Bullshidoka Arguments

[ironlurker]

#15: My credentials can't be backed up because the training was super secret/the government won't allow it.

How about combining this with the claim that "my fight record is from the kumite/underground NHB matches/pit fights controlled by the yakuza/triads/mafia so it can't be verified to outsiders" This seems to be a perennial favorite, from Dux onwards to dozens of bullshidokas

[Kistrael]

#16 Argumentum ad Populum: Many other styles do X, so we shall also do X.

#17 Vague answers: This brings to mind, "Do you charge for testing fees?" And the answer might come as "I personally don't see any money from it," being a roundabout way of saying "Yes, we do have testing fees."

[OnceLost]

Ironlurker, I think that would apply to the second paragraph of my last post.

Good ones, Kistrael.
Counter #16 - The actions of others do not make yours acceptable or correct. Many people thought the sun was in orbit around the earth for a long time - that doesn't make it valid.

Coutner #17 - Push for details. When all else fails, request a simple yes or no.

[Lazarov]

#18 You’re a Grandmaster, I am a newbie.. I think you suck. Let’s go a match in SW, I don’t want to get hurt to much…
Answer from Grandmaster: If you challenge me I choose weapon, and I choose knife fight to the death, in my dojo, with no witness. Not interested? Thought so!

Symptom: Any challenge to the Bullshido Master is countered from him with a race to a level that I absurd, dangerous and sometimes illegal.

Counter: First brag about you’re 6 moth of MMAtraning, you’re yellow belt in Judo and upload some crappy videos from some SW-match you have participated in (and lost) and finally start to insult him.
Sooner or later he will slip and accept because of his ego and the rage. And if he doesn’t accept the challenge buy a t-**** that says “XX is my Bitch!” and start to post pictures… there will be other tournaments in SW
:icon_bigg

[OnceLost]

Tom Kagan made a good suggestion:

Bullshidoka Argument #18 - Intentionally cluttering a thread to bury or derail an investigation.

This is not so much a particular argument that can be used by a Bullshidoka, but is instead a strategy that may draw on any number of arguments. The purpose is to clutter the original investigative thread with so much crap that either the focus shifts, the thread is completely derailed, or so much irrelevant information is provided that the important stuff is buried. This also sets the stage for Argument #13, above.

Counter - Keep the investigation on focus and use the "Report Post" button for irrelevant posts.

Lazarov, I appreciate the contribution, but this thread is specifically about arguments used during investigations, not challenges. I'll reword your suggestion in my next post - see if you agree.

[OnceLost]

Bullshidoka Argument #19 - Unreasonable conditions for information.

This is similar to Argument #10, but instead of requesting information of the investigator this argument involves an attempt to set up a situation that discourages someone from investigating. This can include offering information under conditions that unrealistic or are reasonably deemed absurd (such as Ashida Kim demanding $10,000 before he would accept a challenge match) to conditions that are dangerous or illegal. For example, the subject of an investigation agrees to meet for an interview, but only if you come to his dojo by yourself in the wee hours of the morning.

Counter - If the subject isn't willing to compromise enough to provide information in a safe manner (such as an interview in a neutral location or in the presence of a witness), then make a note and explanation - "The subject made Bullshidoka Argument #19; he was unwilling to provide this information unless we first fought with swords to first blood, an obviously unsafe practice."

[Tom Kagan]

Tom Kagan made a good suggestion:

Bullshidoka Argument #18 - Intentionally cluttering a thread to bury or derail an investigation.

This is not so much a particular argument that can be used by a Bullshidoka, but is instead a strategy that may draw on any number of arguments. The purpose is to clutter the original investigative thread with so much crap that either the focus shifts, the thread is completely derailed, or so much irrelevant information is provided that the important stuff is buried. This also sets the stage for Argument #13, above.

Counter - Keep the investigation on focus and use the "Report Post" button for irrelevant posts.

Lazarov, I appreciate the contribution, but this thread is specifically about arguments used during investigations, not challenges. I'll reword your suggestion in my next post - see if you agree.

Ah, the old 'argumentum ad nauseam' play.
(argument to the point of disgust; e.g, by repetition or other means.)

The problem with your suggested counter is that most of the time, it isn't just errata which is being inserted into the discussion. A lot of what is usually posted during this tactic is not of the 'MediumMike' class of posts. Such tactics are incredibly annoying to see because items you think are settled are being brought back into the conversation time and time again. These posts really cannot be removed from the discussion as easily as you suggest because they are technically still on topic. (For examples as reference: just about any __ng __un or Systema thread, or many of the Mantis guy's posts in the Comba-Tai MABS thread currently still active.)

[OnceLost]

It might be on topic, but if it has already been discussed I think that should be pointed out to keep the investigation on topic and the post should be reported. For example:

"Investigation Subject, your last post is the same argument you've made in several posts in this thread (# 12, 15, 18, and 19). That issue has already been address. I've reported your post because your repetition is not offering anything new and just serves to clutter the thread."

Even if it isn't removed, at least the argument is identified. Don't respond to the argument, just identify it and carry on...

[Kistrael]

Bullshidoka Argument #19 - Unreasonable conditions for information.

This is similar to Argument #10, but instead of requesting information of the investigator this argument involves offering information under conditions that are reasonably deemed absurd, dangerous, or illegal. For example, the subject of an investigation agrees to meet for an interview, but only if you come to his dojo by yourself in the wee hours of the morning.

Counter - If the subject isn't willing to compromise enough to provide information in a safe manner (such as an interview in a neutral location or in the presence of a witness), then make a note and explanation - "The subject made Bullshidoka Argument #19; he was unwilling to provide this information unless we first fought with swords to first blood, an obviously unsafe practice."

Perhaps we should expand this one?

This brings up another argument we've seen before: the accused will challenge the accusers, not by reputation, but to an actual fight, or somesuch nonsense. They may most likely have unreasonable terms of agreement, i.e Ashida Kim's $10,000 Challenge. Other things include generally unsportsman-like rules.

In any case, trying to set up a situation that dissuades the person from investigating.

[OnceLost]

Sorry, Kistrael, I didn't even see your response until now. I think Ashida Kim's $10,000 challenge is an excellent example of a situation that dissuades the challenger. Keep in mind the difference between a 'challenger' and an 'investigator,' but the strategy is the same. I think you summarized it very well by explaining it as an attempt to "set up a situation that dissuades the person from investigating."

I've edited the post to make it more expansive.