Muay thai is better than tae kwon doe
I accept this debate and look forward to PRO's first round arguments. Just a bit of housekeeping:
Muay Thai: "a combat sport of Thailand that uses stand-up striking along with various clinching techniques" .
Taekwondo: "a Korean martial art with a heavy emphasis on kicks" .
I would like to thank PRO for his comments; I will address the presently.
In Defense of Taekwondo (TKD)
PRO has demonstrated that he knows little to nothing about TKD. Most TKD schools and competitions require competitors to wear protective gear; this is to protect them . TKD is well known to have devastatingly powerful kicks, and as many sparing matches, even ones in the studio on Tuesday nights, are full contact, such gear is necessary. There are also other types of Taekwondo sparring that utilize less gear, such as ITF style sparring .
There is also the point about kicking the air. I have been practicing Taekwondo since 2000, and have taken part in teaching since 2002. Yes, there are drills where students kick nothing. There are also drills where they kick paddles, heavy bags, kicking shields, and even each other. These drills range from precision drills that focus on the student’s control, to power drills.
Much of PRO’s argument stems from his claim that Muay Thai (MT) fighters are “tougher.” So what? The simple fact that fighters are tougher does not make a style superior. Unless PRO would like to demonstrate what it is about the toughness of MT practitioners that make the style superior, this is a dropped point.
PRO is basing much of his argument on two encounters: an anecdote about sparring with his friend, and a video from YouTube. In neither of these situations do we know the skill level of any of the practitioners, the rules (if any), or any number of other variables. Perhaps they were both evenly matched fighters in which the MT fighter won; perhaps not. We do not know. Even if they were perfectly matched bouts, two data points cannot demonstrate the superiority of one martial style over another.
PRO has made one more error I feel I need to address. PRO has made the assertion that, “Martial arts are ment for self defence.” While it is true that most, if not all, martial arts have their roots in self-preservation, there is no reason that this needs to be the only thing they are good for. PRO needs to support assertions like this or they need not be taken seriously.
PRO’s whole argument has been an over-generalization based on a small amount of experience with a tiny subset of the TKD world, combined with ill-defined definitions regarding what constitutes a “better” martial art. He has also relied greatly on bald assertions; perhaps he is saving his sources for future rounds. I look forward to PRO’s next round of comments.
While takwondo also haves a few punches, they are mainly kicks. In muay thai it is mixed.
Thank you for your comments this round.
Once again, PRO has resorted to the suggestion that the style with the toughest fighters is the superior style. However, he has not demonstrated this point; it is just an assertion. I request that PRO justify his claim that tougher fighters equate to a better style.
PRO has also asserted that since TKD fighters wear protective gear, they are less tough. This ignores any other reason they might wear gear, and simply asserts that it is weakness. I again request that PRO provide some evidence for his assertion.
Once again, PRO has over generalized an entire martial art based on a three minute clip showing practice in a single aspect of TKD. I have attached a short video of another aspect of TKD training . Keep in mind that these are not elite level competitors; the videos are mostly from local tournaments held in local school gymnasiums.
I have avoided taking on any burden thus far in the debate because I didn't need to, but in order to spice things up, I'll throw something out there.
TKD is better than MT because TKD associations require the use of protective gear to protect competitors engaged in sparring matches . This requirement demonstrates a dedication to the safety of the practitioners, and therefore, to the art. For this reason, TKD is superior.
Wrapping Up the Round
PRO has once again relied on bald assertions and generalizations in his arguments. I have addressed all of his points, and requested evidence from PRO. I have also demonstrated how TKD is superior to MT. I look forward to PRO's comments in the fourth round.
 https://www.youtube.com... Video
I would like to thank PRO for his comments. Unfortunately, he has still not provided any evidence or explanations for the assertions I mentioned in the previous round. PRO has not demonstrated why having tougher fighters makes MT a better martial art, nor has he shown how the use of protective gear makes one less tough. Also, we are still sitting here waiting for an explanation of why self defense should be considered the only purpose of martial arts training, an assumption I challenged in the second round.
PRO also continues to generalize TKD based on his obviously limited knowledge of the style. He did not address the video I liked to that shows a number of knockouts. Simply asserting that TKD is not powerful is not enough, especially when the opposite is common knowledge. . PRO has also misrepresented my arguments in favor of TKD. I did not say TKD was safer; I said that TKD is superior because the governing organizations care enough about their competitors to require protective gear.
Putting it Together
PRO has yet to make anything other than bare assertions, while I have backed up my claims with evidence. I am still waiting for explanations from the second round, and for my own arguments to be actually addressed.
IsaacBigEars forfeited this round.
I'm disappointed to see that PRO has chosen not to make arguments this round; especially since he has so many assertions left to defend and support. I stand by my claim that TKD is superior due to the fact that governing organizations look out for the health and welfare of the practitioners. Unfortunately, as I pointed out numerous times throughout the debate, PRO's arguments rely on mostly unsourced claims, and where it is sourced, over generalization. I would like to thank PRO for an interesting debate.
|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||7|