Instigator / Pro
1706
rating
561
debates
68.09%
won
Topic
#5274

Sun Tzu's method/approach to war is actually fundamentally flawed. The Tzu adherent will lose (in the long run) to the 'beast mentality' evolved type.

Status
Debating

Waiting for the next argument from the contender.

Round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
23,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
None
Contender / Con
1484
rating
6
debates
25.0%
won
Description

I will define what 'beast mentality' fully in Round 1, I'll allude to it here. It's not simply the classic motivational stuff, I have come up with a series of things to counter ST and may even publish this later under a different guise (different name of the mentality and different wording).

ST's philosophy is about reducing risk as much as possible, avoiding conflict until you can surely win, operating through deception and cunning.

The problem with it, is that if 2 people follow ST's philosophy but the third one is an aggressive brute, both ST followers will cut each other off and let the abuser abuse them. This is fine for the one abused less but this system doesn't fundamentally work. Even in theory, there's a flaw; in practise it's even worse.

The 'beast mentality' is an approach where you consider how much conflict, risk and attrition you can take and maintain progress or withstand it going wrong. The Tzu adherent holds all their resources until very sure they can strike successfully, the beast adherent considers how to be a hybrid that constantly 'jabs' now and again saving big strikes for when the other is probably defending against the jab-type strike. Furthermore, the beast reverts to the Tzu adherent's approach when under significant threat/attack and mimics Sun Tzu's methods until it's not clear they need to be that risk-averse and then begins to push boundaries.

The full beast mentality isn't said here, I have the right to lay it out in Round 1 and prove why fundamentally Sun Tzu does actually teach certain wrong things in BOTH theory and practise but worse is when you see he has teachings that work in theory but rarely in practise.

I used to deeply respect Sun Tzu, I really did, however his approach is flawed. His method is the coward's strategy and only works until a smarter person with a more aggressive style shows up. You don't get the love of your life that you want or anything you want, with that method, you just keep 'making do' but there's never a real reward at the end of it by sticking to his method.

The scope of 'strategy' in this extends across the board to any and all realms of it. While Tzu's teachings may excel very well in some, the one I dub 'beast mentality' excels in ALL. It does NOT mean constantly taking a lot of risks and pushing yourself to breaking point, it means strategising your life how a chimpanzee in a jungle should.

Round 1
Pro
#1
I am unsure how exactly to lay this out. I don't want my full theory stolen as I do intend to publish it later and to explain it against Sun Tzu's (ST) Art of War is confusing as I can't just lay out the entirety of Sun Tzu and keep contrasting as that is both boring for voters to read and I did limit this to 23k chars to avoid it going too long. I will word BM teachings in a way that lets others not steal the wording, only the concept. I don't intend to fully explore BM, I am focused on the flaws of ST.

I want to explain 4  things ST's AW lacks that Beast Mentality (as I present BM) doesn't:

  1. What to do when you cant deceive your opponent and they are also  deceiving and/or obviously ready to fight you.
  2. How to make middleground decisions in nuanced situations in a war, it suggests either full retreat or full lightning-strike type attack.
  3. What to do when your opponent is both aggressive and clever (linked to point 1).
  4. How to handle prolonged warfare with anyone at any time in any way.
ST's flaws go far beyond that but those 4 things are not at all even indirectly covered in it. The other flaws are either lies he teaches or theoretically correct teachings that need far more clarification of when to divert and alter them.

BM has a lot in common with ST's AoW, it teaches to conserve resources, to not go for the kill too obviously and to operate in a way that requires your opponent to constantly guess what you'll do next. The difference is it teaches what to do when your opponent is clever and aggressive. It also teaches what to do if they aren't aggressive but are still clever, tricky and in an advantageous position.

I will go through key (not all) parts of ST's teachings and contrast them to what BM teaches.

I will primarily use this source to help me word ST's AW: https://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html

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.
BM instead teaches:
Knowledge is part of war, knowing your enemy is incredibly useful as it knowing what they know about you but don't focus too hard on knowing too much about your own tendencies nor on knowledge itself. Often in war, you can know a lot and still lose, the reason is that application of it isn't always akin to knowledge itself. If I come up to you and punch you and you know it's coming but I do it fast, powerful and awkward enough that you can't easily defend against it, that's the optimal striking method in that situation. That said, even then I may be the fool if you're still conscious, standing and I am drained after that and you can strike me back 4 times as I'm too winded. Knowing that is the bare minimum of warfare, it barely helps you win. War is not about knowing alone, don't ever be comfortable because your opponent knows less or is less intelligent than you. Idiots with a lot of resources or skill at something don't need to know much to defeat you. Know when you're that person, know when you're the one who can be an obvious moron and still win and instead use those situations to engage. If you are at an advantage and your opponent sees you coming this is worth far more than being at a disadvantageous position and knowing your opponent doesn't know it because you can never really predict if they'll call your bluff or what the opponent may do. 

You are operating in a world where you don't know everything, relying on knowledge will cripple you. How the hell would you even begin dating when you don't know all about the person you're with let alone all those competing for him/her? Don't be stupid enough to think you always need to be smart and informed to win war. You can lose even when knowing as much as you can, you need to operate in a way that lets you strike them, be ready to lose anyway. That's life. Don't strike too hard too often and conserve yourself for many dates with many partners at first, don't be this 'all in' type until you over time have a lot of reasons to gamble on it.

Life is full of situations you can't know enough of to ever know your enemy entirely, stop trying to. Study what you can of them, accept life is chaos and strategise around that.



ST:
(1) Which of the two sovereigns is imbued with the Moral law? (2) Which of the two generals has most ability? (3) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven and Earth? (4) On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced? (5) Which army is stronger? (6) On which side are officers and men more highly trained? (7) In which army is there the greater constancy both in reward and punishment?

By means of these seven considerations I can forecast victory or defeat.

BM:
You can be stronger and lose, you can be better trained and lose, you can be more consistent in reward and punishment and still lose. Nobody can know what heavenly advantages are bestowed on the enemy, you don't know opposing generals' true capacity in abilities, assuming that will be your downfall. Moral Law is nonsense, cowards and immoral people can win.

Your aim in a war is to win. You want to have an idea how your opponents are trained, what techniques they'll use and what strengths they have, this is all true. Yet, you do not truly know how capable their general/coach/leader is. You do not step into the arena assuming you know that. You don't know shit about them if we talk the true depths of their capabilities and what destiny has blessed them with. You step into the arena each time knowing you can lose and you do everything you can from the first move you make to stress them out, make them never know if you're hitting soft, hard, straight, bent/crooked so on and so forth. You can never fully know your enemy, don't try to. They can't know you fully either and this is your advantage.

Let those crippled by thinking they can foresee defeat by knowing you well study you, let them make their calculated moves based on patterns they assume you have and break those patterns every fight the moment you notice them exploiting it. Jab-jab-cross, they blocked well? Jab-dodge-jab-jab-pause-hook-pause-jab-cross!

Retreat and breathe, they are now realising they underestimated you, what then?

True war has both opponents constantly using the other's assumptions they can study the other, against them. The best poker players at a poker table aren't the best because of the reads they have on others, they are the best because they use your own reads against you. That's what separates the greats from the just-good in most sports, talent aside.

You must understand that you never fully know your opponent, not ever. You must never be comfortable with the idea you have foreseen their defeat in your head, they can switch up on you and break you in ways you never saw coming. You want to be that opponent, that's your true hope and aim in war. Be the annoying weirdo nobody can predict by normal trends and playstyles. They have no idea what combo you'll do next, sometimes you'll do the same combos 3 times just to lull them into a state of...

Ah, ST's teachings...

ST:
Amid the turmoil and tumult of battle, there may be seeming disorder and yet no real disorder at all; amid confusion and chaos, your array may be without head or tail, yet it will be proof against defeat.

Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.

BM:
We agree with ST. These are theoretically good concept in war, the problem is you never truly know what your opponent expects or what they are prepared for. Assuming you do is the naive arrogance ST teaches to abuse your opponent having, yet ST encourages you to have it thinking he can even guarantee you victory based on it.

You are against an opponent who can beat you very often in life. You're rarely Mike Tyson against some featherweight. You can be competing for a spouse, competing for a promotion, competing for who gets dumped with the shitty work you don't want to do at work while the other gets the role you badly want just that day alone.

You can't stress and spend every day foreseeing war. War is everywhere, with everyone. You never know truly what's going to happen, if your spouse will cheat or any of that. You have only one true ally in life, you. The best part is so does everyone else, they're gambling on loyalty and 'knowledge' carrying them. Be the chaos, embrace the disorder, know you will regularly lose and accept it. Analyse why, each time and improve the next. Sometimes your own life or career are at stake in a way if you lose you can't foreseeably recover. These situations can't be avoided sometimes, just accept them. Just know you can lose and yet don't care. You should not operate on fear of that loss alone, you should operate on lust for life and that career instead and know that you are greedy for it. Do not for one second think your knowledge, preparation or studying of opponents guarantees you a long life or successful career, you're just some guy/girl/genderfluid-whatever in the middle of a reality you have no true power over.

You have a choice. This is the only true choice you fundamentally have in the war. You can approach it as a lion, tiger and bear would or you can approach it as a zebra, anteloupe and maybe middleground cheetah would.

There is not a shame in being the prey and running. It isn't shame that should stop you being that. There is just a defeat beyond the victory in being that continuously. Deep down you don't want to be the runaway coward. You want to be the beast. You want to be slain or slay, you want to make sure others know to cower before you. Your reputation should be one of menacing formidability even when the odds are against you, even when you lose it should look like the opponent had to give their all and struggled to hell and back to defeat you.

You do not achieve that through just positive thinking or through raw rage. You need more than that, you need to know you can lose. You need to accept you could prepare endlessly and lose still. How would you lose? You'd lose if your opponent was a risk-taking bastard just enough in just the right way that you couldn't predict them and they kept striking you where you least expect. The problem is ST suggests you can automatically be that oppponent without taking the risks. ST teaches that you can be totally knowing where your opponent isn't ready to take you. You can't.

You are against you. In every battle, your opponent is capable of being the beast that wreaks havoc on you and reminds you this is a jungle, a savanna, a goddamn unforgiving wilderness where you only matter as much as your last fight earned you. Do not assume your opponent is less than you ever and don't assume they're so high and mighty you can't beat them either. The combination of realising you have to fear yet be ready to take on absolutely anyone at any time will make you carry yourself differently in how you talk, how you walk, how you do everything in life. They are all waiting for when you are weak, either to assist you and become an ally you rely on, to be your enemy and exploit you or they are just oblivious to it and don't care, which teaches you their ultimate place for you in their heart even if they are your own relative you'd assume cared more.


ST:
 It is the rule in war, if our forces are ten to the enemy's one, to surround him; if five to one, to attack him; if twice as numerous, to divide our army into two.

If equally matched, we can offer battle; if slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy; if quite unequal in every way, we can flee from him.

Hence, though an obstinate fight may be made by a small force, in the end it must be captured by the larger force.

BM:
That's right Sun Tzu, isn't it? Just run like a little bitch if your opponent is difficult and alternatively assume you'll always win if they seem smaller and weaker.

That's why you teach to spend all that time nerding up your enemy and using wit and deception to win wars, because if they're bigger they always win right?

Oh ST, you crack me up.

In life, weight classes exist in literal fighting arenas, that's true. Sometimes your opponent really is stronger than you and will win no matter what. However, you can't always operate as if you know that. There is so much about life that makes it uncertain who will win. Does the smarter guy always get the higher pay? Does the weaker potential partner never get the spouse? Don't be so naive and either self-loathing or alternatively arrogant to assume you know your defeat or victory before things play out.

Life is a series of calculated risks, whether we accept it is or not. If you calculate you'd lose, that's fair enough don't take the risk and vice versa. Don't base it on some pseudo-axiom that the stronger, bigger force always wins. Sometimes, being big and mighty is a disadvantage. The big McDonald's can't dedicate as hard as your small food business to the local community nor can it switch up what food it's making nearly as fast. The very massive way it's structured means every tweak is crippled by beaurecracy and failing to notice tiny nuances of what people prefer or would keep coming back for in the local area. You need not assume you always lose to greater forces, see context and the more nuanced picture.

Sometimes thinking 'big picture' and ignoring details is actually dumber and how you miss the even bigger picture that smaller lets you fight guerilla. Being an underdog justifies weirder technique being necessitated. Be weird, function as the underdog even when you aren't. You must always be the most annoying and unbearably unpredictable opponent your opponents in life could ever face. That is the way to be the beast, that is how to make them not want to mess with you a second time. People want nothing more than to rematch with the predictable yet strong opponent, it's the genuinely unpredictable one that shakes them up in a way they don't fancy repeating.


ST:
 Sun Tzu said: The control of a large force is the same principle as the control of a few men: it is merely a question of dividing up their numbers.

Fighting with a large army under your command is nowise different from fighting with a small one: it is merely a question of instituting signs and signals.

BM:
This must be why ST assumes the larger always wins.

This also contradicts everything he just taught in the first line of what was quoted before.

ST agrees with BM:
Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
This is a good idea. The problem is how sure ST suggests you can be of this working.

ST:
So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak.
Water shapes its course according to the nature of the ground over which it flows; the soldier works out his victory in relation to the foe whom he is facing.

BM:
In an ideal world, we'd never have to clash where the opponent is strong and permanently be able to adapt.

It's a good idea to be like water in war, certainly. However, sometimes there are only so many options available and constantly being obsessed with striking where the opponent is weak or doesn't expect is naive and leaves you useless. If I am against the ST opponent, I literally know they are prone to baiting me and that they will constantly fall for baits despite that. The reason is that ST teaches you to be so arrogant and knuckleheaded that you assume your opponent isn't also baiting you and knows where they are weak, expecting you to attack there. Sometimes the opponent's least defended point is where they are strong and where they will surely attack is where you bait the least. This is because not all opponent think in a linear, predictable manner.

What ST teaches you is to assume the least intelligence and ability in your opponent and only assume size matters. BM teaches you that you always can be beaten by everyone at every moment, you should start from that point of realisation and work backwards. If you can always be beaten, that means so can your opponent as this applies to everyone. Sure, a rabbit barely ever directly beats a lion but that isn't the point. The point is in one way you must train your best to have the capacity to hurt as a beast can but always the awareness that for all you know you are the prey in the situation. You must be ready to use all kinds of adaptability, tricker and straight up fight or run but run well.

Running isn't just about speed nor is it solely about endurance. There are small moments where you can make your opponent have to second guess their eyes. Did you run left after passing that tree, right or straight ahead? Swing a little both ways, they're busy chasing you and can't fully focus. You need to understand that you and your opponent are both beasts, just different beasts at times. You have everything you could ever need to potentially win that situation, even if you can't end up doing so. You must operate with this ethos, realising your opponent may be like ST and assume they have you pinned down and outsmarted, let them think it. You know nobody truly outsmarts anybody, you know you can constantly be tricked, the opponent may not know this. That's how you win.

Con
#2
Thank you, Pro.

From observing and analyzing Pro’s case that he makes for the ‘Beast Mentality,’ his conclusion is it is better to think like a power-hungry gambler in terms of combat and war. 
The ‘Beast Mentality’ support is as naive and delusional, as it is interesting and fascinating, sure. While I can technically argue that the ‘Beast Mentality’ approach is a fictitious concept, as it is nonexistent in either strategy literature or the study of warfare, I’ll concede this point by pretending that it does. 

To criticize Sun Tzu’s style of warfare as being the coward’s approach is not only disrespectful, it is arrogant and foolish. The type of thinking that gets you defeated, captured, or killed. 
Despite Sun Tzu being the Batman of his era and having never lost a fight in recorded history, there are valid criticisms to make of Sun Tzu’s style, but Pro’s complaints do not fall into this category. My counter to this resolution is that Sun Tzu’s approach to warfare is very practical and realistic.

BOP

The resolution makes three claims, so he must prove all of these.:
  • Sun Tzu’s system of battle/method/approach to warfare is strategically ineffective. Pointing out a few weaknesses does not work, Pro has to demonstrate that most of Sun Tzu’s strategies do not work since he is the one making the claim.
  • The ‘Beast Mentality’ is a valid approach to warfare.
  • Sun Tzu’s approach to warfare is inferior to the ‘Beast Mentality,' and will lose the long game.

Since there are no works to cite or bulletproof ways to substantiate any of Pro’s claims since Beast Mentality is a self-produced concept he came up with, this also means he is unable to showcase the accuracy of the methods he is making, or any way to test the superiority of his idea versus Sun Tzu’s, an actual combat strategist with years of studying and experience.

Given that the requirements of Pro’s BOP that he set for himself is too high, I see no way he can realistically achieve this. Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient enough. 

Contentions

P1: What even is the BM?

Pro would have you believe that the Beast Mentality is a more evolved variant of the Art of War, as that’s what is advertised in the description. Yet, BM still remains undefined in the first round and leaves you with more questions than answers. 
  • What are the laws?
  • What strategies does it implement?
  • If Sun Tzu’s approach to warfare is manufactured for failure, then how can BM be more successful if it is just mirroring Sun Tzu’s teachings with a few adjustments?

Something that is mechanically a failure cannot therefore be made perfect by reverse-engineering the design and producing a better version of it. This is how the resolution is both a contradiction and an impossibility.

The Beast Mentality is too vaguely described to be understood. And without a set of rules, criteria, or instructions to give its existence any meaning, the concept is incomplete. And if it is incomplete, it is not developed to the point that it can contend with or even exist in the same category as Sun Tzu’s teachings. 

P2: The Art of War

Pro misinterprets a few of Sun Tzu’s strategies in round 1 to give his empty idea the illusion of a foundation of credibility. But critiquing Sun Tzu’s system does very little in the way to build up his own. It is addressing small details and making minor criticisms about the perceived limitations of the Art of War, but it makes no effort to address or challenge the big picture that Sun Tzu describes. 
Given the Art of War applies a lot of emphasis on factors such as weather, terrain, troop size, resource supply, and tactical thinking. There is a lot more scientific thinking applied to it than what Pro is suggesting. A lot of the ideas of the Art of War are.: Laying Plans, Waging War, Attack by Stratagem, Tactical Dispositions, Energy, Weak Points and Strong, Maneuvering, Variation in Tactics, The Army on the March, Terrain, The Nine Situations, The Attack By Fire, The Use of Spies. 1 

Pro fails his Round 1 by only addressing a few of these issues and not really going into depth without taking into account just how much The Art of War serves as a manual guide.

Round 2
Pro
#3
To criticize Sun Tzu’s style of warfare as being the coward’s approach is not only disrespectful, it is arrogant and foolish.
It's not disrespectful at all. Sun Tzu prided himself very clearly on encouraging cowardice, he saw it as arrogant and foolish to need to avoid that. This is why his principles included caveats that warn you to consider how much bigger or smaller your forces are than the enemy's and to dedicate to surrounding (without brutally attacking) if very big, to subdue them and hope they're sane enough to surrender vs actually fighting if relatively equal vs fleeing if very small (or surrendering).

This is actually not the problem with Sun Tzu's teachings. If cowardice keeps working and thinking in extremes of run or subdue or fight only if I have to work, I wouldn't be attacking his theory. Instead, his theory is the arrogant and foolish one.

It assumes you can know everything about your enemy, that even if you did know all about your enemy and yourself you wouldn't need to fear the oucome of a thousand battles, which ignores other factors. I countered this not by mentioning the chaos and other factors but by even highlighting a very important blindspot in Sun Tzu's teachings:

If I am a strong fighter in an arena suiting my fighting style and am fast, agile, powerful and/or high stamina enough, it means even if you knew all about my style and about your own fighting style, I could keep destroying you until you are up to my standard. One major blindspot in Sun Tzu's teachings is clarifying that knowledge alone can't outdo resources and training in many scenarios in life.

There is a reason why intelligent nerds and geeks even if they study psychology and how to date, end up outcharmed and outdone by sexier, less knowledgable, smoother peers. The reason is there is more to war than knowledge and you need to appreciate this fully if you want to say you understand how to win wars.

===

Despite Sun Tzu being the Batman of his era and having never lost a fight in recorded history
Sun Tzu is probably not even a real guy, you say this as if you know him personally.

Sun Tzu's historicity is uncertain. The Han dynasty historian Sima Qian and other traditional Chinese historians placed him as a minister to King Helü of Wu and dated his lifetime to 544–496 BC. Modern scholars accepting his historicity place the extant text of The Art of War in the later Warring States period of 475 to 221 BC, based on its style of composition and its descriptions of warfare.[3] Traditional accounts state that the general's descendant Sun Bin wrote a treatise on military tactics, also titled The Art of War. Since both Sun Wu and Sun Bin were referred to as "Sun Tzu" in classical Chinese texts, some historians believed them identical, prior to the rediscovery of Sun Bin's treatise in 1972.

This isn't a debate about the guy but his teachings alone.

 there are valid criticisms to make of Sun Tzu’s style, but Pro’s complaints do not fall into this category.
Yes they do. 

My counter to this resolution is that Sun Tzu’s approach to warfare is very practical and realistic.
Then clarify how.

====

Sun Tzu’s system of battle/method/approach to warfare is strategically ineffective. Pointing out a few weaknesses does not work, Pro has to demonstrate that most of Sun Tzu’s strategies do not work since he is the one making the claim.
This is a resolution about the fundamentals of Sun Tzu's teachings. If his fundamentals were on points nearly all of his teachings would be because they'd be based on core tenets that are sound.

I have proven how he bases his teachings on the concept of believing you can know your enemy so well and be so super prepared while the enemy so significantly underprepared and abuse all of that. His advice applies best to mismatches where you have the upper hand or even when you have the lower hand as it tells you to run away and plot for later. His teachings have a significant blind spot in anything in between that and also don't cover how to go about not being easily read yourself, by an opponent using his teachings.

  • The ‘Beast Mentality’ is a valid approach to warfare.
More valid in its fundamentals than Sun Tzu is all I need to prove.

  • Sun Tzu’s approach to warfare is inferior to the ‘Beast Mentality,' and will lose the long game.
Sure, though fundamentals of it are the key, not that one particular Sun Tzu teaching can't apply, that wouldn't be enough disproof.


Since there are no works to cite or bulletproof ways to substantiate any of Pro’s claims since Beast Mentality is a self-produced concept he came up with, this also means he is unable to showcase the accuracy of the methods he is making, or any way to test the superiority of his idea versus Sun Tzu’s, an actual combat strategist with years of studying and experience.
No. You see, I can tell you that many winners in life are using Beast Mentality but don't necessarily name it that or know all the ins and outs of it.

What BM is revealing is what almost all winners in life have in common with their approach.

BM is based on the following principles, in case the previous Round wasn't clear enough:

  1. Your opponent is a flawed individual who is only able to overcome these flaws if either you can't take advantage of the flaws or if they can easier take advantage of yours.
  2. If you know their flaws, this is not enough to win a battle. You need to dedicate to ensuring they don't fully understand your flaws or that because you keep shifting your style enough, your own flaws alternate throughout the prolonged warfare with them.

I wish to pause here. Sun Tzu has another problematic teaching that I didn't cover in Round 1. It's linked to his blindspots but in a different way, it's a different fundamental issue he has that's linked to how he only understands 'mismatch warfare' where one side is much more powerful than the other.

There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

The problem with this isn't that it's generally untrue, it's what it suggests. This is linked to 2 other core teachings of his:

To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

and

Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt
both from his 'Art of War'

The issue with these is not that they're wrong concepts in all situations but that if you stick true to them,  you'll have major issues when against evenly matched opponents in life.

You see, the best war strategy guide should help you handle situations with opponents you consistently beat with the strategy but would struggle to consistently beat without it. Sun Tzu keeps teaching you to hide, cower and reserve energy until you can strike like a thunderbolt (lightning bolt but Chinese translation is an issue) where they never see you coming and to avoid prolonged warfare of any kind.

The reason this is a problem is you will then automatically be forfeiting vs evenly matched opponents. On a website such as DART that would mean the follower of it ought to only/primarily noobsnipe and only strike on opponents that would otherwise be evenly matched on rigged resolutions for easy wins. It can actually work but clearly is useless when vs opponents that could defeat you with a resolution of debate that isn't super easy to win.

Beast Mentality preaches to you a series of concepts that help you whether it's a short easy win or brutal drawn out long one. You want to chip away at your enemy while consistently being adaptable and chaotic enough they can't easily chip away at you. However you go about doing this is up to you. If it's a long term rival at work going for a promotion, you absolutely need to be ready for prolonged warfare, you don't know when your chance to actually get promoted will come up and can't just dedicate in a huge burst to destroy your opponents or get the promotion. You should instead strategise your working methods to shine above the norm every single day but not so severely you are drained of energy the next day. The reason you can do this is most people are just not strategic enough with how they use their time and energy. If they are and outdo you that's okay, losing is a part of life. If you did BM and the other gets promoted first, accept it and move on.

War is not about always winning, both ST and BM agree on this. It's about making sure if you can win with the energy and time you have, you do. ST suggests you can know if you'll win beforehand and to only strike when it's pretty much a sure thing and to avoid prolonged warfare, rivalry and such at any cost. You can't always be so superior that you can predict and subdue your enemy without fighting, in most warlike situations in life this is flat out impossible.

If you dedicate to ST's method you'd give up all high value spouses, jobs etc for the ones you easily can get. It is a sound strategy to do ok in life but a terrible strategy to do well in it with consistent competition willing and able to tear you down if you slip up. This is exactly why I am clarifying it's a coward's approach, it's not an insult but an appreciation that ST encourages and believes in cowardice as being optimal. It is a problem because anyone who is braver and not super mismatched to you meaning they theoretically could defeat you, you should cower from according to ST until you know surely that you can beat them.
Con
#4
Planning & Preparation

The Art of War never assumes 100% knowledge is possible, nor can Pro quote any citation in The Art of War that supports this. That's because this claim is an absolute, completely generated by Pro.
The Art of War emphasizes knowledge (military intel) and preparation is necessary, but The Art of War has always been adamant on explaining that not everything goes according to plan, as circumstances change so adaptability is a requirement in situations that are unpredictable. What Pro says about The Beast Mentality using trickery & deception is literally described perfectly in The Art of War by invoking what Sun Tzu refers to as The Element of Surprise.

Fundamentals vs Whole Theory

Pro is arguing that Sun Tzu's approach to warfare fails as a whole and would lose in the long-run to his system, The Beast Mentality. So it is not just enough to compare the fundamentals, as this is the most basic cop-out and laziest approach anyone could take. The Art of War is a developed system that emphasizes the use of loopholes and contingency or back-up plans when the central rules do not apply. While The Art of War generally recommends the use of the common rules, The Art of War regularly explains that the application of techniques is situational.
The Beast Mentality is an underdeveloped guide that doesn't address AOW at all and even seems to acknowledge AOW's significance in war.
This is because The Art of War is literally designed to play the long-game. Pro's advice about utilizing aggression, if even effective, would only yield short-term victories and garner success in only a few battles, but is not sustainable enough to maintain longevity.

Sun Tzu's approach to warfare is practical because it is about the preservation of one's self, the preservation of resources, and the preservation of soldiers. Sun Tzu defines the supreme art of warfare as subduing the enemy without fighting. This advice prioritizes the use of wit and strategy of overcoming the enemy rather than brute force or raw power. Constant, pointless battling will eventually take its toll on a nation, even if it is the winner. That's because constant battles and wars generally depletes a country through enduring the sacrifice of countless lives, the funding into military weaponry causing the nation to become poorer, and the rations of food becoming more inadequate.

Rebuttals

If you dedicate to ST's method you'd give up all high value spouses, jobs etc for the ones you easily can get. It is a sound strategy to do ok in life but a terrible strategy to do well in it with consistent competition willing and able to tear you down if you slip up. This is exactly why I am clarifying it's a coward's approach, it's not an insult but an appreciation that ST encourages and believes in cowardice as being optimal. It is a problem because anyone who is braver and not super mismatched to you meaning they theoretically could defeat you, you should cower from according to ST until you know surely that you can beat them.
We aren't debating personal or financial success. Not only is that irrelevant, but that falls outside the scope of this debate.

We are debating whether Sun Tzu's approach is more militaristically feasible than The Beast Mentality.
Voters, please remember that Pro still has the burden of proof here.


Round 3
Pro
#5
Forfeited
Con
#6
Forfeited
Round 4
Pro
#7
Pro is arguing that Sun Tzu's approach to warfare fails as a whole and would lose in the long-run to his system, The Beast Mentality. So it is not just enough to compare the fundamentals, as this is the most basic cop-out and laziest approach anyone could take. T
In contrast, the cop-out is to ignore that this is all about fundamentals and to require Pro to give examples of people adhering to a method he himself came up with that even if they're obeying they don't say they are, to win.

The title of the debate is:
Sun Tzu's method/approach to war is actually fundamentally flawed. The Tzu adherent will lose (in the long run) to the 'beast mentality' evolved type.
Yet Con is hyperfocusing on the latter, only, to avoid admitting you've conceded the former. That's the cop-out, that's the lazy attitude that Con is accusing Pro of.


The way I see it, this debate comes down to three solid concepts that my theory has but Sun Tzu's goes totally wrong on:

1. You cannot possibly rely on knowing your opponent every fight/game against them to the extent you can completely obliterate them. To even aim for that is unrealistic and immature in terms of a masture, cogent strategy that will hold against real world chaos.

2. Not only can you not possibly rely on totally knowing your enemy but circumstances constantly change. Instead, you should focus a lot more on understanding what your enemy is getting used to from you and what they think they know about you and using that against them. This is the one thing that is consistent, reliable and uses even seeminly good strategy against people. It's what separates greats from just-goods at things.

3. You can't always avoid prolonged warfare and 'strike like a thunderbolt', in real life fights, rivalries and situations rarely are just sudden as defeating a street mugger in an all vs nothing situation is. Even then you have a prolonged court case afterwards potentially even with you as the accused murderer who pleads not guilty based on self defense of you or the other mugged person. Life is full of chaos, constantly twisting and turning, you cannot stick to Sun Tzu's methods unless you want the easiest spouse to get for you, the easiest career, the easiest everything. Sun Tzu's methods cripple you to work within the easy, known realm. If you ever want to be great and win at life, you need to embrace the chaos but do so in a tactical way.
Not published yet