Instigator / Pro
7
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Topic
#620
Jacque Fresco was more intelligent and respect-worthy than Sun Tzu
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2
After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
RationalMadman
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
For those who are new to the ways of wuwu RM and I have discussed this before, and he has great respect for Sun Tzu, considering him to be the most ingenious person in known history. I also respect Sun Tzu to an extent, but there is another man who RM has absolutely no respect for. A man who is one of the greatest thinkers in history, engineer and self-taught sociologist Jacque Fresco.
Jacque Fresco theorized the Resource Based Economy as the ultimate economic model for a type 1+ civilization.
Jacque Fresco was way ahead of his time, envisioning a future where humans are free from institutions and superstitions that plague our current society. His observations show he is above the hyper-subjectivity of the average human, whereas Sun Tzu was intelligent but still very primitive and type 0 in his thinking.
Tzu was a Taoist, and while better than many religions it is still a superstitious belief system. He also essentially dedicated his life to teaching corrupt emperors how to murder people.
Fresco, on the other hand:
Con
#2
Preface
Just a fun thing to listen to: Sun Tzu’s spirit (Chris Webby) and mine (Merkules) making a song about our prowess in war, debating, poker, rapping etc: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ9Vuf3wrrk
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 achievementsHybrid 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... ;)
Round 2
Pro
#3
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.
Yes, and I was Nikola Tesla in a past life. I was also Buddha and Sokrates.
If Pro digs up dirt from CD, he already knows who has more to be ashamed of there.
Shame isn't my cup of tea.
i don't believe that Jacque Fresco (JF) deserves zero respect
Well you basically called him a grumpy, bitter old man and said all his ideas are stupid.
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.
You adore ST because you see life as a game and a competition above all else. In the following paragraphs you show us how much of your time was and is dedicated to studying the strategical methodology of manipulation and social climbing. Jacque Fresco also used these kind of techniques, but he did it to enlighten people rather than just become "powerful".
Jacque Fresco uses psychological manipulation to "cure" racism and ignorance:
Jacque Fresco showed great cunning in the way he infiltrated organizations and tricked them into not being retarded.
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.
Yes, and Jacque Fresco spent his life trying to end war and politics and replace them with reason. The reason Fresco is so much greater and more worthy of respect is that ST dedicated his life to perfecting the methodology that gets you ahead within the system of his time, and JF dedicated his life to replacing the current paradigm with a much better one all together. ST is the guy who says "welp, this is how things are, so how can I make this work for me?" whereas JF is the guy who says "Welp, this is how things are, how can we make it better for everyone?". The way of ST is much more shortsighted, it focuses solely on the "me" strategy. Jacque Fresco was strategizing for all of civilization, thinking of ways we can we work together rather than fight each other and compete. ST was very much thinking within the paradigm of his time, whereas JF was a visionary who created a new paradigm.
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
This is utter bullshit that you derived from believing that stupid fake Anonymous troll I debated. If you so much as believe a single thing he said then you have no idea what you're talking about. As explained in the video above Fresco joined the KKK to destroy it from within and influence it's members to not be racist. As much as ST spent his time working out the intricacies of strategy and manipulation he never once used it for good.
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.
Utter adhoministic drivel. Jacque Fresco was entirely scientific about everything and denying reality is just about the opposite of what he did. Literally no human being in history when it comes to being objective did a better job than Jacque Fresco. He did not teach you to "surrender" but to use methodology and reason to change things rather than violence.
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.
How about you evidence these insane assertions? You believe everything that the lying troll said and now you are repeating his baseless lies. What you are describing is technocracy without socialism. RBE is "technocratic socialism" where everyone equally has access to the means of production unless they threaten the overall balance of society or threaten other people somehow. Pure technocracy would be run entirely by engineers and AI with the public being trained to follow directions rather than be part of the decision making process, but RBE is mostly Socialistic with only the technical aspects of technocracy such as emphasizing methodology above opinion rather than the full AI control mechanism and systemic hierarchy of technocracy.
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
But Sun Tzu was a child molester and incinerated small fuzzy animals though. He also wanted to rule the earth and 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.
That argument is just about as valid as the bollocks you've said about Jacque Fresco. Lying is poor conduct so I hope it's merely out of stupidity that you do this although you DID speak at length on the virtues of lying just a few paragraphs ago.
Con
#4
Correction to my R1:
"there has never ever been an inventor "
I meant "here has never ever been an inventor other than ST."
But Sun Tzu was a child molester and incinerated small fuzzy animals though. He also wanted to rule the earth and 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.
This is a series of lies and defamation. I will like to paste a transcript of him going into his time with the kkk and just how Racist JF is, even using the N-word to quote the KKK guy(s) multiple times during his speech(es).
"Goddamn nigger, talk like a nigger!" This is Lou's reaction, not my words.I said "Lou, that guy was raised in a different environment."If you took a black man and raised him in France,he'd speak like a Frenchman, since he was a baby.If you raised him in Germany, he'd speak with a German accent.In Italy you talk with your hands, "Mi mangiai, Americano!"You say "Come on-a, eat! It's-a good food!" [Italian accent]That's not you, that's the environment impinging upon you."If I took your son, Lou, and brought him up by a 'nigger' family,your baby would say "Dat's right, you right. Mmhm" just like a negro.Do you understand that, Lou?" He said"Do you mean to say niggers act like niggersbecause they're brought up in a nigger environment?"I showed them French movies of blacks brought up in France.In Sweden they speak Swedish. They don't speak like a black man.They don't all 'jazz'. That's in America. All blacks are different.They don't all like watermelon, all the stuff we project out there.You know, Irishmen are drunkards; they all believe that.I said "No, no, they are raised in an environment where 'Have a drink' is normal."Sometimes people are not raised in that environment.It depends on your experiences.Your decision-making is shaped by experience.
Something to notice isn't how he uses the N-word when quoting, so freely, since I just did that too. Instead, I want you to notice his attitude; we can't help it, we are pathetic slaves to our environment and nothing more than lucky to have been raised how we were raised. This attitude of 'nurture over nature but really it's all nature anyway' is highlighted in many of his views and speeches. In fact the fundamental idea of the RBE is to raise all humans to feel worthless unless they live entirely selflessly for everyone else. He believes you can raise people to be totally absent of ego and entirely satisfied with serving the 'collective' if you are harsh and rational enough with them from birth. This aim of his is backed solely on speculation, literally as solid as how he justified his views in the speech I just gave.
He openly admits that we shouldn't give a damn about everyone being happy or even have that as the aim: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTQXgVb8V9M
He knows RBE is not utopian, he knows that many will be unhappy in it but he insists it's the best as it's pure science, ignoring a vital element of science; psychology. Economics is actually scientific, but clearly this guy thinks you can scientifically give everything an objective value, rather than using a 'money' to be a subjective middle-man that people use to assign value to things.
He speaks with a severe lisp and says things funny and sure, ST never spoke, but if we're talking about respect and intelligence then one needs to wonder why a guy preaching of a moneyless world wrote books here and there for those with money to attain. Also, the books you will see him bring up and which Pro links to (doesn't even elaborate on) are a series of basically rewriting Marx... Marx already came up with the ideas and concepts that JF is regurgitating but I will give him credit in that he's using science and combining it with Marxism to encourage a 'humans serve robots' technocratic Dystopian future... Apparently, he sees the Matrix as the optimal scenario or something , who knows? It's never made clear in any single writing or speech of JF what exactly he thinks we should aim for. He preaches that we are all inevitable results of our upbringing, that we can't help it and that we should all serve AI overlords in the future as that's scientifically correct to do. I don't understand how this guy is a genius, let alone deserving of all that much Respect. He quit his day job long ago to be whatever you call him; a little journalist, a little madman-preacher-cultist and a little bit of a University pseudo-professor in... Well, Marxism as a study?
Sun Tzu was the single most legendary General in one of the toughest, most monumental cultures in history; the Chinese. (https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-china/sun-tzu). Let me be crystal clear; as a result of what Sun Tzu taught (and almost certainly 70%+ due to that alone) China is still a nation to date and the culture of the Chinese are almost (other than the Greeks) the only culture to date to be genuinely thorough to what they originally were. You can say 'lucky they didn't get conquered' but it wasn't luck, it was strategy in spite of luck.
See, this is the key thing about ST; he defied upbringing and taught the entire world (eventually, not originally as his teachings weren't spread everywhere) how to think and comprehend War and strategy of any kind. John Nash's 'game theory' equilibrium is actually entirely based upon ST, but again he never gave ST any credit and probably read the book in secret. It is so severely easy and efficient to combine ST's teachings with Game Theory in scholarly studies of war and politics that many have done so to fantastic capacities;
In fact this one even includes ST's Art of War in its history of game theory and such strategies: https://www.academia.edu/8754084/A_BRIEF_INCOMPLETE_HISTORY_OF_GAME_THEORY
^ This is about economics, not even war.
Did you notice how both articles, written by different scholars had immediately in the introduction a homage to ST when exploring John Nash's equilibrium? This is because all heavily-analytical strategy was born due to ST. All.
ST was the first notable person in history to ever suggest, let alone explain in-depth, that 'force' and 'stronger' armies are merely one of many concepts that go into winning war and conquering. He taught that war is nothing great or significant at all if it is absent of making the people you conquer to love and respect you.
Did you know that, due to their alliance with the Chinese, that the Marxists of WW2 less so conquered but more importantly after they studied ST and such, maintained control over USSR and neighbouring nations by truly comprehending ST. They got to know the Chinese more and more as they maintained control over USSR. Sure, you'll say 'ha but they lost badly' except they lost as the CIA and Al Qaeda had a supreme understanding of ST by that time (that's also how the US came in at such an optimal time and helped the Allies win WW2, by brutally crushing the Japanese culture that itself had such a deep understanding of ST.
6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
ST didn't teach you to be a 'good guy', he taught you how to have the power to be the good and bad guy all at once. Taoism, which he was loyal to as a philosophical outlook, encourages balance above all things. ST was the first balance-oriented philosopher, the first teacher of a subject known as 'pure strategy' that he didn't even know about as it didn't exist yet as any kind of full-on thought and he was also a General, a highly respected one at that. Back than, General meant even more than it does today; Generals wouldn't just give the orders but would genuinely plan out the wars and be the equivalent of the politicians today who plan out the wars. He was a leader in every single sense of the term.
When Pro says to respect JF because he joined the KKK to try and change them from within, he ignores the most important aspect of it all; JF never succeeded at anything he tried to do in his entire life in any professional or moralistic sense. Maybe he succeeded in writing some recycled Marxist ideas and splashing in some 'you're solely based on how you were raised' science but overall the guy didn't ever really succeed at any significant mission he carried out. Whether it was to change the KKK from within to become more Socialist (they are even more right-wing now than ever before [https://www.theroot.com/how-the-republican-party-became-the-party-of-racism-1827779221])) or it was to make people start to embrace that no one can invent anything without being very lucky and right-place-right-time [https://www.thevenusproject.com/multimedia/no-one-invented-anything-scratch/] and we're all slaves to circumstance, JF was a self-defeatist in both theory and practise. There's little to respect about him and his 'intellect' or 'supreme intelligence' was solely displayed by the fact that he rubbed shoulders with a couple of intellectuals and happened to preach to university students sometimes.
When I, Con, say to respect ST it is for both his achievements, his morals and his astute brutally realistic take on the world that included the 2. ST didn't simply realise that circumstance matters and go 'we're slaves to our upbringing', instead he taught the exact ways to think and analyse your circumstances and improve your power and range of influence within them as well as to conquer those trying to to the same at your sake or the sake of others close to you. ST didn't preach, he taught.
In fact five fundamental factors of war that he pinpoints, even have those laws involved in optimal ways to raise children and students.
The fifth Fundamental Factor is:
On which side is there the most absolute certainty that merit will be properly rewarded and misdeeds summarily punished?
I don't get how you can call JF, a pseudo-intellectual who not only didn't come up with new ideas by insisted on not doing so as no human has ever invented anything other than being lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time according to him, a superior in intelligence and more deserving of respect than Sun Tzu.
Round 3
Pro
#5
This is a series of lies and defamation.
Yes it is, and I did quite well to make that as obvious as possible, to illustrate to what extent what you said about JF was lies and defamation.
I will like to paste a transcript of him going into his time with the kkk and just how Racist JF is, even using the N-word to quote the KKK guy(s) multiple times during his speech(es).
Anyone with the brains of a stale cheeze-it can see that this needs to be taken in context. He is not saying nigger because he's racist, he's quoting someone else saying nigger. You are literally trying to defame him and take his words out of context after accusing me of lying and defamation just because I satirically mocked your own lies and defamation. If you honestly think he is racist when he constantly talked about how environment has such a great influence over behaviour rather than genes and his whole philosophy implies egalitarianism then you are dumber than a box of chimpanzee nipples.
Something to notice isn't how he uses the N-word when quoting, so freely, since I just did that too. Instead, I want you to notice his attitude; we can't help it, we are pathetic slaves to our environment and nothing more than lucky to have been raised how we were raised.
Ah yes more mischaracterization. You are the one that believes we exist to serve alien demigods and we are trapped in some flat earth zoo at the mercy of interdimensional entities (this is not a joke or a lie, this is what RM literally believes). You also believe in determinism and doubt free will exists just as JF does so what are you going on about? Clearly you are just painting his views as negatively as possible, betting on the probability that the average voter will not actually look into JF's views or be nuanced enough of a thinker to tell how you are just presenting his views from the worst angle you can.
In fact the fundamental idea of the RBE is to raise all humans to feel worthless unless they live entirely selflessly for everyone else.
Yes and the fundamental thing that you like to do most of all is molest children, now stop lying you fucking piece of shit. See folks, this is all just part of what ST teaches you, to be a liar and use deception to get ahead. It works quite well in politics and war but is it really what you want society or debate to be based on?
He believes you can raise people to be totally absent of ego and entirely satisfied with serving the 'collective' if you are harsh and rational enough with them from birth.
The word "harsh" is just there to give it an added negative implication, but that is not based on anything, it's just a negative expletive. "totally absent of ego and entirely satisfied with serving the 'collective'" is just a way to make "raising people to have critical thinking skills and engage in constructive behaviour" sound as negative as possible.
This aim of his is backed solely on speculation
It is based on observation. Funny enough, even in the "nigger transcript" he backed up what he said with real world examples by pointing out that french black people speak like french people etc. The effect experience has on behaviour is a matter of scientific fact. "This aim of his" that you speak of is to create an environment conducive to positive human relations rather than conflict and elitism.
He openly admits that we shouldn't give a damn about everyone being happy or even have that as the aim
LOL then you link a video of him explaining that he isn't a utopian, you are misrepresenting so hard right now. You know very well that not being a utopian does not imply that you "don't give a damn" about people being happy.
He knows RBE is not utopian
You use the word utopian as an insult against him, which you have done before on CD even if you don't do it in this debate, proving absolutely nothing but the extent of your own lack of comprehension and honesty.
He speaks with a severe lisp and says things funny and sure, ST never spoke, but if we're talking about respect and intelligence then one needs to wonder why a guy preaching of a moneyless world wrote books here and there for those with money to attain. Also, the books you will see him bring up and which Pro links to (doesn't even elaborate on) are a series of basically rewriting Marx... Marx already came up with the ideas and concepts that JF is regurgitating but I will give him credit in that he's using science and combining it with Marxism to encourage a 'humans serve robots' technocratic Dystopian future... Apparently, he sees the Matrix as the optimal scenario or something , who knows? It's never made clear in any single writing or speech of JF what exactly he thinks we should aim for. He preaches that we are all inevitable results of our upbringing, that we can't help it and that we should all serve AI overlords in the future as that's scientifically correct to do. I don't understand how this guy is a genius, let alone deserving of all that much Respect. He quit his day job long ago to be whatever you call him; a little journalist, a little madman-preacher-cultist and a little bit of a University pseudo-professor in... Well, Marxism as a study?
You know, for the past few days I have been trying to be more respectful towards you, but what little respect I had for you is crumbling away quite rapidly at this point. I am literally disgusted by the lengths you are going to frame and misrepresent Jacque Fresco as something he is not. Please PM me on CD and admit to lying in this debate, because if you don't then I will be forced to conclude that you are LITERALLY retarded for believing this shit.
To use and make money in a society run by money is not hypocrisy, it is done out of necessity.
Jacque Fresco is not merely copying Marx, he is fleshing out Marxism and replacing it with an updated version.
JF is not in any way encouraging a "humans serve robots" dystopian future you retarded piece of idiotic filth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x3qrxnt9nc
As he explains in the above video he has no intention of programming the AI to control humans are be served by them, quite the opposite.
As for ST all I have to do to match your brilliant debating tactics is this...
ST molested children and animals, he was a very bad person. He wanted to create a dystopian fascist empire and make it required by law that people have to give him toddlers and farm animals to molest whenever he wants them. He also failed preschool 60 times and lived with his mom until death. He also didn't have a penis or balls and molested children and farm animals with his toes and fingers.
In sum, you are a liar and an idiot who isn't even capable of understanding what JF has to say. You lose this debate by default because everything you say about JF is a literal fucking lie. You don't even attempt to understand him do you? You just piss all over his good name by default because his view doesn't fit your pre-conceived delusions about reality.
So JF wants to create an AI controlled dystopia where humans are slaves to robots and ST molested children and farm animals, look what you have turned this debate into.
Con
#6
As you can see, this here is the difference between someone who respects and follows Sun Tzu and someone who embraces JF as their daddy-of-philosophy.
Look how my enemy is quivering, screaming his head off at me. Understand that since he believes he's nothing but a slave to circumstance, since this is what JF taught him, he is crying and seething with rage foaming at the mouth ready to rip my head off and yet incapable of laying a finger on my flawless strategy and so eloquently-spoken case.
Guy who stammers, lisps and has a broken accent preaching 'ooooh we are controlled by robots help me' is more respectable than a founder of all strategy? LOL!
End of discussion, you just lost.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
So let’s start off at the beginning.
Round 1: pro.
While pro established a few basics, his only contrast is that ST was primitive in his thinking.
Pro argues the future looking attitude of JF is respect worthy.
The remainder was not comparative and so was not assessed.
Round 1: con.
So far - half way through cons round 1 and so far, cons contrasting points are that ST was well respected - much more respected and looked up to by his peers and as a percentage of people.
Con also discusses the effect SThas on the world, military strategy and how he informed the geopolitics of the time.
Con argues the achievements of ST in terms of logic and approach to problems (especially in war are amazing)
The remainder was not comparative so was not assessed.
Round 2: pro.
Pro spent this time telling us how good JF, that he tried to end war. He points out ST was short sites, and JF was long sited.
Pro argues that ST didn’t use his knowledge for good, whereas ST did.
The remainder was not comparative and so was not assessed.
Round 2: con
Con argues Jf should values logic of people - and RBE is indicative of this - harming individuals for the purpose of selflessness to help society.
Con argues ST had a major actual impact on a real country - China .
Con argues ST came up with essentially game theory.
Con argues JF was a failure at everything. ST was not
The remainder was not comparative and so was not assessed.
Pro round 4:
Con round 4:
Shit show. No comparative analysis.
Arguments: pro. I felt achievements indicated by con in terms of impact to China, achievements in general and success outweighed the negligible comparative analysis provided by pro.
Make no mistake - this was a shit show of a debate, terrible on both sides from the point of view of waffling insanity, and ignorance of the resolution. If this had not been against the worst debater on the side, arguments would likely have gone the other way.
Conduct:
“Please PM me on CD and admit to lying in this debate, because if you don't then I will be forced to conclude that you are LITERALLY retarded for believing this shit.”
“Yes and the fundamental thing that you like to do most of all is molest children, now stop lying you fucking piece of shit”
Random petulant insults and profanity littered this debate. Conduct to conZ
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
SOURCES: when using videos, point out the relevant timestamps.
CONDUCT: As per con's conclusion, this became fully a debate element influencing the respect variable.
ARGUMENTS: Intelligence was left in the realm of doubt (BoP denied), whereas any standard of respect was very much shown to favor Sun Tzu.
Prelude (R0):
So, this is a duel resolution debate. Pro wins the debate IF(AND(BoP(P1)>=1,BoP(P2)>=1),win,lose)
As can be seen in the simple Boolean logic, both premises need to first proven or sufficiently implied, then successfully maintained. The way con tends to argue, he probably throws one under the bus in support of the other, which is not an automatic loss.
Introduction (R1):
Pro, making such a weak appeal to novelty, should be beyond you given your previous debate on ancients (https://www.debateart.com/debates/605). Trying to discredit how well above someone's time they were, by reason that their baseline is primitive, only works on children. Adults on the other hand, basically go "wow, he was the Stephen Hawking of Cro-Magnons!" (imagined quote, not from any user)
Con... You're trying too hard. That the character limit allows you to type every thought, doesn't mean there's any benefit (except protection against grudge votes... I've been there). Your opening would have been better served linking us to Patton Oswalt's brilliant ad libbed filibuster (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYNDssdsVnM).
Regarding modifying quotes, you don't need to explain so much, just toss brackets [] around the change.
The grammar catch in the resolution. That ST has had more time to accurate respect, was entertaining. Yeah, semantically there's no way pro can reason JS has greater SUM(respect).
Debate (R2,R3):
Through that unorganized mess, I've identified key areas of importance, and summarized how they turned out...
THINKING (this paradoxically goes a little more toward respect than intelligence): ST seems to have changed the way the world thinks, whereas only JF wants to have done the same (pro claims he outright cured racism, but that's a profound claim needing actual support outside a video of JF talking... Maybe had he transformed the KKK into a force for good?).
ORIGINALITY (this is about intelligence): It seems accepted by pro that JF was sugarcoating Marxism (which was pretty clearly shown to be awful for humans... good for robots...), rather than inventing his own stuff (note: I do agree with pro that using money in a capitalist society is not wrong; but it does remain a little ironic). ST comes out better in this, but it's a lot harder to place anyone he may have copied so far long ago.
INSPIRATION (major respect issue, as implied by the debaters): JF inspires that to argue you call your opponent child molesters and make other use of Ad Hominem attacks, anything to distract from the actual issues under discussion. ST inspires tactical thinking to get a result (I disliked con's lengthy opening, but he made up for it in the concise final round; and once again, showed tactical thinking).
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.