Originally posted by h1a8
They were empty because
1. They were prop bottles for the movie with already cracked tops.
2. It's understood that the guys drunk them completely in order to drink a new bottle.
.
Those are simply your interpretations. I asked for proof. When you make such a strong statement like "No human can do what Miyagi did" then refuse to accept actual videos of people doing the same, then you'll need hard evidence to support your claims and not simply opinions.
Originally posted by KingD19
Mach 10? From a Yomi bow fired by a regular guy? Go suck a f*ck you troll. If it went Mach 10 it would have destroyed the room it was in from the shockwave alone.
those where monks with psychic powers far above anything in ip man ****tard watch the bowling scene from the next karate kid
im not trolling im just telling the truth moron
if you put ip man in karate kid verse, he would get his @$$ pwned by johnny in 5 secs
Originally posted by FrothByte
Those are simply your interpretations. I asked for proof. When you make such a strong statement like "No human can do what Miyagi did" then refuse to accept actual videos of people doing the same, then you'll need hard evidence to support your claims and not simply opinions.
Well pretend to lie to yourself. I don't care. We both know that those were prop bottles and that Pat Morita (the actor) did not actually perform the feat on screen.
So you are basically telling me to prove that the breakaway prop bottles had liquid in them. This is pure trolling.
Originally posted by h1a8
1) Well pretend to lie to yourself. I don't care. We both know that those were prop bottles and that Pat Morita (the actor) did not actually perform the feat on screen.2) So you are basically telling me to prove that the breakaway prop bottles had liquid in them. This is pure trolling.
1) red herring/strawman.
2) attempting to shift burden of proof.
Originally posted by h1a8
Well pretend to lie to yourself. I don't care. We both know that those were prop bottles and that Pat Morita (the actor) did not actually perform the feat on screen.So you are basically telling me to prove that the breakaway prop bottles had liquid in them. This is pure trolling.
As Nib said, this is classic strawman tactics. It's really simple: You claim that Miyagi broke empty bottles - so prove it.
If you can't prove it then simply admit that what Miyagi did is doable by normal humans.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
1) red herring/strawman.2) attempting to shift burden of proof.
It's not a strawman. It's the relevant truth. A prop bottle made to break on a movie set. And it's understood from the story that the bottles were empty (except the last one) simply because the men were finished with them in order to open a new bottle. Who opens 4 bottles of beer and only drinks half the beer from each bottle before opening up a new bottle within a few hours?
Man 1 opens bottle 1 and drinks half the beer and then puts in on the truck and opens bottle 2 (while there is still half a bottle of beer not drank). He then drinks half of bottle 2 and leaves it on the truck and opens bottle 3. This is ridiculous.
You actually support this nonsense trolling?
Originally posted by h1a8
It's not a strawman. It's the relevant truth. A prop bottle made to break on a movie set. And it's understood from the story that the bottles were empty (except the last one) simply because the men were finished with them in order to open a new bottle. Who opens 4 bottles of beer and only drinks half the beer from each bottle before opening up a new bottle within a few hours?Man 1 opens bottle 1 and drinks half the beer and then puts in on the truck and opens bottle 2 (while there is still half a bottle of beer not drank). He then drinks half of bottle 2 and leaves it on the truck and opens bottle 3. This is ridiculous.
You actually support this nonsense trolling?
Why are you so afraid of having their fighting scenes judged by an unbiased source?
Originally posted by Nibedicus
^might wanna read about what a strawman is then reread what froth wrote.
It's not a staw man but a proof to why the bottles had no beer in them.
In a straw man, you have to REFUTE someone's argument. Froth didn't give any argument. He asked me to prove that there was no beer in the bottles. This is not an argument. Thus my statement is not a straw man.
Originally posted by h1a8
It's not a staw man but a proof to why the bottles had no beer in them.
In a straw man, you have to REFUTE someone's argument. Froth didn't give any argument. He asked me to prove that there was no beer in the bottles. This is not an argument. Thus my reasoning is not a straw man.
How many times must people explain that speculation and proof are two different things?
Originally posted by Silent Master
Why are you so afraid of having their fighting scenes judged by an unbiased source?
Because they would be using subjective reasoning to judge. Thus they are bias (either direction they vote).
I'm arguing from a logical approach. What will actually happen if the two fought? Ip Man would be the first to attack. Miyagi will attempt to defend, parry and counter. So all that needs to be proven is does Miyagi have the speed and perception speed and skill to counter successfully parry and counter Ip Man's attack. If he does then he has a good chance to win.
Originally posted by h1a8
It's not a staw man but a proof to why the bottles had no beer in them.
In a straw man, you have to REFUTE someone's argument. Froth didn't give any argument. He asked me to prove that there was no beer in the bottles. This is not an argument. Thus my reasoning is not a straw man.
Sigh. (Patience, Nib...!)
His argument was that you need to present proof to back your claims.
Stop depending too much on wikipedia. A strawman can also be presenting arguments never even made by the other side.
Your attempt to refute (in the reply I quoted previously) the need to present proof is to claim that the bottle are prop bottles and thus they must be empty (a non sequitor btw). And that you both know that an actor didn't do his own stunts (a point Froth never attempted to debate against or even mentioned, thus a strawman) likely meant to simply to distract from the actual point (that you need to present proof).
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Sigh. (Patience, Nib...!)His argument was that you need to present proof to back your claims.
Stop depending too much on wikipedia. A strawman can also be presenting arguments never even made by the other side.
Your attempt to refute (in the reply I quoted previously) the need to present proof is to claim that the bottle are prop bottles and thus they must be empty (a non sequitor btw). And that you both know that an actor didn't do his own stunts (a point Froth never attempted to debate against or even mentioned, thus a strawman) likely meant to simply to distract from the actual point (that you need to present proof).
What? Froth asked me to prove that the bottles had no beer in them. He said that I had to prove that the bottles had no beer in them. My argument doesn't refute the assertion "I have to prove that the bottles had no beer in them". My argument attempts to prove why the beers had no beer in them. Thus there is no straw man anywhere.
Everyone knows what a straw man is. That's basic logic class 101.