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

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 partyIndeed. 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.