Posts from Which playstyle is better: offensive or defensive? (No. 12, 13)

PLEASE, NO ONE BUT THE PARTICIPANTS SHOULD POST THEIR THOUGHTS HERE UNTIL THE DEBATE IS OVER!
Topic: Which is the better life philosophy: offense or defense?
Dj Pavlusha is trying to prove that defense is better.
Brackman is trying to prove that offense is better.
Please behave respectfully and with dignity, as this is just a game.

Offense is the best defense)))) So, I’ve already won)))

There! I knew you would say exactly that! Offense is the best defense, but defense is important too! :p
P.S. And stop with your antics like "I've already won." You picked the wrong target:rolleyes:

No need to overwhelm me with paradoxes! Defense, no matter how good it is, will eventually be broken. By defending, you limit your initiative and hand it over to the one who wants to break through your defense – in other words, you remain tense while the enemy develops a strategy, looks for other ways to attack, and slowly gathers strength. But offense is different – by attacking, you seize the initiative, and all the opposition is in your hands, and by applying even a little bit of reason, you will win. And here's a paradox for you: After defense comes a counterattack, therefore, defense implies offense.

No matter how good the defense is, it will eventually be broken.

Not necessarily; it all depends on who is attacking and who is defending. :rolleyes:

When defending, you limit your initiative and give it to the one who wants to break through your defense – in other words, you remain tense while the enemy develops a strategy, looks for other ways to attack, and gradually gathers strength.

It's the opposite. You can only develop a strategy before an attack. Once you've attacked, you have to act according to a pre-prepared plan, and then everything depends on the attacker and the defender. And if the plan fails, you will first spend some time devising a new one, and during this time, the defender will strengthen their defenses and regain the initiative.

And here's a paradox for you – like yours. After defense comes a counterattack, therefore, defense implies an attack.

Again, it's not a fact. You can counterattack, you can strengthen your defense, or you can try to resolve the issue peacefully – so it doesn't necessarily imply it. P.S. By the way, a counterattack, although it is an attack, is still a defensive measure. P.P.S. In general, the main thing is that if all people adhered to a defensive position and no one attacked, humanity would achieve its main goal – "peace throughout the world and goodwill on Earth." People were created by God for peaceful life, but the Devil incited them to evil deeds, and attack is their original idea. So, which is better?

I'll explain it step by step: 1) It doesn't depend on anything. Even if you hold the defense for a long time, the attacker will gain experience. 2) Are you saying that if you develop an attack plan and start executing it, any deviation from the plan will completely disorient the enemy? Like, you break through a line, but then you see that you're short three soldiers, and because of that, the plan falls apart, so you retreat? 3) A counterattack will happen in any case. Not immediately, but if the defenders have the strength and a chance of success, and if they haven't been completely wiped out, then a counterattack will definitely happen. Answer to P.S.: A counterattack is a measure taken by the attacking side, believe me. Answer to P.P.S.: In this case, defense is a tactic of isolation and neutrality. First, people will interact with each other much less. Second, it's like a time bomb: cities grow, and no one cares about the environment – production with massive pollution is the most economically viable, and environmentalists will be on the defensive – after all, everyone is defending themselves; we can't say that it's wrong to harm nature; that would be an attack on the rights of producers! Then things will get worse: overpopulation, famine, economic crises... And all because someone didn't assert their rights in a sufficiently aggressive way at the time.