What exactly is the point of the initial and subsequent arguments of Silat being an armed and battlefield art, so it's unarmed effectiveness is not readily apparent? What exactly are you saying? That Silat is an anachronism and it's study is more about the maintenence of an Indo-Malay warrior culture through LARP? That Silat teachers teaching hand to hand combat are either deluded or fraudulent? It's an argument that lacks internal consistency. If it's the former, you don't see Iaido practitioners getting defensive about it's modern effectiveness. If it's the latter then everyone else is right. It's not a meaningful explanation for the general experience.