The debate "Jumping someone with two other peopl when its meant to be a one on one is dishonorable and cowardly" was started by
April 15, 2015, 10:44 pm.
43 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 11 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Getmurked posted 7 arguments, PsychDave posted 4 arguments, Kirito posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Getmurked, PsychDave, meetakapoor, transfanboy, sugoi_shan, wmd, Rhiannon09, invincible_01, HabibaKim, Kirito, Gabrielle, judge, stantinou93, Natalie_097, AwfulOctopus, raz, toughgamerjerry, sdiop, soullesschicken, Trance, Katerina and 22 visitors agree.
Sosocratese and 10 visitors disagree.
the comment was that it was dishonroable, not easy, which i will go to the libertt to say is only easy if you are traines to fight any people at a time, if not specifically trained for thaf it is completely unfair. that being said, so, it is dishonorable to jump someone in a fair fight, who disagreeing thinks it is?
There are now 9 people voting that it is acceptable for three people to attack one. Could someone who disagreed that it was dishonorable explain their view?
I will partially aggree with you there. If all are untrained the attackers have the advantage. On the contrary I myself being a third degree black belt in Taekwondo have fought, on multiple times, three fourth degree black belts. These three fourth degree black belts let me tell you, would be the first three people I would call and they can handle any situation. I have fought them all at the same time and win 99% of the time. As long as you have the knowledge to fight more than one it generally dosn't matter how good they are you have the advantage.
If you tap on someone's name you can see what they voted for and against, what debates they created, and which debates they commented on. I just wish there was a way to see who voted for and against a topic since it is often hard to figure out why they did without them commenting.
A trained fighter will be able to redirect attacks from untrained opponents, but if everyone is of equal skill level, the multiple attackers have the advantage.
With two attackers, if one attacks from the front and the other the rear, the defender can not keep both visible at once, leaving them vulnerable to attacks from one. With three attackers, they are able to form a triangle so that there are always two attackers in the peripheral vision, or out of sight, again leaving the defender vulnerable. With any more than three to four the benefits of more people diminish since they get in each other's way.
A skilled fighter defending against multiple opponents would keep the attackers in view by redirecting them and evading so that the attackers do not get them. If all are unskilled, the defender would not know how to do so. If all are equally skilled, the attackers would know how to counter the defender's strategy.
Well, it may be dishonerable and make you look bad because you need your "freinds" to make you look big and tough; but in actuallity you have the advantage. This is only if they are stupid enough to come at you dissarmed. The reason I say this is because it is WAY easier to fight more than one person at the same time. With this being said you can divert their attacks at one another. So in the end they end up unwillingly fighting eachother.
how do you do that?
I would like to see a way to see who voted which way to the app. It already shows how each person voted if you look at their profile, so it already isn't a secret ballot.
idk, someone disagreed, however.
I'm with you. How could someone say that three people beating one person is acceptable?
please tell me why
thats maryland for you