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

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.