Argument Structure...

Use this forum to chat abort anything else related to CQB.

Moderators: jimothy_183, Admin

Post Reply
User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Argument Structure...

Post by Ryan » Thu Sep 06, 2012 5:34 am

This topic is a very important one to me, it's how misconceptions and perceptions come to the light and how you wade off what you don't want and stick with what you do. If you feel adamant about what you are trying to get across and argue it, people tend to insert a lot of insults, misconceptions, cookie cutter crap and on forth by the end of which somehow aids their argument and leaves them of same mindset.

- They will give you a situation of which it wouldn't work, somehow aiding their argument and boast their cookie cutter schools and idols

- You will tell them it has strict SOP's or [insert argument], you're not going to do it there, that would be like [insert stupid example of what you wouldn't do in a drill]

- Insert gang of questions and contradictory statements to your statement

- Argue 10 fronts at one time along with fluffing off misconceptions [i.e. someone misconceived that I state to "do it all the time"]

- At the end of the argument they are usually in the same mindset

For example,
If someone states this: "The firefight is won when the enemy is no longer able to put out effective fire" or "Never shoot over someones head", would you agree with it? Therefore what would your argument be because I'm sure there is a lot of counter arguments and the skill is not getting yourself into a conventional mindset trap or a non-reality perspective. These "dos and don'ts" are the basis where a lot of arguments occur.

You will see it everywhere. On a forum, in a conversation, between the most lowest and highest rank, between the most lowest and most experienced. The differences will be in perception and what they are arguing for. Therefore it is important, especially for us on CQB-TEAM to word what we talk about appropriately, back it up as much as we can, test it if we can and aid the discussions whether pro or con to highlight the technique or tactic in its good and bad, not to feed ourselves crap about some techniques being Demi-God.
CQB-TEAM Education and Motivation.

"Pragmatism over theory."
"Anyone with a weapon is just as deadly as the next person."
"Unopposed CQB is always a success, if you wanted you could moonwalk into the room holding a Pepsi."

User avatar
jimothy_183
Military
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Argument Structure...

Post by jimothy_183 » Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:51 am

Topic moved.
semper acer , semper velox , semper trux , semper promptus

User avatar
jimothy_183
Military
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Argument Structure...

Post by jimothy_183 » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:01 am

Ryan wrote:This topic is a very important one to me, it's how misconceptions and perceptions come to the light and how you wade off what you don't want and stick with what you do. If you feel adamant about what you are trying to get across and argue it, people tend to insert a lot of insults, misconceptions, cookie cutter crap and on forth by the end of which somehow aids their argument and leaves them of same mindset.
This is no different to "fanboy-ism" which is what happens when people assign/attach things to their ego which leaves them exposed to getting "butthurt".
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/05/19/fanboyism-and-brand-loyalty/ wrote:
The Misconception: You prefer the things you own over the things you don’t because you made rational choices when we bought them.

The Truth: You prefer the things you own because you rationalize your past choices to protect your sense of self.
The Ego Trap

As a result of this people lose open mindedness which is basically the ability to think, use logical reasoning, different or opposing viewpoints and also consider the evidence before formulating an opinion/conclusion.
semper acer , semper velox , semper trux , semper promptus

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Argument Structure...

Post by Ryan » Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:31 pm

Nice article. Some concepts go away from conventional or doctrine and then it's a bigger argument and you're not just fighting off opinions then you're fighting off backed opinions related to military doctrine, experience, blah! Then the situation is one-upped.

What is the best way to argue a point of view? How to structure it to stop these misconceptions from the start?

(Especially if you're going to make a blog!)
CQB-TEAM Education and Motivation.

"Pragmatism over theory."
"Anyone with a weapon is just as deadly as the next person."
"Unopposed CQB is always a success, if you wanted you could moonwalk into the room holding a Pepsi."

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Argument Structure...

Post by Ryan » Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:57 am

How about this:

Mention something, an addition to what someone is talking about, i.e. topic: tactics. Mid-way through.

Talking about LOF issues. Talk about doing a quick shoulder check or something and the pros...

The "common sense fairy" says "It's not that easy if you can't see next to you" as some "common sense con" which you'd know already instantly and adjust for. I have also came across such "tactical fairy" and "planner, good idea fairy" types.

"This is how we do entry" "I wouldn't do it that way because of [insert valid tactical reason]"
"Hey it's a good idea if you take this" "Why? We won't need it" "[Insert 'good idea' (to planners) that to the experienced is of no value (to operators)]"


What do you think of people like that? Who try degrade something with a situation that comes with pure common sense? And can even put others off your opinion or statement from doing so with such a low-grade "common sense" con. It's like "Yeah, you'd never use it if it was like that because it would be useless"... Herp derp!
CQB-TEAM Education and Motivation.

"Pragmatism over theory."
"Anyone with a weapon is just as deadly as the next person."
"Unopposed CQB is always a success, if you wanted you could moonwalk into the room holding a Pepsi."

User avatar
tacticalguy
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:48 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Argument Structure...

Post by tacticalguy » Mon Oct 22, 2012 1:26 am

Wow, I learned something today about a past-time that I'm never eager to engage in, the Art of Argument. Thanks, guys.
If you have `cleared' all the rooms and met no resistance, you and your entry team have probably kicked in the door of the wrong house.
(Murphy's Cop Laws)

The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan. (Von Clausewitz)

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Argument Structure...

Post by Ryan » Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:50 pm

Image

This is pretty cool. It's very ideal though, when you hit disagreement on the nose... it bites.
CQB-TEAM Education and Motivation.

"Pragmatism over theory."
"Anyone with a weapon is just as deadly as the next person."
"Unopposed CQB is always a success, if you wanted you could moonwalk into the room holding a Pepsi."

User avatar
jimothy_183
Military
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Argument Structure...

Post by jimothy_183 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:31 am

Indeed, critical thinking is part of open mindedness, the opposite being closed mindedness.
semper acer , semper velox , semper trux , semper promptus

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Argument Structure...

Post by Ryan » Fri Jan 11, 2013 2:44 am

Image

I have met the type. Know-it-all nothingness. Those people with this superficial view of the subject matter yet they consider themself God's gift.
Dealing with these types tends to be as easy as ignoring them! Infact there are many "types" of personalities out there which cause you to change your structure and output.
CQB-TEAM Education and Motivation.

"Pragmatism over theory."
"Anyone with a weapon is just as deadly as the next person."
"Unopposed CQB is always a success, if you wanted you could moonwalk into the room holding a Pepsi."

User avatar
jimothy_183
Military
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Argument Structure...

Post by jimothy_183 » Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:38 am

Well it's not like you can't gain anything useful out of those walter mitty commando types but I tend to get away from them as I find them to be a complete waste of time. I suppose it's like panning for gold, You have to look through a load of shit just to find that gold nugget. :wink:
semper acer , semper velox , semper trux , semper promptus

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Argument Structure...

Post by Ryan » Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:05 am

How to tell the fakers.

Ask a simple, general question.

"What is the best entry technique, in your opinion?"

If the answer is either:
"Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"

"WITH GRENADES"

"When you breach with breaching charges"

Then you've spotted a bullshitter.
CQB-TEAM Education and Motivation.

"Pragmatism over theory."
"Anyone with a weapon is just as deadly as the next person."
"Unopposed CQB is always a success, if you wanted you could moonwalk into the room holding a Pepsi."

User avatar
tacticalguy
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:48 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Argument Structure...

Post by tacticalguy » Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:02 am

Ryan wrote:How to tell the fakers.

Ask a simple, general question.

"What is the best entry technique, in your opinion?"

If the answer is either:
"Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"

"WITH GRENADES"

"When you breach with breaching charges"

Then you've spotted a bullshitter.
The best entry technique answer? I have one better, heard this one in a bar, "I can't explain it, I would have to show you and those techniques are still classified."
The best answer I've ever heard? "The one where you don't get shot." That was a brand new student who admitted he knew next to nothing about room clearing. "From the mouths of babes..."
If you have `cleared' all the rooms and met no resistance, you and your entry team have probably kicked in the door of the wrong house.
(Murphy's Cop Laws)

The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan. (Von Clausewitz)

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Argument Structure...

Post by Ryan » Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:47 pm

Well, just an example, I normally ask what unit they're from, how long they served, etc. Normally during the course of half an hour they come up with many contradictions in their answers. Fakers like to say SF, super combat soldier ninja 100 tours of Iraq, Nigeria and China. Catch a faker, catch their bullshit stories. This includes when they try talk about CQB!

Example, a dude recently:
"Oh yeah I trained HR"

"Yeah? As a reserve"

"Yeah with X Group, one of them was an SASR operator"

"Oh yeah, that must be Matt?" (My bait, don't even know a Matt!!!!!!!! :lol: )

"Yeah, yeah, Matt!"

Sucked in. He also stated many, many contradicting and overly BULLSHIT stories.

To which his account now says:
You cannot reply to this conversation. Either the recipient's account was disabled or its privacy settings don't allow replies.

Sorry, this page isn't available
The link you followed may be broken, or the page may have been removed.

:lol: Report to ANZMI time! (http://www.anzmi.net/)
CQB-TEAM Education and Motivation.

"Pragmatism over theory."
"Anyone with a weapon is just as deadly as the next person."
"Unopposed CQB is always a success, if you wanted you could moonwalk into the room holding a Pepsi."

User avatar
tacticalguy
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:48 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Argument Structure...

Post by tacticalguy » Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:54 pm

Well, I don't go out of my way to catch pogues, to be honest. I'll wait. You talk whatever you want; rappel-master, scuba, parachutist, tactical shooter, etc... When it comes time and you can't tie a Swiss Seat to rappel down the tower with me, don't know how to set up your tank and regulator, pack your 'chute or know which end of the weapon to point at the target... Then, I know. My time is too precious to me to waste on dreamers in fantasy land to "pogue-hunt". For anyone that does do that, more power to you.
If you have `cleared' all the rooms and met no resistance, you and your entry team have probably kicked in the door of the wrong house.
(Murphy's Cop Laws)

The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan. (Von Clausewitz)

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Argument Structure...

Post by Ryan » Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:08 pm

Well, there's a fine-line too. Those who to me have mental disorders I just ignore, tolerating stories. But those who are just doing it for self-gain or anything, I can't honestly hold back - it's not good. You find quite a few during research or discussion with subject matters like CQB, and they usually straight up say something that doesn't sound right. For instance that "AJ Dickens" Don Shipley called out said he shot Bin Laden! This same guy posted videos of "how-to" room clear and he comes in the room, talking. "Yeah, you clear this corner, then he spins around while in the fatal funnel and then he goes "then spin and take this one". That kind of stuff is just in your face obvious. The true test as you say is getting details out of someone. For example, I'm a paramedic but what course did I do? What did I get taught on the first day? How do you give a medication IV? People in the industry KNOW. It's everyday. It's a profession.

EDIT: I mean we're pretty open, it's not like we ask for DD214s, to be honest we are a trust based society so you just bluntly say. Like the latest dude, sheepdog, who signed up - I'm civilian. Yeah, me too! Welcome to the forums and get involved is the simple answer. The problem with the internet is people have the ability to fake - swiss seat knot for example, can be learnt. It's interesting none the less on argument structure to do with the opposing members and how you can weigh them up and therefore the credibility of information.
CQB-TEAM Education and Motivation.

"Pragmatism over theory."
"Anyone with a weapon is just as deadly as the next person."
"Unopposed CQB is always a success, if you wanted you could moonwalk into the room holding a Pepsi."

User avatar
tacticalguy
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:48 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Argument Structure...

Post by tacticalguy » Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:56 pm

The ones who are in La-La land never bother me. Yes, the ones who lie about their military, medical/etc, background in order to sell their specific product whether it be a martial arts system, tactical training or any product, really are despicable. Never seen this AJ person. Okay, as to the little details tripping people up, I agree. I've heard people talking about starting IVs and intubating people and I KNOW they're blowing smoke. How do you not know what the "flash" is, "visualizing the 'cords" or "clear and bilateral breath sounds"?? Same thing with fighting fire, room clearing/CQB, using Hurst Tools to open up a car, jumping from a perfectly good airplane or anything else. There are so many details that will be missing from the stories of folks that aren't being truthful. Yes, anyone can learn how to tie a Swiss Seat from Youtube. The act of smoothly rappelling? Nope. Especially not the Aussie rappel. If you're not learning that from a qualified instructor, it's SPLAT time and you'll get to see it coming. Fast-roping from a Blackhawk? How high were you? What kind of gloves did you use? Again, I don't worry about chasing those people down. They reveal themselves, sooner or later. I also think that what you are referring to as argument structure, I think more of as being off-hand interrogation techniques. I'm conversant with those.
If you have `cleared' all the rooms and met no resistance, you and your entry team have probably kicked in the door of the wrong house.
(Murphy's Cop Laws)

The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan. (Von Clausewitz)

User avatar
jimothy_183
Military
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Argument Structure...

Post by jimothy_183 » Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:54 pm

semper acer , semper velox , semper trux , semper promptus

civiliansheepdog
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:03 am
Location: Canada

Re: Argument Structure...

Post by civiliansheepdog » Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:32 am

I'm not into arguing, unless it's a legit debate but if it's on some "keyboard warrior" garbage I walk away. Hahah. I'm the type of you either got to prove it and do as you preach or STFU and go play COD, and catch the unicorn. But please no more Jim Wagners

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Argument Structure...

Post by Ryan » Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:13 am

Objectively arguing is a good way of diminishing a point or promoting another. Look at research. If there was something this industry needed more, well there you go. Keyboard warriors tend to lack all solid proofing and concrete evidence. But so do those who HAVE DONE IT. If you say "it worked for me" it's not evidence, this is more a trust based - if you will - industry of "I'll teach you how to survive." How can you trust that? That's why most shooters independently think, but most also are condemned to doctrine, dogmatic or one-solution mindsets. Argument is a good way to feel like you have the last laugh over those types. :lol:
CQB-TEAM Education and Motivation.

"Pragmatism over theory."
"Anyone with a weapon is just as deadly as the next person."
"Unopposed CQB is always a success, if you wanted you could moonwalk into the room holding a Pepsi."

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Argument Structure...

Post by Ryan » Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:48 am

How about arguing about experience. How does that work? It's not always logical or 'tactical' from experience point of view. For example, I heard of an instructor teaching and he had a jam. He jumped straight down and kind of frogged it all the way to cover then unjammed his rifle and began to engage. Everyone laughed... except for the guys with combat experience. It's the kind of 'when death meets you eye to eye, just fucking react' moment you can't... I guess... explain (especially against a dogmatic point of view). What's worse is that if someone is arguing their experience militaristically... but with no experience on the specific subject matter. :lol: That type of argument could occur in say... tracking. Not everyone is taught it.
CQB-TEAM Education and Motivation.

"Pragmatism over theory."
"Anyone with a weapon is just as deadly as the next person."
"Unopposed CQB is always a success, if you wanted you could moonwalk into the room holding a Pepsi."

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussions”