“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.
Forgive me for not acknowledging your rebuttals in Round 2. I was keeping my response brief, so you didn’t get annoyed with the length of the response.
In Round 3, I’ll focus specifically on your rebuttals from Rounds 2&3.
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.
That’s okay. Let’s discuss.
If the semantics is your main concern, why not create a new debate by challenging Austin directly and rally the court of public opinion to your side?
Sounds good to me.
The thread had an interesting title.
Forgive me for not acknowledging your rebuttals in Round 2. I was keeping my response brief, so you didn’t get annoyed with the length of the response.
In Round 3, I’ll focus specifically on your rebuttals from Rounds 2&3.
Oh boy, this is going to escalate. 😂😂😂
Awesome
May I accept?
I had similar discussions about this particular subject on Reddit. Though, I don’t know how much my actual insight will pan out as a whole.
You win by default. (Just announce it in the 2nd round in your following reply.)
If the topic is not established within the first round and Con forfeits, you can declare an auto loss.
It’s recommended you include in the description, “No forfeiting,” but it’s not a requirement.
This argument reads spiritual vibes. It’s more like my opinion vs your opinion instead of which is objectively more true.
Skipper presents better arguments and established his version with more conviction.
Liam’s “rebuttals” only bring the convo to an impasse.
Called what
I'm pretty confident in my chances regardless of those factors.
Easy for you to lose.
🤪