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
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
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

No information

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).