All is fair in love and war.

[ben_schaare]

Hi all! :)

I have a debate to do at school on the topic, "All is fair in love and war." We are affirmative.
Does anyone have any reasons on why, all is fair in love and war?
and any other opnions on this matter which will further our cause.

Live long and Prosper.
-Ben Schaare :) :) :)

[ben_schaare]

Don't be shy friends , i need all the help i can get!!!! :confused: Please:) Absolutely any thoughts you have would be appreciated!

[Jack]

In essence the phrase means that in certain situations the normal rules of social conduct don't apply. Love and war are such emotional and unpredictable circumstances that supposedly, according to that proverb, people engaged in either are allowed to ignore the usual rules regarding fair play.

Sadly, defending the positive on that topic is far harder than defending the negative. Gitmo wouldn't be an issue if we truly believed all was fair in war, and spousal abuse would be acceptable if all was fair in love. I don't happen to believe the proverb myself. But I'll see if I can construct a positive spin on it on my way home from work and post it later tonight. Or perhaps someone else will save my bacon.

[ben_schaare]

A positive spin on this topic would be magic.
We are affirmative and are finding it hard to defend the positive :s

Thanks for you help! :)

[Jack]

The best I could come up with is the human propensity to overlook behaviors in certain situations that we'd find objectionable in other situations.

So we forgive lovers for not noticing the shortcomings of their partners, for wanting to be with each other instead of their other friends, for disappearing during a party to be alone with each other. When we're in love, we make allowances for our lover's expectations of us, which we likely would not tolerate from someone else.

Soldiers in combat may act cowardly, refuse to come to the aid of a comrade, or panic and harm innocent civilians. Unless it's a clear violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, we make allowances for such behavior, considering the degree of stress those in combat are under. We don't actually excuse it or approve of it, but we do make allowances for it.

I'm not certain those examples best illustrate the concept of "all's fair in love and war" but they're the best I can come up with at the moment.

[Technosoul]

I would question if wife beating can be interpreted as "love". Unless marrage is viewed as the "war of the sexes" then the "all is fair in war" could apply. Hmm?

Wars and mating rituals are simular if you think hard enough about comparing the two. Animals fight each other to insure they are the strongest one to reproduce the next generation via sex (re: love).

So you best bet would be to use some Darwin ideas that might suggest that what is natural in nature, as a basic "drive" for behaviorism, should overrule other man made idealologies.

The game is to win the final reward or victory. But realistically if all factors were fair the two teams would have a match. In a race if one guy has longer legs or has spent more time in training then he would win (odds are) but is that fair? It is not fair because you are matching one short legged guy who did not train with a long legged guy who is an expert already. Fairness would dictate equality otherwise the game is rigged. Get it?

So look up the word "fair" in the dictionary and find meanings that you can use for your side of the debate.

If one debate team is smarter then the other one is that "cheating"? Perhaps not and perhaps so, but the uneven match would not be fair and the victory would surely go to the most intelligent team who did the most research.

War is a matter of life and death and so the effects of "survial of the most fit" comes into play, out foxing the other guy might not be fair if you trick them or use deception, but it is "everyman for his self" otherwise you are "dead".

"Love" is beyond what we honestly comprehend but romance riturals for mating up or dating can be understood and if you are not cute or rich then you are at an unfair advantage and so fairness is put aside for more productive measures. Otherwise - no hanky panky for you - "looser".

Point being - confuse the other team by pointing out the unfairness of contests where you have loosers or winners - with reasonable examples.

While doing all that, if you brain starts to hurt, check out this link on the topic at myspace.

www.myspace.com/subcon5cience

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Isherwood I'm not certain those examples best illustrate the concept of "all's fair in love and war" but they're the best I can come up with at the moment.

To me that saying always implied victory at any cost.


All is fair in a battle til death, hence mixing the love/war analogy.


Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.


At least that is how I always percieved the message.

[Gods_Mercenary]

War is a path taken by the desperate, the ruthless, or the powerful, people who don't care about the rules. In this situation you should not expect your enemies to be fair, and you should take any advantage you can by being unfair. A life or death struggle can not be expectedto be played by the rules.

Love is almost as important as winning a war, it defines your life and may decide your happiness overall. It is of sich importance that being utterly ruthless to get your love is perfectly excusable.

[ben_schaare]

Hello!

Those are some good points, but im still having trouble constructing a convincing argument for this moot...

[Scribbler1]

I read it as "the ends justify the means" actually. If you isolate the "all's fair" you get an excuse to achieve a goal by any and all possible means. Unbound by restrictions would be another way of looking at it. Of, you can't call foul when the rules are dismissed. A case of your own survival would be a good use of "all's fair in love and war".

Confusing enough?

[ben_schaare]

Yes, but how can you say "all is fair;" if what increases your chances of survival, decreases someones elses chance of survival?

[CoffeeSaint]

Because at the same time, that person is attempting to increase his chances of survival at the expense of yours. If you were to nobly stand aside and let him precede you, as a gentleman might, he would win -- but he would only win because you let him. Doesn't that make him less than you?

Look at it this way. Competition is what takes us to our greatest pinnacles of achievement. What is that saying? Gems are polished by friction, men by adversity? Something along those lines. Without competition, none of us would strive, and thus none of us would become all that we can become.

If we are competing, and my greatest height is better than yours, then isn't it logical, and proper, and right and good -- and just, and therefore fair -- that I win? If you are better than me, but I win, isn't that, by definition, unfair? If you are a gentleman and let me win, despite the fact that you would win if we were both trying our hardest, is the result the proper one? Is it fair? I submit that it isn't.

The fastest person should win the race, the smartest person should get the best score on the test, the most capable person should be the one given the responsibility, and thus the laurels earned by carrying out that responsibility. Our society is founded on the idea that everyone should have a fair opportunity -- but our existence is predicated on the idea that the fittest will survive.

One should not choose one's love because another suitor was gentlemanly and bowed out of the contest; wouldn't the average woman rather be with the gentlemanly one, rather than the selfish one who takes advantage knowing he doesn't deserve the success? Therefore, being a gentleman, and allowing a lesser man to win, is not only unfair, it is also detrimental to the object of one's affection, the prize, as it were. The better man should be the one who gets the girl, and it is the better man who gets her -- because any man who knowingly stands aside for a rival does not deserve the woman he desires. (This is not gender specific; it only comes out that way because I'm male.)

In war, too: can you imagine surrendering in a war that one could win? Why would you do that? What would be accomplished? Even if peace is the goal, it can better be negotiated from a position of strength -- after you have won the war. Giving up and allowing the other side to win means that injustice is done, just as in love.

Therefore, it is a moral imperative that we must strive as hard as we possibly can to win, when it comes to love, and when it comes to war, because if we are truly the best people we can be and therefore the ones who deserve to win the prize, we can assume that the war is just and the love is real -- and in both of those cases, to stand aside for a lesser competitor is a travesty.

Or, maybe I'm just insane, and you got the short end of the debate-stick.:) I would go with the benefits of competition and adversity, any road. Try Machiavelli.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: ben_schaare Yes, but how can you say "all is fair;" if what increases your chances of survival, decreases someones elses chance of survival?

Despite the WORD "fair" in the line,nothing in the statement implies fairness. In fact, it implies just the opposite.

It literally means, I have defined the situations (love and war) and I have states I can do anything I want in regard to them. (all's fair).

Also, the term "love and war" is meant to cover ANYTHING. The point being "love" and "war" are such opposites to each other it includes everything in between as well.

Hope this helps.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Therefore, it is a moral imperative that we must strive as hard as we possibly can to win, when it comes to love, and when it comes to war, because if we are truly the best people we can be and therefore the ones who deserve to win the prize, we can assume that the war is just and the love is real -- and in both of those cases, to stand aside for a lesser competitor is a travesty.

Could we argue that that statement would only be accurate if you qualified that the war were justifiable?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Could we argue that that statement would only be accurate if you qualified that the war were justifiable?

Are you objecting to my statement that the war is just, preferring the word justifiable? I was assuming that, for one country/group to be the "right" one to win the war, the war must be just, or that group would not be the "right" group to win.

Is that too heavy on the doublethink?

[Gods_Mercenary]

I think the statement also covers starting a war that you can win. It's very machiavellian.