Preface
Disclaimer: I am obviously not Merkules and Sun Tzu is probably not the spirit inhabiting Chris Webby since I believe he’s within me, especially since my mid-teens.
Pro is altering what I said a little bit. As this is a formal debate and I don't really want to involve my CD account in it, I'm not going to link to it or dig up in dirt from there. If Pro digs up dirt from CD, he already knows who has more to be ashamed of there. What I answered on CD is about the most intelligent notable person in history meaning that I know, based on psychology, that there have easily been many introverted geniuses who never ever got famous and I likely will be one of them unless I alter my aims and means later on in life. Sun Tzu (ST) was a very rare case where I genuinely believe that a thorough-bred genius was an extrovert ('thorough-bred genius' doesn't mean his bloodline were geniuses every generation this means he was undeniably a genius in every sense of the term).
i don't believe that Jacque Fresco (JF) deserves zero respect, in fact I don't believe that anyone does as everyone is strong at something in some way and even if they aren't the very fact that they've persisted so long and neither been killed off or committed suicide is still something to admire in all living beings, even if they are not impressive in any overt manner. JFo deserves respect for a few reasons and I don't understand where Pro got the idea that I don't respect JF to even a minimal degree. Other users, especially Dermot (now known as Jody and possible has an alt named Cocopops on CD), abused both JF and Type1 on a few of his many CD accounts (I won't name them to not dox him), but I never did. I agreed with JF on matters of Determinism and even on a lot of the logic he used in assessing the world as it is and while I don't loathe Capitalism as he does I agreed openly with some takes he had on it in a couple of videos that Type1 posted on CD. So, I am not at all sure where Pro got that I have absolutely zero respect for JF but it's not true.
Rant of a Speech (Why not? Pro had no real structure anyway)
Since this is a 30k-per-Round debate and I am not at all playing Devil's Advocate here, I am going to passionately rant about this.
I want to begin with why I, Con, adore Sun Tzu and just how much his teachings shaped the world and helped me personally in my life. I firstly want to thank Robert Greene for being such an enthralling author in his book, entitled 'The 48 Laws of Power' (even the mini-book version, which was what I read at 13-14, was enthralling) and I honestly believe that Fate itself helped me come across the book. It's even possible that my parents bought me for it as a present (yes, my parents actually bought me a book called 'Art of Lying' to help me learn why white lies are okay as I had moderate Asperger's Syndrome, now known as high-functioning Autism, and it caused me to hate lying... Or so they thought. So I can't quite remember how I came across the book but I swear to you that book began to open my mind (both Art of Lying which isn't by Robert Greene and 48 Laws of Power) but Greene's best book, which fascinated me start-to-end and which I could read over and over if time and boredom of knowing what he says next weren't factors, was (and by God this book I ensured to NEVER lose when we/I moved house or by any means, after I got hold of it it was Gospel to me) The 33 Strategies of War. The reason I remember this better is that I was 15 and we were in an airport and in the duty-free store I saw the book in the section where I looked for stuff that changes lives like The Art of Power by Thich Nhat Hanh (FANTASTIC Book in a totally different way, it's about zen-like Buddhist inner power to handle life) but what really caught my eyes was this 'strategies of war' book by a guy I already knew was a groundbreaking genius in understanding politics, socialising and power. I picked it up and got to reading and he introduced me to ST and Bonaparte (who unofficially admitted to his underlings and relatives that he severely admired ST and learned very much from him, you won't find direct proof because it was hearsay but it is undeniable if you study how Bonaparte fought and the fact that his closest mentioned it in passing both while he was alive and once he was gone. Greene had studied war and pure-strategy of any conflict like it was a science which is quite in contrast to ST's take that War was an Art, as opposed to a science. Greene didn't entirely agree with Sun Tzu on a couple of matters but apart from 2 of the 33 laws (I won't spell it out, get the book and read it, it's a fucking masterpiece), 31 were undeniably either directly from Sun Tzu but worded in better English or indirectly from Sun Tzu despite being directly from his logic.
That book changed my life. It still is. See, once you understand Sun Tzu and what he truly believed in and revealed to the world, you never stop adapting and improving, you do sometimes mal-adapt but you never stop getting net-profit unless you're really unlucky and stupid and happen to die due to a severe maladaptation either psychologically, physically or both. There is nothing at all that Sun Tzu ever taught or understood that you could wholeheartedly say is false or unimpressive. I will now explain why.
First, I want to define 'respect' in the context of this debate. Respect has two elements, feeling it and showing it and even though the official definitions say 'or' what they mean is 'and/or' so I will alter that in the quote of the best-worded definition that I could find and combines the list-items of Oxford with the prior wording of Cambridge:
(deep) admiration felt or shown for someone or something that you believe has good ideas, abilities, qualities, and/or achievements
Hybrid definition I wrote sourced from:
The term 'was' simply refers to the fact that at present both are dead, so 'was' isn't defined by any particular time-frame. This is actually fairer on Pro than it is on me as I would say 'was' refers to before JF and after ST since ST is not only far more ancient than JF but has physically had more respect felt and shown towards him over time, even as a percentage of people and such. There are many (actually all humans, which I'll prove later) who show ST respect without feeling it or knowing him or his teachings that well this is because he invented literally every single core law of logic and creative-angle when it comes to strategy and art of war, social-prowess and/or politics.
There's nothing, not one single element of political mastery, warfare dominance or social suave and in fact efficiency in any area of life at all that defies the teaching of ST, the only thing that happened was that more machines and subjects came after he died so some rules of math and such aren't things he invented but if we ignore mathematics, there has never ever been an inventor of logic where none before him in the entire history of humankind and all after him proved his teachings not only true but severely potent.
Is ST only respectful due to others using his teachings? No. He worked his way up the foodchain of one of the most brutal and unforgiving armies there was back in his day; the Chinese army. He became a full-starred (or whatever ranking system they used that's equivalent) General that is held in the highest regard by not just China but all surrounding nations. You may scoff and say 'well Japan defeated China despite having far less people, amplified severely in WW2, but this is ignoring that the Japanese were better students of ST than the Chinese were. From Ninja to Samurai, the Japanese comprehended ST's concepts far more than the Chinese did when it came to official stances of their military, police and politicians. The only thing I do note is that the martial arts of the Chinese are far more ST-esque than those of the Japanese and the Koreans. Oh, and don't think Vietnam didn't win that war due to ST's teachings, they did. ST didn't teach violence, he also didn't teach pacifism. He taught both. Gandhi was a severe student of ST whether he will ever admit it or knew it. One of the most vital concepts that Sun Tzu teachers as a fundamental pillar of his teachings, when properly translated to English (not directly, properly) is:
The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
I want you to look at history (I won't do it, I am challenging Pro to) and look at everyone before ST and everyone after. Note that ST's teachings stayed within Asia (especially more yellow-raced Asian cultures but it did also spread to India, just slower and more diluted via what they say is Chinese whispers but that phrase comes from something much later)... When you look at history, you will find that no civilisation had anything close to a concept of actual strategy or long-term conquest, even the great Persians who ran Ancient Egypt and of course the original Persia (which is now known as Iran but technically the borders where different to Iran's borders, meaning Persia had quite a few areas that weren't Iran. This all changed immediately the moment ST rose the Ranks and began teaching people in his army. I am not referring to ST and China alone and how it has ended up being the perpetually most populated nation on Earth even though it had a functioning one-child policy and is not exactly a nation many emigrate their home nations to, though it does quite the opposite very willingly (making it even more amazing that it maintains such a high population). What I am referring to is that after his era (545 - 496 BC, back then 49 was very old, most died in their early 30's so don't look down on his age of death), humans began to totally shift strategies around him, whether or not they knew it, and those that didn't do it knowingly would always, 100% of the time, lose to those that knowingly were.
ST understood pure logic so well that even though he died at 49 he managed to speak like a wise old man and teach laws of both logical and creative warfare and ways of analysing situations that never ever had been come across before and which non-superstitiously were rooted in observing the world around him. I'm not going to rely on or even for this Round expand the fact that Fresco joined the KKK and left because it was less racist and more political than he thought because that would contradict the very thing that ST taught; accept the bad parts of the world that you can't change, they are just as bad for your enemy if you play it right. There is simply no way to find flaws in ST's teachings if you ignore the fact that he often would use metaphor rather than the direct thing (which was part-intentional as he wanted only intelligent people who truly cared enough to learn from him so he spoke in cryptic metaphor for a lot of his 'Art of War').
JF teaches you to deny what the world is as much as you can, that we are incapable of changing events or invent anything because everything is inevitable and that the approach to take to life is to simply to surrender to the fact that you're nothing but a resource for the rest of society and the world to use as they please. This mentality, while selfless at a first glance and noble to the more emotive reader, is the basis for Resource-Based Economy that basically removes any form of currency/money other than one decided by machines that dictate to all biological beings the objectively correct value of their abilities and what they will best serve them as a resource. In true RBE, if you're too stupid and physically weak, you are annihilated as you're more useful as a body, or maybe you're put in a very basic job and the day you ask for a day off or get too sick you're killed off only then. This is literally the system that JF sugarcoats and professes is how we should see the world and live our life. This is the thing that happens when you get so idealistic and yet analytical at the same time; you end up even more sinister and evil than those that accept the world for the harsh reality that it is and think about how to handle it in spite of that.
In contrast to JF, ST sees the world also as overall deterministic but while will isn't entirely free, he encourages you to use that which you can control to the best of your ability. The concept behind ST's entire thesis is that when you're known (and truly are) the big bad wolf in the pack, you're then strong and influential enough to defend the weak without shedding any more blood as your reputation alone and ability alone let you either intimidate without conflict or win by combat staying calm the entire time. This concept is not the same as 'might is right' at all. Genghis Khan who happened to hear of ST's teachings and was such a superpowered psychopath to being the first well-known leader to use ST's Art of War so brutally, gave ST and his teachings a bad name. Instead of focusing on the Khans of this world and loathing ST, appreciate that if the communities that Khan pillaged, conquered and recruited soldiers from post-surrender had studied ST, they would never had had their defences successfully penetrated by a few men riding on horses in the first place (or at least the first 12 or so communities wouldn't after that Khan was just too plain strong and they should have realised it's optimal to surrender to his regime, which some did and that was also a ST-teaching).
ST didn't teach you to abuse other, he taught you how to be strong enough to beat the abusers and have the power to be the good or the bad guy that no other around you can unless they are as astute as you are in the Art of War. This is why I am telling you point-blank that the Gandhis, the Mandelas, the Martin Luther King Jr.'s are just as much students of ST (even if they don't know it, they are students of students of ST, he invented this entire strategic thinking to even be a thing). Chess was technically invented by a game the Persians played with their empire but ST wasn't a chess-genius (but he'd surely have a high chess elo if he put in the work) he was more of a poker-genius. He understood gambling and what games where not everything is out in the open (the cards hidden etc) and yet not everything is closed (think texas hold'em poker where only two cards are hidden but 5 are shared between you and the enemy) revolve around; deception and knowledge in spite of it.
People who dislike ST think he teaches you how to be a psychopath, pillaging, toying with people and ruining all the places you go as an arch-villain but this is not true. He teaches you how to be a respectful anti-villain (inverse of an anti-hero but very similar). He teaches you not to be too naive or good and yet not too evil and impulsive. Genghis Khan didn't listen to these parts of the teachings, thus he is loathed brutally and yet Sun Tzu has a statue of him and is revered by ALL in China because no matter what walk of life you take, no matter how pacifist you are, you cannot ignore ST's teachings for long (whether or not you know they came from ST); you will be slaughtered and outmanoeuvred by those who do if you dare do so.
Every single Intelligence agency, efficient military force, efficient police force (especially detectives when facing complex criminal syndicates or even just complex genius solo criminals), doctors (vs complex diseases) and basically EVERYONE uses ST's teachings. This is NOT because they are obvious. ST wasn't among the first humans, he was simply the first of high-ranking and prominent humans to realise what we NOW THINK is obvious.
The way to win a debate? Sun Tzu invented it. The way to lose a debate? Sun Tzu defined it. I am using his teachings here and now, I am wise enough to know I should leave it here. Good Luck Type1, hope you flop four-of-a-kind or else you're doomed to lose here... ;)
Before speaking to me about 'if this wasn't against the worst debater on the site, you would have lost.' look at the elo of all the debaters who lost to you and assess how 'tough' they all were. You thrive solely on picking on easy opponents whereas I experiment against the strong from time to time but purely out of efficiency, most of my opponents are weak at debating and I ensure to exploit their weaknesses throughout. I wouldn't have debated the same way against an opponent with better emotional resilience and debate-structure.
"force the entire population of China into slavery so they could build him a giant sky-scraper sized steel dildo to get his rocks off with."
Ok, why did that point come from pro? It clearly shows how intelligent ST was to organize such... (not including this in my vote, it was just really funny to me)
The ending is pure gold. I look forward to your vote. ;)
I will try to get to it either tomorrow or today.
See below. :)
A vote would be highly appreciated, this is a properly entertaining debate where I believe I have done Sun Tzu's soul proud by how intensely accurately I applied the Art of War to this debate. This debate is quite literally the epitome of what Sun Tzu himself would have done against the opponent psychologically, I am very proud of myself and hope Tzu is too. <3
But capitalism is the cause of cancer. Because of people like him cancer exists.
Not funny
Well that's just lovely. I hope he gets cancer lol.
Swagnarok is an old-school conservative.
Jacque Fresco was in fact more "important" than Sun Tzu. He created the Resource Based Economy system which is the most advanced socio-economic system that has yet been conceived.
The Romans had no proper basis of their strategies. This is why they have ended up wiped out. The parts they did well, all happened post-Tzu and arguably were because they heard about and studied a little into how Chinese dynasties were evolving. I can show you objectively that the Romans were inferior to the Ancient Chinese, in strategy.
The Byzantines developed treatises on the intricacies of war, as did possibly the Romans before them. And of course, Machiavelli wrote to a very similar tune circa the Renaissance period. That is to say, Sun Tzu was a visionary for his time and his society, but overall he laid out a set of principles that other people elsewhere in the world were eventually able to discover and elaborate on for the purposes of their own societies. I suspect that he ultimately did not have much of an impact on the West, aside from certain corporate contexts today where he might as well be required reading material.
That has nothing to do with this debate, of course. I have no idea who the other guy is, and I'm sure he's nowhere near as important as Sun Tzu was.
She probably doesn't think at all.
I said the former, not the latter. She probably thinks both, though.
Yes well this is exactly how it works on this site, when it's left up to idiots like her and the other idiots on this site the winner will be the incorrect one every time. I may as well just fucking lie constantly and only come up with debates for the purpose of getting votes rather than arguing for what I actually think is true.
It's probably the former. The ending is the wife gets so angry and sad that... Don't wanna spoil it but the trailer on YT spoils it so wtf lol...
Still don't know exactly what she's implying but it's either that I am abusive or that she is stupid enough to think I got beaten in this debate.
It's a movie about severe domestic abuse.
What are you talking about?
I'm thinking about brunch on Thursday, did you want to join me at First Watch Typo?
Let's say it's so. The reason I admit that's possible, is I lose even recently to people.
Then adapt to the stupidity of the readers, take on board the gap in their understanding. Observe what led them to misinterpret your case and to fondly enjoy the opponents' case and garner knowledge.
I have literally never lost to you in reality. I am correct every time and superior to you in general, if you want I can show you what I can do if I use your bullshit tactics to deceive the voters.
How many times have we face-off? How many times have I lost?
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
But, the quote on my profile is also true. Bonaparte tells us to not underestimate how fast the enemy will learn about us if we face them too many times. I pay attention to how often I face you and how you are adapting to me.
You are literally lying all throughout this debate, I am simply making outrageous and obviously false claims to surpass the absurdity of your own lies. Because this wasn't a debate, you turned it into a "come up with the most outrageous and negative way to portray the opponent's person" contest.
You see it that way now. Look back at this debate when you are calm and see who had more lies in what they said.
I brought out the liar and insulter in you, you allowed me to. This is what ST taught me amongst much else.
You have reduced this debate to nothing but who can come up with the most outrageous lies. If you think this is a brilliant strategy then you can eat a fucking cock. If you do "win" this debate then all I can say is I am probably the only person here who has any brains.
that is the power of ST being carried out by me. Every single thing I did in the debate was at least in part done to make you lose your mind. It is your greatest weakness.
So pissed off at your dishonesty and stupidity right now.
"there has never ever been an inventor "
I meant "here has never ever been an inventor OTHER THAN ST"
I'll correct this in my R2.