ender852 - Why would it be absurd that a bunch of champs have a wrestling base? It has been established many times over that a strong wrestling base is a huge advantage in mma.
It isn't, the OP just doesn't actually know what paradox means.
ender852 - Why would it be absurd that a bunch of champs have a wrestling base? It has been established many times over that a strong wrestling base is a huge advantage in mma.
HULC -Yes I do. You don't understand the distinction between a factual paradox and an opinion-based riddle. Plus, all you are doing is begging the question.ender852 - Why would it be absurd that a bunch of champs have a wrestling base? It has been established many times over that a strong wrestling base is a huge advantage in mma.
It isn't, the OP just doesn't actually know what paradox means.
ender852 - Why would it be absurd that a bunch of champs have a wrestling base? It has been established many times over that a strong wrestling base is a huge advantage in mma.This is a classic example of begging the question.
ender852 - I wild each it?I don't know what this means. I assume this is from the beach volleyball thread.
Pessimist_Pete - He was also an NCAA Div 1 champion. In Canada they call it something different but it's the same thing essentially
Shinsplint -What does that even mean? Are you saying GSP has no background in wrestling?Pessimist_Pete - He was also an NCAA Div 1 champion. In Canada they call it something different but it's the same thing essentially
In GSP's case we Canadians call his NCAA Div 1 credentials "Never wrestled prior to doing MMA"
Pessimist_Pete -hybridfc - yo that isnt a paradox. there r just two correct answers to that shitty riddle.This. A riddle is an opinion in the form of a question. That's different from a factual paradox.
Gustafsson Broke Bones -You basically just assumed what you set out to argue.Pessimist_Pete -hybridfc - yo that isnt a paradox. there r just two correct answers to that shitty riddle.This. A riddle is an opinion in the form of a question. That's different from a factual paradox.
Hmmm, I will have to disagree about that definition of a riddle.
I see a riddle being more of a puzzling set of clues containing varying degrees of revelatory facts that when logically and or artfully delineated unto their correlating relationships point towards a specific outcome or answer.
It has been shown that having not only expertise in some or other fields of endeavor, but also a wide ranging knowledge of the information learned and collected through the years of human existence are handy and useful tools when attempting to solve riddles for the desired solution.
In short, it is usually not based on opinion, but more so based on learned and logical calculative thought for a specific outcome.
That's just my opinion though.
wiggum - Paradox?A good MMA athlete. These guys aren't fighters.
How is this a paradox?
Wrestling is good for MMA
And good MMA fighters use wrestling.
KFC.
ender852 -OP obviously does not have a paradox but, at the risk of being a douche, this is not a paradox either. It is simply a question without enough information provided to discern an answer and, in fact, relies on language ambiguity to give the feeling of a paradox. The answers to the marked A through D are subsets of the answer to the question asked; the fact that the answer to those choices may be a given number does not contradict that the answer to the question being asked (the probability of being correct in random choice) may be a different number. This problem has a simple answer that requires only one assumption (0, 25, or 50 percent is the answer to the choices) and gives different values based on which assumption the variable takes. Paradoxes are not solvable by means such as this.Pessimist_Pete -That is not a paradox.wiggum - Paradox?It's s paradox because its true but most people don't think it's true. As a factual matter.
How is this a paradox?
Wrestling is good for MMA
And good MMA fighters use wrestling.
KFC.
A paradox is a statement that contradicts itself but is somehow also true. Something both false and true at the same time depending on how you look at it.
Example:
If I pick an answer randomly from A-D, what percentage of the time am I correct?
A. 0%
B. 25%
C. 25%
D. 50%
Is the answer 25% or 50%?
Both? How is that possible?
It is a paradox.
Senester -It's a riddle, like I said. Opinion-based one at that.ender852 -OP obviously does not have a paradox but, at the risk of being a douche, this is not a paradox either. It is simply a question without enough information provided to discern an answer and, in fact, relies on language ambiguity to give the feeling of a paradox. The answers to the marked A through D are subsets of the answer to the question asked; the fact that the answer to those choices may be a given number does not contradict that the answer to the question being asked (the probability of being correct in random choice) may be a different number. This problem has a simple answer that requires only one assumption (0, 25, or 50 percent is the answer to the choices) and gives different values based on which assumption the variable takes. Paradoxes are not solvable by means such as this.Pessimist_Pete -That is not a paradox.wiggum - Paradox?It's s paradox because its true but most people don't think it's true. As a factual matter.
How is this a paradox?
Wrestling is good for MMA
And good MMA fighters use wrestling.
KFC.
A paradox is a statement that contradicts itself but is somehow also true. Something both false and true at the same time depending on how you look at it.
Example:
If I pick an answer randomly from A-D, what percentage of the time am I correct?
A. 0%
B. 25%
C. 25%
D. 50%
Is the answer 25% or 50%?
Both? How is that possible?
It is a paradox.
Pessimist_Pete -Gustafsson Broke Bones -You basically just assumed what you set out to argue.Pessimist_Pete -hybridfc - yo that isnt a paradox. there r just two correct answers to that shitty riddle.This. A riddle is an opinion in the form of a question. That's different from a factual paradox.
Hmmm, I will have to disagree about that definition of a riddle.
I see a riddle being more of a puzzling set of clues containing varying degrees of revelatory facts that when logically and or artfully delineated unto their correlating relationships point towards a specific outcome or answer.
It has been shown that having not only expertise in some or other fields of endeavor, but also a wide ranging knowledge of the information learned and collected through the years of human existence are handy and useful tools when attempting to solve riddles for the desired solution.
In short, it is usually not based on opinion, but more so based on learned and logical calculative thought for a specific outcome.
That's just my opinion though.
Gustafsson Broke Bones -No. For instance, there is a factual paradox.Pessimist_Pete -Gustafsson Broke Bones -You basically just assumed what you set out to argue.Pessimist_Pete -hybridfc - yo that isnt a paradox. there r just two correct answers to that shitty riddle.This. A riddle is an opinion in the form of a question. That's different from a factual paradox.
Hmmm, I will have to disagree about that definition of a riddle.
I see a riddle being more of a puzzling set of clues containing varying degrees of revelatory facts that when logically and or artfully delineated unto their correlating relationships point towards a specific outcome or answer.
It has been shown that having not only expertise in some or other fields of endeavor, but also a wide ranging knowledge of the information learned and collected through the years of human existence are handy and useful tools when attempting to solve riddles for the desired solution.
In short, it is usually not based on opinion, but more so based on learned and logical calculative thought for a specific outcome.
That's just my opinion though.
Aren't almost all arguments built this way?
Gustafsson Broke Bones -Pessimist_Pete -Gustafsson Broke Bones -You basically just assumed what you set out to argue.Pessimist_Pete -hybridfc - yo that isnt a paradox. there r just two correct answers to that shitty riddle.This. A riddle is an opinion in the form of a question. That's different from a factual paradox.
Hmmm, I will have to disagree about that definition of a riddle.
I see a riddle being more of a puzzling set of clues containing varying degrees of revelatory facts that when logically and or artfully delineated unto their correlating relationships point towards a specific outcome or answer.
It has been shown that having not only expertise in some or other fields of endeavor, but also a wide ranging knowledge of the information learned and collected through the years of human existence are handy and useful tools when attempting to solve riddles for the desired solution.
In short, it is usually not based on opinion, but more so based on learned and logical calculative thought for a specific outcome.
That's just my opinion though.
Aren't almost all arguments built this way?
HULC -Logic is not advised. You either understand logic. Or you don't (you clearly don't). There is no room for advice or debate about logic.Gustafsson Broke Bones -Pessimist_Pete -Gustafsson Broke Bones -You basically just assumed what you set out to argue.Pessimist_Pete -hybridfc - yo that isnt a paradox. there r just two correct answers to that shitty riddle.This. A riddle is an opinion in the form of a question. That's different from a factual paradox.
Hmmm, I will have to disagree about that definition of a riddle.
I see a riddle being more of a puzzling set of clues containing varying degrees of revelatory facts that when logically and or artfully delineated unto their correlating relationships point towards a specific outcome or answer.
It has been shown that having not only expertise in some or other fields of endeavor, but also a wide ranging knowledge of the information learned and collected through the years of human existence are handy and useful tools when attempting to solve riddles for the desired solution.
In short, it is usually not based on opinion, but more so based on learned and logical calculative thought for a specific outcome.
That's just my opinion though.
Aren't almost all arguments built this way?
You're asking the wrong person for advice on logic...
You can't teach that which is ready known. You can help someone identify it. But logic is not like language. You teach a language. You don't reach logic. It is inherent.
*teach
Also, not a single person can logically disagree with my original point.
I think the next wave of champs will be coming from aikido. And possibly ninjutsu.
Pessimist_Pete -Gustafsson Broke Bones -No. For instance, there is a factual paradox.Pessimist_Pete -Gustafsson Broke Bones -You basically just assumed what you set out to argue.Pessimist_Pete -hybridfc - yo that isnt a paradox. there r just two correct answers to that shitty riddle.This. A riddle is an opinion in the form of a question. That's different from a factual paradox.
Hmmm, I will have to disagree about that definition of a riddle.
I see a riddle being more of a puzzling set of clues containing varying degrees of revelatory facts that when logically and or artfully delineated unto their correlating relationships point towards a specific outcome or answer.
It has been shown that having not only expertise in some or other fields of endeavor, but also a wide ranging knowledge of the information learned and collected through the years of human existence are handy and useful tools when attempting to solve riddles for the desired solution.
In short, it is usually not based on opinion, but more so based on learned and logical calculative thought for a specific outcome.
That's just my opinion though.
Aren't almost all arguments built this way?
HULC -Gustafsson Broke Bones -Pessimist_Pete -Gustafsson Broke Bones -You basically just assumed what you set out to argue.Pessimist_Pete -hybridfc - yo that isnt a paradox. there r just two correct answers to that shitty riddle.This. A riddle is an opinion in the form of a question. That's different from a factual paradox.
Hmmm, I will have to disagree about that definition of a riddle.
I see a riddle being more of a puzzling set of clues containing varying degrees of revelatory facts that when logically and or artfully delineated unto their correlating relationships point towards a specific outcome or answer.
It has been shown that having not only expertise in some or other fields of endeavor, but also a wide ranging knowledge of the information learned and collected through the years of human existence are handy and useful tools when attempting to solve riddles for the desired solution.
In short, it is usually not based on opinion, but more so based on learned and logical calculative thought for a specific outcome.
That's just my opinion though.
Aren't almost all arguments built this way?
You're asking the wrong person for advice on logic...