Martial art instructors should not teach children a martial art
Debate Rounds (4)
Martial art: codified system and tradition of combat practice
Children: people who are under the age of 18
R1: acceptance - with or without argument
R4: conclusion - no new arguments
Martial Art instructors are deceptive bullies who tell students they are learning how to fight, take hits, condition their body etc when really all they are learning is to accept abuse. Students enter a submissive relationship from day one when they call a stranger their master who they must obey and bow to.
Feel free to click the link below to watch evidence showing that children (and adults) are abused by their martial art instructors. They get away with this because nobody seems to recognise when someone is abused!
Just in case you don't think students are abused, check out the video below.
I could provide a much larger list. Here is another piece of evidence of abuse, if you lie to a black belt what happens is you get treated cruelly, that guy at the end of video probably thinks this is okay like many who started martial arts at a young age. The instructors excuse for posting this video is: 'what if he wants to open a gym and teach martial arts?' Let me make this clear, there is no good reason to abuse someone! He didn't even ask for the guy's permission to film him, and the guy was probably mentally ill.
Children need exercise however there are far better alternatives than martial arts e.g. boxing which does teach people to control their aggression and prevent violence, unlike martial arts which encourages fighting. I can imagine children being hurt while "playing" i.e. trying to do perform the taught techniques (or their own made up ones) during school lunch. They may even pick fights to gain some practice needed to win a stupid competition, or take out their frustration on others after not recieving a coloured belt. I have heard instructors say that kids will always pick up sticks, and fight, this is a BS excuse to feel what they do is right. There are plenty of other things children enjoy doing like play football and tennis, these should be encouraged, not violent sports.
Martial art instructors train children to have the skill to break bones, knock people outand cause serious injury etc which a typical schoolyard bully would not be able to do even if he loved watching kungfu movies. It's very easy to think the kids who learn a martial art are all trained to be respectful good guys, but the reality is they are too young to take such responsibility and will be more willing to allow others to abuse them just to get the next colour belt, see video below
Also, martial art instructors can easily persuade their young students to visit them for private lessons and then sexually abuse them  and clean their car like in the film - 'the karate kid'
Martial arts can make a child overly confident, and put their life in greater danger e.g. if a burglar enters their house or someone wants to rape them they may stay and fight rather than run and phone the police. It is always safer to avoid confrontations in every situation, bullying at school is best prevented by telling the teacher who can talk to the bullies parents. I don't think children will follow sensible advice though if they are learning a martial art.
I have provided quite a lot of reasons why children should not be taught a martial art. I look forward to your response
Thank you Pro
Pro didn't say who the BOP was on, I will assume it is on him, because he is trying to prove martial art instructors shouldn't teach kids.
Pro's first argument consists of assumptions. He must prove that literally 100% of Martial Art instructors are deceptive bullies. I can simply say my martial Art teacher wasn't a deceptive bully, therefore Pro's 1st argument is refuted.
I'll start with why Martial Arts is a good thing
Everybody has the right to self defense. Why should kids be excluded? With Martial arts, kids can defend themselves if somebody tries to mess with them. The best part, is that it is very unlikely a kid will inflict mortal wounds on their attacker, this way the kid has time to escape, and law enforcement can deal with the issue. This is different from a case dealing with a gun. Most often than not, if a kid shot their attacker, he likely would have sustained major wounds. Also, that depends on how responsible the kid is. A kid can shoot himself to death, he can't really beat himself up. Self Defense taught by martial arts is a viable and effective way in reducing crime. Some attacker isn't the only case. It is also very useful in school, where bullies lurk around.
The fact that children could defend themselves from threats brings in another point. It creates a psychological detterence factor. ccording to sources provided by Isaac Ehrlich, currently a University of Buffalo Distinguished Professor of Economics, he figured that according to the deterrence theory, criminals are no different from law-abiding people. Criminals "rationally maximize their own self-interest subject to constraints that they face in the marketplace and elsewhere.(1) In other words, if criminals know children could resist and defend themselves, they are less likely to even attack them in the first place.
This is all I will present this round. My opponent has said R3 can be used for arguments, so you will see some extra arguments given.
1: Isaac Ehrlich, "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death," American Economic Review, Vol. 65, No. 3 (1975), pp. 397-417, and Isaac Ehrlich, "Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Some Further Thoughts and Additional Evidence," Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 85 (August, 1977), pp. 741-788.
There are very few people who recognise when someone is abused because a lot of people take up a martial art at a young age and have quickly learnt to obey their master and mentally conditioned to accept abuse. It is possible you do not know whether your master is a deceptive bully. You seem to think the videos I have shown earlier are "normal training" otherwise you would not think I should prove every martial art instructor needs to be a deceptive bully for it to be banned for children.
I have found another video, see below, to make my point clearer, it shows a martial art instructor actually kill a mentally ill man in his dojo. Notice that nobody in the room calls the police, or questions their instructors actions.
WARNING: VERY GRAPHIC
Do you think children should be brought up like this? Is it okay if the minority of children are mentally, physically and sexually abused? If martial art instructors bully their students (which I've shown they do), and cause people to turn a blind eye to abuse (which I've shown they do), it is therefore clear that martial art training will not help to stop bullying. In fact it makes it worse. If you read the comments of some of these videos you'll see people think they are funny. E.g. people think what they see is fake and funny on the below video but why would it be??
I have heard instructors say 'if martial arts is banned for children it would take away their right to defend their self'. However this is pure nonsense. Children don't need to learn how to break bones, boards, knock people out etc. They should be taught how to diffuse situations, when to call the police etc. Martial art instructors want kids to live in fear increasing violence so they make more profit.
At one time it was necessary to train young people to be assassins, but now shoppers put their lives in danger to stop robbers. Criminals won't think 'a shopper might know karate and stop me, I won't carry out an armed robbery today'. They will think they can get whatever they want with a gun. Kids don't need to learn martial arts to stop bullies, if enough kids knew right from wrong and stepped in to stop a bully or tell a teacher the bullying will end.
Isacc Ehrilich may be a distinguished professor but I don't believe he knows that children can scream.
Pro has failed to establish why all instructors are bullies. I'm not going to refute this anymore because I have a feeling Pro is just repeating himself. Most of his arguments are emotion to appeal. Just because people learn to take hits, it doesn't mean we all should consider it as accepting abuse. That is just Pro's interpretation of what a martial art instructor is. Let the student decide what he wants.
You keep showing random youtube videos. I have no idea whether this is legit, or some guy trying to put something up for views. So I can't take it seriously. Argument sakes, I will though. First of all, this doesn't represent all martial arts teachers. Simply saying children should be banned from learning because a bunch of nutjobs were doing something is not a good argument.
Sometimes, calling the police isn't an option. If you are in the park, and some guy apporaches you, are you going to ask him if you can borrow his phone to call the cops?
Nobody is training them to be assassins. Martial arts is about self-defense.
Ok? And that has what to do with what I said?
My opponents main arguements for children having a right to learning martial arts for self defence are:
1. teaching kids martial arts helps reduce crime
2. teaching kids martial arts helps reduce bullying
A criminal with (or without) a gun won't worry whether a kid knows karate. But this kid might die trying to be a hero. We will always hear stories about kids preventing murders using martial arts but not the ones who died because they did.
There are a lot of children who do martial arts and a lot of children being bullied. Teaching kids a martial art just makes bullying worse, children are prevented from knowing when someone is abused, and will be less likely to call for help (either by screaming, or asking). Anyone can be a bully, the fact instructors can be abusive shows this is true. Children under 18 are suffering more pain than they would if martial arts were not taught at that age. It is irresponsible to expect children to not misuse these fighting techniques. If children were encouraged to do other things they would be friendlier to each other instead of experimenting moves on others and similar things.
There are too many martial arts to talk about individually, but they are all similar in what they claim to teach. I do not need to establish that all instructors are bullies because whether it should be banned for children or not is not just a question of how many children are abused by their instructor. There are many children who go through life without being able to recognise when someone is abusing them or when someone else is being abused right in front of them because they took up a martial art and had their mind conditioned to accept such things. Bowing, doing what you are told is not respect. People need to wake up!
Worryingly my opponent (who is learning a martial art) and others like him do not think the videos I have shown are legit including the graphic video showing a martial art instructor stamp on a mentally ill mans head, knocking his head against a metal post despite hearing him hit it, and being able to see his blood! These videos should be taken seriously because people are being abused. What can someone learn from being knocked out? Obviously there will be much more of this happening than we can see because I doubt many dojos allow cameras or phones whilst training, and much is unreported, or not uploaded on the particular site I've looked at.
Hopefully I have summed everything up, I apologise if I have miss some points out.
Finally I'd like to leave you with a question:
Can someone be abused if they are paying for something? Feel they are learning something? And enjoying it regularly?
My answer of course is yes.
Many thanks for having this debate. Please leave your comments and don't forget to vote!
I can't put any arguments anymore so I'll just refute Pro's rebutalls and reaffirm mine.
So, Pro says a criminal with or without a gun won't worry whether a kid knows karate, but doesn't give sources as to where he got that from. Even then, I don't know how not learning martial arts would make the situtation better. In some cases, it can save a kid's life. Thats the important part. Pro seems to think those who learn martial arts will automatically resort to violence, but doesn't give sources. I can't simply assume that all kids will die trying to fight.
If that is the case, it is the responsibility of the parent, to make sure their child is mature enough to handle martial arts. Pro is assuming that all kids are incapable of learning marital arts, by banning them from learning it.
So, Pro doesn't give actual statistics as to how many kids actually have been abused.
To answer your question
Yes, but why should people care what I think? It's their life. Their money, Their training.
So far, Pro has failed to prove basically every contention. He basically is looking at a bunch of youtube videos, and then asserting that all martial art instructors are abusing their student. I have sucessfully refuted his arguments, and I hope voters think my arguments were more substancial.
Please Vote Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments go to Con. His main points were self defense and deterrence. It's obvious through reading the debate that both of these arguments won out over Pro's rebuttals. His main rebuttal to deterrence was nothing more than "Isacc Ehrilich may be a distinguished professor but I don't believe he knows that children can scream." The rest of Pro's rebuttals were unsourced claims that martial arts increases bullying. Con wins out in this argument because his source was more credible than Pro's nonexistant source. The deterrence was a big argument, and it was never really refuted, so that goes to Con. The self defense argument was a bit closer, but also less detailed. Pro said people can choose to call the police instead, but obviously, as Con pointed out, that's not always an option, and people need to have another option to defend themselves. This basic logic gives that argument to Con. Pro's main arguments were about abuse, and they weren't able to show that it is a regular occurrence.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.