The Instigator
Angie1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jay-D
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

The idiom 'all's fair in love and war' is rubbish!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Jay-D
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,362 times Debate No: 47985
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Angie1

Pro

When in love war is really never fair. In some situations, such as when you are in love or waging war, you are allowed to be deceitful in order to get what you want. (Often said as an excuse for deception.)

There is never a exception for deception and there it's never fair.
Jay-D

Con

I accept my opponent's challenge, and shall be arguing that the phrase "All is fair in love and war" is NOT rubbish.

Note:
-For all my arguments over the course of the debate, text formatted in underlined italics denotes direct quotes from my opponent.
-"All is fair in love and war" shall be abbreviated at times as AiFiLaW.

I look forward to an interesting and well-contested debate. Good luck to Pro.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Opening statements (rebuttals included)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The origin of AiFiLaW is attributed to John Lyly's Euphues, written circa 1580. The essence of it is that when it comes to love or war, the end justifies the means.

The implication behind this would be that one is permitted to wreak all the havoc he wants, deceive whoever he wishes to deceive, lie, cheat, or even kill, provided that he does all this either in pursuit of true love, or in the course of a war.


As such, for love or war, AiFiLaW indicates that all bets are off; one can use all means at his disposal, and there is no need to follow any rules.

------------------------------------------

My opponent's only argument in the current round lies in this statement:
There is never a exception for deception and there it's never fair.

Putting the faulty grammar aside, Pro postulates that deception is never fair. I argue that deception is sometimes fair. There may be times when you must deceive someone in order to bring about your goals. This is, in fact, choosing the lesser of two evils.

For example, consider the war on terror. Osama bin Laden was killed in a covert operation; he was essentially "deceived". It's better to cheat and kill a few people before many people are killed.

Therefore, deception is sometimes fair, as opposed to my opponent's stance. These "sometimes" are, of course, as indicated by AiFiLaW, cases of love and war.

------------------------------------------

Love and war are situations that force people to their extremes; they are battles to protect the mental and physical aspects of one's life.

Therefore, there is no guarantee that one's adversaries won't resort to under-handed tactics. Which is why, as a general convention, love and war are supposed to be fought as all-out battles. This "rule" is expressed in words by AiFiLaW.

It's hardly rubbish; it's the truth of human nature.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I await my opponent's arguments and rebuttals in round 2. Over to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Angie1

Pro

Thank you for accepting my challenge. I'd ask for grace when it comes to grammar errors I have missed if possible, and that perhaps you'd just consider if the argument is thought provoking enough to continue.

I'll start with this explanation of yours:

"The implication behind this would be that one is permitted to wreak all the havoc he wants, deceive whoever he wishes to deceive, lie, cheat, or even kill, provided that he does all this either in pursuit of true love, or in the course of a war".

The term it's rubbish means that I do not agree that it is fair in all cases to wreak havoc, deceive, lie, cheat and kill and that it's suggest a licence to take any action.

In the pursuit of love or in the course of war, there are two sides. Do all sides agree on the fairness? In your example of Osama, I would argue that many of the Arabs and even the Sunni militant Islamist organisation did not find the deceit and the tactics of the Americans fair.

People can go to many extremes to get what they want, or what they feel they have a right to, but it doesn't make it fair at all.

Fairness suggests that its balanced and agreed by two parties. The definition for fairness is for example, a conformity with rules or standards; "the judge recognized the fairness of my claim".

Since there are no standards in wrecking all havoc; (widespread destruction), which affects and has an impact in a very negative way, on even innocent people more often than not, how can we say it is fair?

You could believe for instance that it is okay to kill your spouse because you have jealousy issues. You may feel you love your spouse too much to allow your spouse to cheat (just as an example, it does happen). You may not even be accurate in your perceptions and you may have no factual evidence of any cheating going on. Should you kill your spouse and land up in court, you could argue you loved your spouse and the court can't really argue against your perception of love being right or wrong but they can prosecute your actions. Was there fairness for the other party and if there were kids was it fair on the kids?

All's fair in love and war suggests that any extreme action taken (the end justifies the means, as you've said) is okay.

When it comes to deceit, honesty is really fair play. There isn't anything fair about deception as it's limiting on the other party etc.
Jay-D

Con

I thank my opponent for her response. Without further ado, I shall now continue the debate.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Rebuttals

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In the pursuit of love or in the course of war, there are two sides. Do all sides agree on the fairness?

I think we all know that the losing/vanquished side almost always calls foul and claims that the course of things has been unfair, even if everything was fair.

It's not about whether everyone went home happy or not; it's about who won and who lost.


---------------------------------------------

In your example of Osama, I would argue that many of the Arabs and even the Sunni militant Islamist organisation did not find the deceit and the tactics of the Americans fair.

For your information, I would like to point out that Taliban and Al-Qaeda are Sunni Islamist organizations as well. No one needs to be educated about the under-handedness in THEIR tactics.

Now, if they (people under bin Laden and other terrorists) do not hold back when killing innocent civilians, how can Pro insinuate to consider what's fair before striking back and preventing more losses?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

These people say that there will be a thousand more Osama's.

The killing of bin Laden was nothing more than tit for tat. He ordered and planned the killing of thousands of innocent civilians. For that, he paid with his life.
THAT IS FAIR.

---------------------------------------------

Fairness suggests that its balanced and agreed by two parties.

I'm sorry, but my opponent is partially mistaken. "Fair" only suggests balance; it DOES NOT suggest agreement by both parties. Check this out:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Nowhere does it specify any sort of "agreement" between the parties.


Agreement by both parties is akin to a "truce".
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Let me clarify this with an example.

-A rapist is sentenced to, say, 10 years in prison. He thinks it's unfair. The jury thinks it's fair; the masses think it's fair. So, the prosecution and defense parties disagree, even if the judgement is very much fair.

Fairness does not necessitate agreement of all entities. Unfortunately, Pro's definition of the word is mistaken.

---------------------------------------------

Since there are no standards in wrecking all havoc; (widespread destruction), which affects and has an impact in a very negative way, on even innocent people more often than not, how can we say it is fair?

It's fair if it's done to protect the innocent people on one's own side. More often than not, this is why warring states/nations indulge in such activities. It's more of a preventive measure.

For example, take the Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombings of 1945. Hundreds of thousands of innocents were killed, but it did bring a near-immediate end to the war, and even today, nobody dares to threaten the United states.

I must remind my opponent that AiFiLaW usually permits choice of the lesser of two evils. Some bad will come as a consequence, but if those measures are not taken just to maintain a sense of ethics, worse consequences will be experienced.
Therefore, to keep things simple and uniform, AiFiLaW holds good universally.

---------------------------------------------

You could believe for instance that it is okay to kill your spouse because you have jealousy issues.

I'm afraid my opponent is mistaken again. There is no such thing as jealousy in true love. Therefore, there is no real application of AiFiLaW in this case.


This is a common mistake people make. There's a difference between lust and love, just like here's a difference between quarrel and war.

In the above instance, which is clearly a case of unfulfilled lust, Pro mistakes it to be a case of love, compares it with AiFiLaW, and then calls the proverb rubbish. This simply isn't right.

---------------------------------------------

There isn't anything fair about deception as it's limiting on the other party

Indeed. Which is why, when it comes to love and war, both parties are allowed to cheat.
Once again, I repeat myself: No matter the rules, in extreme situations, there is no guarantee that people won't cheat.


This is why AiFiLaW states that it is fine for people to cheat, so that at the end of the day, no one complains that the other side cheated despite there being rules.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I would advise my opponent to please take my previous statements into consideration and attempt to disprove them before making such statements, so that I wouldn't need to repeat my previous statements.

I await Pro's rebuttals and final statements in round 3.

Debate Round No. 2
Angie1

Pro

I'd like to point out that your argument is very difficult to read, with all the underlining and bold, and speaking in the third person. It's also coming across rudely in some instances and I don't find following you easy at all and I guess I am willing to even forfeit the debate. I don't mean to be rude myself but this is who I see how you are writing.

I fail to see how Osama bin Laden became the highlight of this debate. In your statement of fairness is not about whether everyone went home happy or not, but rather about who won or lost. I disagree with this statement. Fairness isn't about who won or lost and it really does have everything to do with how the game was played. In the end all should be in agreement regardless about the winning or loosing, that the rules were fair for example.

Definition of Fairness (Please take note of number 2 which is highly important when it comes to my debate headline).

1 conformity with rules or standards; "the judge recognized the fairness of my claim" [syn: equity] [ant: unfairness, unfairness]
2 ability to make judgments free from discrimination or dishonesty [syn: fair-mindedness, candor, candour] [ant: unfairness]
3 the property of having a naturally light complexion [syn: paleness, blondness]
4 the quality of being good looking and attractive [syn: comeliness, loveliness, beauteousness]

http://fairness.askdefine.com...

I am going to stick with my argument and once again state that dishonesty is not fair. Wrecking havoc in a deceitful manner is not fair. Refer to the definition of fairness.

And going through extremes to get your way in love or in war even if it's highly corrupt, is really not the definition of justice and fairness.
Jay-D

Con

I was left completely confused upon reading my opponent's comments about my style of presentation.
I mean, the very reason I use such excessively ornate formatting is to make it easier and more interesting for people to read. I've actually been complimented by other users for my formatting.

Now, unless Pro has some sort of visual impairment (in which case I humbly apologize for my ignorance) I really don't see why my arguments come across as "difficult to read". After all, the very purpose of bold, underlining, italics, caps and larger fonts is to highlight text and make important matter stand out.

That aside, I must humbly state that I haven't meant to be rude, EVER, throughout the entire course of the debate. All I've ever asked from Pro is to be more considerate of the core ideas which I've presented.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Rebuttals

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I fail to see how Osama bin Laden became the highlight of this debate.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how my opponent thinks Osama became the highlight of this debate. A simple process of counting reveals that Osama has been the subject of only 2 out of 8 total rebuttals that I've presented during this debate.


-------------------------------------

In your statement of fairness is not about whether everyone went home happy or not, but rather about who won or lost. I disagree with this statement.

Unfortunately, Pro has misinterpreted my statement. I never said that "fairness" is about who wins. I put that statement in a different paragraph for that very reason. My statement was:

It's not about whether everyone went home happy or not; it's about who won and who lost.

"It" refers to "the course of war", which I quoted from Pro's own argument just a few lines before that. Again, this could be deduced simply by reading my argument with a little patience.


-------------------------------------

Definition of Fairness....
1...
2...
3...
4...
http://fairness.askdefine.com...

Here, I would like to state that my opponent has still not justified her claim of fairness being, and this is a direct quote, "agreed by two parties."


I never argued that fairness refers to imbalance. I know that much. What I don't agree with, is Pro's insinuation that fairness refers to an agreement between both parties.

In round 2, Pro stated:

Fairness suggests that its balanced and agreed by two parties.

"balanced" is fine, but what about "agreed"? This was the focus of my rebuttal, and as we can see, neither my sources NOR PRO'S say anything about "fairness" involving an agreement. Once again, Pro has been too hasty in understanding my arguments.

-------------------------------------

I am going to stick with my argument and once again state that dishonesty is not fair.

In my humble opinion, this is pretty much the ONLY valid argument my opponent has made in the entire debate. Also, I've explained TWICE (this makes three) that there's no harm in dishonesty when you have no guaranteee that you'll be a victim of the same. Love and war bring such situations to life.
Therefore, it's fine to indulge in dishonesty and deceit when it comes to that.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Conclusion

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pro states that deception and dishonesty are never fair. I have extensively and conclusively demonstrated that, in love and war, when all bets are off, it is meaningless to consider ethics and fairness in one's course of action.

Pro takes "love" and "war" for granted. An example of this is when Pro made a case of killing one's lover due to "jealousy issues". There is no jealousy in true love; that's cheap lust and not much more. Hence, AiFiLaW cannot be cited in this case.
Thus, the original application of the proverb remains sound.

-------------------------------

Pro stated that Osama bin Laden's killing was considered unfair by some groups, which, in fact, included terrorist organizations.
What Pro fails to consider is the fairness (or lack thereof) in bin Laden's actions when he ordered the killing of thousands of innocents.
America was deceived once; she deceived and struck back. Simple as that, because ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR.

-------------------------------

Pro suggested that fairness implies agreement of all parties involved on a certain decision. However, Pro has never given any conclusive evidence supporting that definition.

Pro states that deception is limiting on the other party. Well and good; AiFiLaW removes these limitations.

-------------------------------

If the love between two people is pure and true, then they deserve to be together, no matter the cost. After all, true love is indeed that rare a thing.

To protect the honour of one's territory/nation, and to keep their citizens safe, a warrior/general/leader must employ all means possible; because the warriors on the other side are struggling for the same, and hence will stop at nothing.

Since there is no sense of complete safety from unfair methods, there is no harm in striking first. And hence, all methods are made fair, when it comes to love and war.

Of course, many people do horrible things in the name of love and/or war. These are cases which my opponent suggested. But I would like to point out that it's because people misinterpret and/or misuse the meaning of the proverb.
However, the proverb AiFiLaW itself is perfectly sound. It can only be cited in cases of true love and/or full-fledged war. It is, in no way, rubbish.
I rest my case.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I thank Pro for instigating this debate. The rest is up to the voters. I hope they'll be fair and considerate of all the aspects of the debate, from my side as well as my opponent's.

Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Angie1 2 years ago
Angie1
I can only but try :)
Posted by Jay-D 2 years ago
Jay-D
Very well... bring it on! ;)
Posted by Angie1 2 years ago
Angie1
ha ha thanks for the comment putting faulty grammar aside :) :) Jay-D

Interesting argument you've made. I see you more serious than I and I'll have to step up my game ;)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Angie1Jay-DTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Very nice debate. I think Pro can use this debate as a great first debate and baptism by fire on how to construct a solid proposition. It happened to me too:( Con deserves argument points as arguments were well backed and reasoned. Source pints got to Con for providing more sources for the arguments. I am calling a tie for S&G even though Pro had a few mistakes. A tie for conduct as well, as reading the debate both debaters seemed really fair.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
Angie1Jay-DTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con clearly put in more effort, and won this debate "I think we all know that the losing/vanquished side almost always calls foul and claims that the course of things has been unfair, even if everything was fair. It's not about whether everyone went home happy or not; it's about who won and who lost."
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Angie1Jay-DTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to make a compelling case for why everything in love and war isn't fair. Her whole case rested on the subjective views of fairness by all parties involved. Con did a good job exposing these flaws in pro's arguments.