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.

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.
   

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.

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.

(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.

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...

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.

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.

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.

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.

To criticize Sun Tzu’s style of warfare as being the coward’s approach is not only disrespectful, it is arrogant and foolish.

Despite Sun Tzu being the Batman of his era and having never lost a fight in recorded history

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.

 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.

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.

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.
   

There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.

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.

Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt

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.

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

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.

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.