Oh no! I guess I should feel obligated to respond to every opposition to my opinion with full length arguments even if I am apathetic to the argument itself!
and because your 1-3 sentence arguments are SO much better!
I see I've drawn an actual rebuttal out of you, so clearly my ability to formulate complete sentences has motivated you to reply appropriately. Therefore, the result could be used as evidence that my 1-3 sentence arguments ARE so much better. They have caused you to form a reply without saying tl;dr by breaking it up into smaller bite-size pieces.
I'm not going to argue over something so retarded as whether different forms of fighting should be compared. It is the comparison of different martial arts and the pondering of how each martial art would fare against each other that established the huge industry that is known as mixed martial arts, today. The success of mixed martial arts is due to people's curiosity of the effectiveness of each form of fighting.
For one to even challenge that statement is completely idiotic. No matter how lengthy his argument may be, it doesn't change that statement's truthfulness.
This may be true, but Brian's argument was that pitting a person who is trained in multiple styles of fighting against a person who has trained solely in one would end up being a landslide unless the singly-trained fighter specifically trained to be prepared for the new rules they would be encountering
Helio Gracie himself said that that the UFC was founded in order to reveal to the world how effective jiu-jitsu was. If thats not willingness to compare different martial arts and forms of fighting, then I don't know what is. Unless of course, you mean to say that your opinion has more weight than Helio Gracie's opinion?
Did Helio Gracie form the UFC? Did he have a hand in its formation? Does he have access to information that makes him a reliable source? If so, I would enjoy having a direct quote and proof of relevancy.
Please, the argument Bryan presented wasn't even worth half a rebuttal. He should be glad that I even responded with anything. An argument's credibility and weight is not dependent on its length.
tl;dr is less than half a rebuttal. His argument came to be (later on) that you came off as an ignoramus because you did not take the time to read that which you were replying to. I admit that personally whenever I see a person responding to something, and openly acknowledge not reading it, it comes across as an admittance of ignorance to the other side of the debate and therefore renders all further arguments by the ignorant person irrelevant. The argument would be no different than the argument between a stubborn atheist and a stubborn theist. Neither would listen to the other's opinions and nothing would be accomplished.
However, if it is your opinion that my posts are not worth reading, then do not read them. Unlike Bryan, I do not seek to manipulate people's personal opinions and am perfectly fine with people holding unique opinions that might contradict mine.
This is the great thing about stating your opinion. Yes there will be dissent, but it is your chance to state your opinion for the undecided. The undecided will then be able to weigh both sides.
Notice that in my reply I mention nothing of the actual debate, but rather a point by point breakdown of the current proposal of validity of argument for both sides. I hope that my responses are adequate for each point you decided to make in this response