Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New sport idea: Debate-jutsu

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    New sport idea: Debate-jutsu

    Not a play on words, just a contraction of "Debate brazilian jiujitsu". Inspired by chess.

    There are two fighters in Gis, one ref to score the grappling, and a panel of debate team judges.

    The competitors may win by:

    1: Tapout, towel thrown in, etc.

    2: All judges agreeing that the debate has been won.

    Points are awarded for positioning and forcing your opponent to concede points. No debate is allowed during breaks.

    Debate topics are chosen a few days in advance, either randomly, or with one competitor choosing the category and the other the individual question, then a coin for for and against.

    Up to five minute overtime. If that is exceeded, the ref and judges combine their scores to choose a winner.


    "The only important elements in any society
    are the artistic and the criminal,
    because they alone, by questioning the society's values,
    can force it to change."-Samuel R. Delany

    RENDERING GELATINOUS WINDMILL OF DICKS

    THIS IS GOING TO BE THE BEST NON-EUCLIDIAN SPLATTERJOUST EVER

    It seems that the only people who support anarchy are faggots, who want their pathetic immoral lifestyle accepted by the mainstream society. It wont be so they try to create their own.-Oldman34, friend to all children

    #2
    I'm sure theres a good reason it hasn't been marketed yet.

    Comment


      #3
      The only possible flaw I can see here is the pure jiu-jitsu angle. Would a Vale Tudo debate be possible?

      The idea of being able beat someone's face into a mealy red pulp AND shoving my left wing rhetoric down their throat at the same time... that's the kind of stuff dreams are made of.

      Comment


        #4
        http://www.chessboxing.com/
        If a `religion' is defined to be a system of ideas that contains unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be one. -- John Barrow

        Talk to TBK's boyfriend:

        Comment


          #5
          How do we make this thread go away?

          Comment


            #6
            By clicking on another one.

            Comment


              #7
              I normally like to carry on a conversation while rolling.
              Surfing Facebook at work? Spread the good word by adding us on Facebook today! https://www.facebook.com/Bullshido

              https://www.instagram.com/bullshido/

              Comment


                #8
                Who is that in your avatar Piz?

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by WalkOn
                  The only possible flaw I can see here is the pure jiu-jitsu angle. Would a Vale Tudo debate be possible?

                  The idea of being able beat someone's face into a mealy red pulp AND shoving my left wing rhetoric down their throat at the same time... that's the kind of stuff dreams are made of.
                  Well I chose jiujitsu because of it's relatively slow pace. Trying to talk with a mouthpiece on would be impractical.

                  fouls:

                  1: Stalling, neither making a point nor attempting a technique

                  2: Failing to address opponent's points

                  3: Godwin's law applies

                  4: No dirty tactics: ad hominem attacks, comparing opponent to hitler, appeals to authority or other fallacies, biting, gouging eyes, or attacking the groin

                  5: God's existence is not allowed as a subject for debate.

                  6: Competitors may not use a smother or crossface to attempt to silence the opponent. Chokes and non smothering crossfaces are still legal.

                  7: Corners may only offer advice on grappling. They may not offer debating advice, with the exception of dictionary definitions. Debate is not allowed between rounds.


                  "The only important elements in any society
                  are the artistic and the criminal,
                  because they alone, by questioning the society's values,
                  can force it to change."-Samuel R. Delany

                  RENDERING GELATINOUS WINDMILL OF DICKS

                  THIS IS GOING TO BE THE BEST NON-EUCLIDIAN SPLATTERJOUST EVER

                  It seems that the only people who support anarchy are faggots, who want their pathetic immoral lifestyle accepted by the mainstream society. It wont be so they try to create their own.-Oldman34, friend to all children

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I kinda like this idea, though I realize that it will never work. Though I must say, I do love these rules;

                    Originally posted by hedgehogey
                    1: Stalling, neither making a point nor attempting a technique

                    4: No dirty tactics: ad hominem attacks, comparing opponent to hitler, appeals to authority or other fallacies, biting, gouging eyes, or attacking the groin
                    No comparing opponent to Hitler; damn, there goes my entire debate plan.
                    Seriously, most likely grabbing somebodies crotch like that is only going to make your situation much, much worse. Unless the person doing the gullotine has no pants on, then it's okay as long as they bought you dinner first. - Kidnemo

                    I don't know about angels, but it's fear that gives men wings - Max Payne

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I believe debate would be encouraged by implementing some Judo rules.


                      -Red herring fallacy or gross fallacy of composition may be used to set up a submission by taking advantage of the opponent's brief moment of incredulousness. Failure to submit the opponent before he is able to excalim "What the fuck does that have to do with anything" or some equivalent results in a Shido penalty.

                      -The contestant may win by pinning the opponent in the indefensible position. If the opponent remains in this position for 25 seconds the judge will award an Ippon.

                      -If the opponent does not score an Ippon via throw, upon landing they may initiate any combination of arguments in an effort to defeat the opponent. If no point is made within 25 seconds or the opponent manages to stand up, the argument must be restarted from a standing position.
                      Originally posted by The Wastrel
                      I think the forum's traditionally light-handed approach to moderation has become untenable.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        The first one would make Tai-Gip a debate master. We don't want that.

                        The second one is implied in the rules.

                        Smirking and saying "silly stylists." will be grounds for immediate disqualification.


                        "The only important elements in any society
                        are the artistic and the criminal,
                        because they alone, by questioning the society's values,
                        can force it to change."-Samuel R. Delany

                        RENDERING GELATINOUS WINDMILL OF DICKS

                        THIS IS GOING TO BE THE BEST NON-EUCLIDIAN SPLATTERJOUST EVER

                        It seems that the only people who support anarchy are faggots, who want their pathetic immoral lifestyle accepted by the mainstream society. It wont be so they try to create their own.-Oldman34, friend to all children

                        Comment


                          #13
                          tai-gip would be unable to realistically compete due to another rule:

                          The contestant is prohibitted from making a baseless conjecture. This will be considered a false attack and will result in a Shido penalty.
                          He'd give up the Hansokou-make in a heartbeat with his FTL punching and "make it real in your reality" crap.

                          Moving on:

                          -The contestant is not allowed to apply debate of foul tactics as a counter to a technique. Claiming that a foul tactic is capable of stopping a throw/takedown or reversing position will not only freely award the dominant position to the opponent but will also start the countdown for the indefensible position.
                          Originally posted by The Wastrel
                          I think the forum's traditionally light-handed approach to moderation has become untenable.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Straying off topic or attempting to debate by criticizing opponent's spelling will incur a penalty. If pronunciation help is needed, it will be provided by the referees.

                            Crying, acting as if your world has been shattered, or other such sympathy tactics to stop the opponent from debating are prohibited.

                            If a contestant attempts to draw the opponent into contradicting themselves, he has a maximum of forty five seconds in which he can force his opponent to continue by saying "Please explain ___". If he does not start his dissection of his opponent's hypocrisy within that time he will incur a penalty.

                            Attempting to close the opponent's mouth in order to stop their speaking will incur a penalty.

                            A contestant may concede a point in order to keep from being trapped in an indefensible position.

                            Appeals to the wisdom of a deity will incur a penalty.

                            Slams are allowed, but not on the head, since the opponent's brain will be too rattled to debate. Contestants may apply jerking motions such as rapid tugs on the collars, but they will be told to stop if it is determined that such a motion will rattle the opponent's brain, rendering them unable to debate. Repeated rattling after warning will result in penalty or disqualification.

                            Arguing that all knowledge is relative anyway(such as the use of postmodernist moral relativism) will start the countdown for indefensible position.


                            "The only important elements in any society
                            are the artistic and the criminal,
                            because they alone, by questioning the society's values,
                            can force it to change."-Samuel R. Delany

                            RENDERING GELATINOUS WINDMILL OF DICKS

                            THIS IS GOING TO BE THE BEST NON-EUCLIDIAN SPLATTERJOUST EVER

                            It seems that the only people who support anarchy are faggots, who want their pathetic immoral lifestyle accepted by the mainstream society. It wont be so they try to create their own.-Oldman34, friend to all children

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Last edited by Dreadnought; 9/22/2004 9:20pm, .
                              Originally posted by The Wastrel
                              I think the forum's traditionally light-handed approach to moderation has become untenable.

                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X