drawn but to not offer any grey area means a weaker, smaller opponent can never preemptively strike in defense before someone grapples them to the floor and they autolose the fight).
What exactly is it we are even debating?
I am not trolling you but this is so sketchy and voters in sketchy topics are... not that rational.
Preferable can mean ANYTHING. If I am a big man vs a small person of either gender, grappling inherently 100% is preferable to me. If I am the smaller individual, striking is 100% preferable to me. That much is obvious... Yet it also isn't.
If I one knocks over the opponent using their shorter height to its only advantage (superior center of gravity control) then strikes down on them and locks their legs via grappling technique punching them and kneeing them, did they win by striking or grappling and which was preferable?
If someone blocks, locks and utilises strikes when needed, are the locks inherently grappling? what is a block? Is that striking or grappling?
Your current definition of striking makes it out to be the most brutal muay thai end of its spectrum and inherently implies it's nastier than grappling in the fight.
I would like you to make clear that choking, Chauvin-t-George-Floyd style, is included under what grappling entails because I can think of one way you're heading here and it is inherently deceptive.
I want this to be about on-foot brawling vs on-the-ground brawling.
The only reason you've ruled out blocks and non-boxing strikes is to have a completely unfair edge here.
Both striking and grappling martial arts overlap in terms of locks but they differ in duration and purpose (grapplers enjoy locks, strikers use locks to assist/trap while further striking).
Striking is indispensible for street brawls! Imagine what you do when knives are involved, just grapple??? LOL!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42gpuhH27_c
^ You try wrestle this guy, fictional or not, if he were real. You aren't reaching his body to grapple with full consciousness LOL!
When you involve clothing, improvised weapons and improvised shields alike, suddenly you will realise why striking and the creativity and precision of it is more translatable to street brawl success than grappling. In grappling the heavier, bulkier one wins, no question. Striking is the one with the limitless skill ceiling. If you invade my home, I am sure you will win if you and I are wrestling it out, I am slim built and know my weaknesses. You are getting whipped and more before you touch me, I will turn my shirt into a whip and neck-choking rope if need be just like that. You dont understand how important striking skill is, I will lasso your wrist, yank it and disarm you before you can think what to do, if I kick your diaphragm and hand hard, then what?
This is not a threat, this is if someone broke into my home. I know my rooms better than they do, I can aim at them in the dark and trust me I would keep the lights off, flashing them if need be to leave you disoriented, I will do it until I blow the fuse. I know how real fights are won, the invader/assailant wont get to grapple me and if you do I go for neck or wrist hits and slices, this is not a threat it is a reality of what life, death, safety and getting messed up are differentiated by.
Grappling happen when idiots let each other get too close for striking to keep its power.
Only in a ring with rules. The rules are inherently grappling supremacist.
Its best to be good at both, it is very difficult to vs an adept striker and blocker.
If ruling out kicks, knees blocks, locks and elbows then yes.
If including them, striking is actually not that bad, MMA rules just make it appear so as killshots and bonebreakers are banned.
The problem is that you can't prove the 'good' without proving prison more bad or something and that is just too difficult because DP is directly dedicated to the most deranged criminals that don't react sanely to deterrance.
I report intel for the sources point allocation.
I kept screwing up my vote as I rethought the points allocation and said 'pro violated' but you are Pro, very confusing
Keep your eye on this guy. Vote Pro, I concede.
please vote on this
You won this debate it seems but I will not say GG.
This was pure dirty play by you. Truism of popularity. Utter B S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
round 3 brand new contnetion about language and pouplarity B S!!!!!!!!!!
B S!!!!!!!!
thank you I have gotten it out my system.
Well done you defeated a legend, even if you played dirty to do so.
Oh nnnnnnnnnooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
I mean yes, do your best. I'm also busy and understand.
no I paid eminem to write it for me.
It is your DARTizen civic duty to vote on this debate.
Please vote.
Challenge me to this, I will DESTROY you (in debate)
WOW! THIS IS PISS EASY TO WIN AS CON
That right wing politics are superior or something, lol.
OMG I only have 2 days to reply to that. I hopefully rebut better than you later. Also Con's case naturally has to involve rebuttals by accident, I hope you will understand.
FF please vote ty
lucky guy xD
How is your first contention even relevant to the debate? LOL
Very happy Muslims dancing along to Haram music. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVDIXqILqSM
Haram why? Has rhythm, melody that isn't solely vocal and can put the dancer in a trance, in this case a 'happy' one.
In both of your opinions, what was this debate about?
Socialism is more X than Capitalism?
Socialism is X while Capitalism is Y?
Give me quotes from the debate supporting your idea of what the debate was. This isn't mandatory, it would just help me structure my vote. Currently, I cannot catch what you guys thought you were debating beyond some mention of a tyrant named Hitler.
bump, hoping for votes
oh wow this is a 6-monther, that's both good and bad lol. I may actually hit #1 just in time to be knocked down massively
Con FF'd
you really screwed up making yourself physically the red side here... I am not sure you realise what that means.
doesn't matter, I was winning the trolling.
thank you for taking the time.
you are not beating me in 5 moves. I am not even sure what this debate is about.
No. There are currently major semantic issues as society adapted wrongly and incoherently to gender vs sex.
They kept the sex terms for gender and have not yet understood what is asked or not. I am not going to engage in that debate because currently in English we don't even have a singular version of they/them that isn't as dehumanising as 'it' so I'd rather stay away from it.
The problem is that currently on official documents 'male' and 'female' are the gender options. Even if 'other' is added, the problem is male and female aren't meant to be genders, man, women, gentleman, lady etc are genders.
Jif peanut butter sound was turned totally against pro via 'gift' being semantically similar too. Con - 1
Historical usage of G vs original/historic pronunciation of GIF - Con 2
Consistency - either zero-sum or Con-favoured - Con 2.5
Popularity - Con points out that popularity can be totally wrong, we need to determine if it's right or wrong rendering it moot - Con 3 Pro - 0.5
There is no other way to interpret this debate quite honestly.
your vote will be highly appreciated, I am curious how you interpreted this debate.
this makes absolutely no logical sense to me, I destroyed Pro's round 1 completely tore it to shreds and turned it against Pro.
Then Pro builds a BRAND NEW case in Round 2, I kick it in the bud and see absolutely no way for Pro to win without violating debate structure protocol and making brand new points in final Round.
Pro does this and wins by 1 tiny baseless point.
That is simply unbelievable to me and I know for a fact that this is a severe anomaly. I will just have to accept this as part of the price of being a brave instead of timid debater. I absolutely don't comprehend how I lost it, I have reread it and to me, Con clearly won this debate in multiple ways.
There is absolutely nothing about language that makes it so that the popular option is automatically the best so much so as to render the less popular one to be ruled out.
they aren't allowed to do that especially if it's along the line of a brand new contention.
I destroyed Pro's case entirely in Round 1, so Pro built a case from scratch in Round 2.
I destroy that in Round 2 so Pro tries and grasp at straw that language is a popularity contest by definition.
This is nonsense, you know it and I am done discussing it. I have to accept there is a blindspot of voter incompetence and avoid debates where the opponent is going to be able to spring brand new attacks in last round and voters will uphold it.
It is 100% a truism to say that if something is more popular it automatically is the superior option meaning the debate is a truism start-to-end. My second line of defense was defended against by a brand new final-round line by Pro that I couldn't reply to without violating the rule to not bring brand new things in last Round and it was insufficiently handled by Pro altogether but I can't explain why without violating the structure.
This was complete dirty trashbag play by Pro and you are enabling it.
I don't understand at all how you feel I insufficiently handled the popularity angle but thanks for voting.
popularity truism ooookay. No idea how I lost this, need to revisit and understand how voters perceive certain things.
the debate is done if you wished to vote. it's unrated anyways
can either of you tell me where the word 'integral' was defined even indirectly in this debate?