Originally posted by FrothByte
No dude, it seems apparent that you don't know what a loaded question is. Just because someone asks a question you don't want to answer doesn't mean it's a loaded question.Now, are you going to answer the simple questions or are you going to continue being a troll?
This is my post.
Originally posted by h1a8
My intention was primarily showing Cap tackling someone to the ground. Silent didn't provide any scenes where that occurred. He provided a lot of irrelevant scenes (Cap fighting on the ground, Cap striking someone with a shield push hit, Cap getting someone on the ground that didn't consist of tackling them to the ground). That's what I meant when I argued the proper combination (not necessarily sequence). He had to first establish Cap tackling someone to the ground (as this stems from the original argument about Comedian).In summary, Silent was arguing shit whose spirit does not stem from Comedian tackling Ozy.
Here are the questions.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
1. Were you or were you not shown that Cap can do advanced grappling techniques by SM? (Y/N)2. Are the techniques shown by SM techniques a pure striker would use? (Y/N)
3. Did you and did you not still insist that a specific sequence of tackling is required before you would accept it AFTER SM has already shown you the techniques Cap used? (Y/N)
Let's analyze the questions with the post.
1. Is answered in the post. "Cap fighting on the ground" "Cap getting someone on the ground that didn't consist of tackling" These imply Cap using grappling techniques. "Advanced" is debatable and relative.
2. Is loaded as Cap was implied grappling as stated in the post. I never used the term "pure". So Nib basically created a strawman with the question and hence a loaded question. Cap is primarily a striker as with some MMA fighters. Now I originally stated that Cap would solely punch or kick in reply to Nib's original ground and pound argument. But after it was mentioned that Cap has grappled then I never argued that Cap would solely punch or kick anymore. My argument became Cap tackling (which is in line with the original Comedian argument).
3.
Is explained in the post. I used the term "combination" not "sequence" and hence its a loaded question (because if I say no to the question then Nib accuses me of lying). The point is that Cap never was shown tackling someone to the ground by Silent. This is vital as it stems from Nib argument of how Cap will beat Ozy via Comedian showing.
How does it look if someone stated Cap will beat Ozy by tackling him to the ground and another poster comes in defending that argument by NOT showing Cap tackling someone to the ground?
Silent was trolling very clearly.