The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Muay thai is better than tae kwon doe

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2015 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 427 times Debate No: 76845
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Im here to say that muay thai is better than the popular tae kwond doe. Me in my opinion thinks tae kwon doe is the worst martial arts. Followed by kung fu... First round is acceptance


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" [1].
Taekwondo: "a Korean martial art with a heavy emphasis on kicks" [2].


Debate Round No. 1


Ok so firstly muay thai fighters are much more tougher than takwondo ones as muay thai competitions are much more violent. Taekwondo competitions have people wearing guards and only have to kick *this much* to win. I remembered i fought my friend that claimed to have a black belt, he managed to kick my stomach which left a dent but not pain(he was using shoe). Then one time he kicked, i grabbed his leg and went into a ground n pound position. When ground and pound, you will be easily defeated and should be doing MMA. Secondly, the training is not that good, in takwondo you kick the air or kick something using little strength but in muay thai its hardcore that it's obvious you sweated. You punch something with power. Now lets look at this video and see that this fool is foolish enough not to block! Martial arts are ment for self defence but takwondo cant be it, takwondo should not be used as self defence but as competition. Overall muay thai fighters are much tougher and stronger. Takwondo always falls to muay thai... Because they aren't as tough as them.


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 [1]. 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[1][2], such gear is necessary. There are also other types of Taekwondo sparring that utilize less gear, such as ITF style sparring [2].

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.

Cherry Picking

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.

Martial Arts

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.

Wrapping Up

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.



Debate Round No. 2


Ok , when tae kwok doe fighters wear guards(protective gear), it means that they are less tougher as they do not actually know how to endure real pain. Muay thai fighters never wear guards (except for mouth) unless the person is training for someone(who will be attacking him). Muay thai competitions can have blood too. The toughness thing is like endurance points, so muay thai fighters are more harder to be knocked down. I started muay thai in 2006 and trains with my father who was a personal trainer and also agrees takwondo sucks and once in a while i have to fight each other without guards but boxing gloves. Takwondo training is not exactly mainly for power. As you know you just need one powerful punch to knock out someone. This videos also shows the aggresion in training of both arts. as you see the training in takwondo is less powerful and less consistently aggressive unlike muay thai.
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.

Another Generalization

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 [1]. Keep in mind that these are not elite level competitors; the videos are mostly from local tournaments held in local school gymnasiums.

My Claim

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 [2]. 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.


[1] Video

Debate Round No. 3


Con claims that tae kwon doe is superior to muay thai since it is more safe. Which is true but no martial arts are safe, many people died from it. While safety comes first, tae kwon doe will fail if it is for self defence, which is the main point of martial arts.Tae kwon doe likes to do this fancy kicks which looked awesome. But it is not really going to work in real life as the enemy will dodge it easily, not to mention power is much.


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. [1][2][3]. 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.

Debate Round No. 4


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.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by cathaystewie 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO made various logical fallacies by failing to bridge gaps such as that of toughness = better sport. He has also not defined a criterion for what is better even though it was within his BOP. CON identified these points, and was the only one to not forfeit a round and cite his sources properly.