Everything is fair in war & in love

I will start with a simple assertion - all is fair. You may likewise take that assertion to mean 'all is unfair,' in the same manner as the phrase 'everyone is special' can really mean the same thing as 'no one is special.' It matters little either way. What my assertion does is put the onus on my opponent to define and describe 'fairness,' since it certainly must exist for him to be correct in asserting that all is not fair in love and war. If fairness does not exist, or cannot be intelligently defined, then actions in love or war could not be accurately described as fair or unfair at all. I have no further assertion regarding this matter, but I do have an opinion. My opinion is that the idea of fairness is an abstraction which probably does not exist in reality. Mathematician abstracts the concept "line" from observing things that seem to take up a linear dimension in space, and yet no actual "line," as described by mathematics, has ever been observed in reality (nor could it be unless an observer could see infinitely and in two-dimensions). Likewise, "fairness" or "justice" is an abstraction of emotional observations. And just as a "line" can appear crooked from one perspective and straight from another (1, 2), so too can "fairness" seem "unfair" from differing perspectives. A former judge and Harvard law professor, whose name I cannot recall, upon being asked to define justice, replied that justice is when 'you got what you wanted.' Having ruled on hundreds of cases, his observation of justice (or "fairness" for this debate) was that the only thing constant about it was its subjectivity: people who won their cases said "justice was done," while people who lost their cases said "justice was not done." Unlike an absolute, like light speed* which appears identical from all perspectives and thus has no contradictory observations by which to call its reality into question, "fairness" is not inviolate and there are many examples in the world of one observer seeing 'fairness' and another seeing 'unfairness' in the same event. To summarize, I am NOT asserting the opposite of my opponent's position. Con is asserting that not everything in love and war is fair, while I am asserting that the events comprising love and war are described just as poorly by the word "fair" as by the word "unfair" because they are not definable concepts and thus have no consistent meaning. "Fairness" and "unfairness" are simply sounds that describe the speaker's pleasure or displeasure with a situation, which may change from time-to-time, person-to-person, or event-to-event, leaving no consistent meaning at all. To challenge this, Con will not only have to define "fair" and "unfair," but "love" and "war" as well, to be able to say that 'love' or 'war' is NOT 'fair' or 'unfair.' * I describe light speed as an absolute, but if you know anything about science, you'll realize this is merely a conversationally functional description. It is not accurate to describe any idea as absolute, since we have not experienced all situations or all of time, that we could assert its inviolability. However, light speed is one of the most tested observations in science and no peer reviewed experiment has ever reported it being exceeded (the recent commotion in Europe about neutrinos exceeding light speed is NOT yet peer reviewed. Moreover, the crews posting those results have candidly admitted that they expect errors to be found in their results, rather than an actual instance of CPT violation). Sources: 1. http://www.moillusions.com... 2. http://visualfunhouse.com...