Combat between Kiai master and MMA fighter

[drop bear]

If you want a logical fallacy how about an argument from personal incredulity?. Or moving the goal posts?

Hardly.
If there is no evidence of street. Then there is no evidence. Simple as that. If there was evidence and I found it unlikely. That would be applicable here.

 

[drop bear]

Pretty much no. I have eyewitness accounts of my art working at what it was designed for.

Are these eyewitness accounts like our teapot? It is definitely there we just cant see them.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Are these eyewitness accounts like our teapot? It is definitely there we just cant see them.

No they are eyewitness accounts, and I can see them just fine.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Sorry RTKDCMB, nothing you nor your sensei says counts for anything if it pre-dates the age of youtube!

Any information of the masters of old or that cannot be uploaded is simply not credible. You are training in a dead art that cannot be substantiated. Sorry to break it to you! Although, I'm in the same boat though!! I trained under a highly accomplished fighter but most of his karate fights were in the Eighties and most of these were not recorded or at least not uploaded. He must be a sham and none of his teaching can be proven!! We've all been had!!!

I'm joining up with the local mma club tomorrow. Hey, they're crap at stand up and kicking and only passable at ground work (can't match it with most judoka or bjj guys) although they are pretty solid at the shoot game. But the key thing is that all their stuff is proven, as it's on youtube.

And unfortunately I don't carry a camera crew around with me so if and when I do have to defend myself I wont be able to get it on video to prove it happened.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Hardly.
If there is no evidence of street. Then there is no evidence. Simple as that. If there was evidence and I found it unlikely. That would be applicable here.

You don't get how evidence works do you?

If I see or experience it it is observational evidence to me.

If I tell someone what happened it is eyewitness testimony to them.

If that someone tell someone else what I told him it is hearsay to them.

I find it ironic that you ask for evidence of everyone else but only a form of evidence that it is satisfactory to you yet you have offered absolutely no evidence of anything you or your school working for anything or any evidence that you even do any kind of martial art other than what you post. You have never shown one single video of you doing anything yet demand that others do so.

So it is time (and I mean this in the nicest possible way) to put up or shut up.

 

[drop bear]

And unfortunately I don't carry a camera crew around with me so if and when I do have to defend myself I wont be able to get it on video to prove it happened.

mate seriously did you watch that vid?

because that is exactly why that teapot argument doesn't work.

It is up to you to prove this street business. Not up to me to disprove it.

 

[drop bear]

You don't get how evidence works do you?

If I see or experience it it is observational evidence to me.

If I tell someone what happened it is eyewitness testimony to them.

If that someone tell someone else what I told him it is hearsay to them.

I find it ironic that you ask for evidence of everyone else but only a form of evidence that it is satisfactory to you yet you have offered absolutely no evidence of anything you or your school working for anything or any evidence that you even do any kind of martial art other than what you post. You have never shown one single video of you doing anything yet demand that others do so.

So it is time (and I mean this in the nicest possible way) to put up or shut up.

No that is opinion. And lets keep using this teapot idea. Because if i say I saw it. It does not really prove it exists.

otherwise i think you are confusing a concept with a personal attack. And I have put up evidence supporting the concept. That was the celestial teapot video.

 

[RTKDCMB]

mate seriously did you watch that vid?

because that is exactly why that teapot argument doesn't work.

It is up to you to prove this street business. Not up to me to disprove it.

Using the teapot in an attempt to move the goal posts is just a deflection. Since you can not 'prove' that anything you do will work or has worked in the street why should I have to?

I do not have videos of people from my art defending themselves in the street, if and when I do I will gladly post them for you.

I was not asking you to disprove anything say I am asking you to prove what you say. I have videos of me in the Gallery, I have provided websites and videos of my art in action, which is more than what you have. When you have something comparable then we will talk more.

 

[RTKDCMB]

No that is opinion. And lets keep using this teapot idea. Because if i say I saw it. It does not really prove it exists.

No, an opinion is if someone sees it and says It happened this way because...

Rules of Evidence TAE
a simple way to classify evidence is to use three types:

• Direct Evidence – things that we, as assessor, observes first-hand, eg, observation, work samples
• Indirect Evidence – things that someone else has observed and reported to us, eg, third party reports
• Supplementary Evidence – other things that can indicate performance, such as training records, questions, written work, portfolios

 

[drop bear]

Using the teapot in an attempt to move the goal posts is just a deflection. Since you can not 'prove' that anything you do will work or has worked in the street why should I have to?

I do not have videos of people from my art defending themselves in the street, if and when I do I will gladly post them for you.

I was not asking you to disprove anything say I am asking you to prove what you say. I have videos of me in the Gallery, I have provided websites and videos of my art in action, which is more than what you have. When you have something comparable then we will talk more.

Um... you want a video of mma working in the street?

You want videos of my art in action?

 

[RTKDCMB]

Um... you want a video of mma working in the street?

You want videos of my art in action?

You could show me a video of MMA working in the street or your art in action but that will not prove that you do MMA, study the art you show, or how competent you are at it Only a video of YOU doing your art will do that.

 

[Marnetmar]

That is a bit of a straw man.

And

5) Why is he using so many stances when only a boxing stance is necessary?

Is not?

 

[RTKDCMB]

Is not?

If you read through his past post you will see him say it.

 

[drop bear]

You could show me a video of MMA working in the street or your art in action but that will not prove that you do MMA, study the art you show, or how competent you are at it Only a video of YOU doing your art will do that.

I am not proving I do mma or am competent. I am proving that the street is rarely proof.

Why does everybody make every discussion about mma?

 

[K-man]

mate seriously did you watch that vid?

because that is exactly why that teapot argument doesn't work.

It is up to you to prove this street business. Not up to me to disprove it.

No. That is the straw man arguement. None of us need to prove anything. The stupid part is most people here have displayed a fair amount of knowledge in their posts, at least enough to demonstrate credibility. You are one of those that has made a number of claims but has, to my satisfaction, proven nothing. This is the internet. You could be a thirteen year old child with a fertile imagination for all we know.

 

[drop bear]

No. That is the straw man arguement. None of us need to prove anything. The stupid part is most people here have displayed a fair amount of knowledge in their posts, at least enough to demonstrate credibility. You are one of those that has made a number of claims but has, to my satisfaction, proven nothing. This is the internet. You could be a thirteen year old child with a fertile imagination for all we know.

Ignoring the silly personal attack. How is it a straw man?

 

[K-man]

Ignoring the silly personal attack. How is it a straw man?

It is not a personal attack. It is a comment on your constant demanding of others to provide proof if what most of us already understand an accept.

Straw man arguements are what you have been pushing all along. You post a statement and ask for proof to the contrary. When it is provided you never accept it but misrepresent it continue to ask for more proof.

A straw man is a common reference argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.

As it says in the quote, a straw man arguement "requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed", something that most of the people posting here are not.

 

[drop bear]

It is not a personal attack. It is a comment on your constant demanding of others to provide proof if what most of us already understand an accept.

Straw man arguments are what you have been pushing all along. You post a statement and ask for proof to the contrary. When it is provided you never accept it but misrepresent it continue to ask for more proof.


As it says in the quote, a straw man argument "requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed", something that most of the people posting here are not.

Ok the proof that you are accepting though is the statement "i saw it" from a random person on the internet. Who as you said could be a 13 year old with an active imagination.

Or that there are ideas that are commonly accepted and so are somehow proof. Which is all that dogma that gets touted.

And suggesting that neither one is actually any sort of substantial proof is hardly a straw man.

But it goes a long way towards explaining why people can knock a whole class over with magic.

 

[K-man]

Ok the proof that you are accepting though is the statement "i saw it" from a random person on the internet. Who as you said could be a 13 year old with an active imagination.

Or that there are ideas that are commonly accepted and so are somehow proof. Which is all that dogma that gets touted.

And suggesting that neither one is actually any sort of substantial proof is hardly a straw man.

But it goes a long way towards explaining why people can knock a whole class over with magic.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. I addressed your question about straw men. That is nothing to do with magic or anything else. You continue to deny the training that others do even when they explain to you their training rationale. Worse that that, you constantly rephrase the explanation you are given so it is presented in a different light and quote it as true. Sorry, that is straw man.

 

[drop bear]

I'm not sure what you are saying here. I addressed your question about straw men. That is nothing to do with magic or anything else. You continue to deny the training that others do even when they explain to you their training rationale. Worse that that, you constantly rephrase the explanation you are given so it is presented in a different light and quote it as true. Sorry, that is straw man.

ok. So you accept anecdotes as proof?