In any strategy, everything revolves around Defence (my opinion). - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!





The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

In any strategy, everything revolves around Defence (my opinion).
in Military

By someone234someone234 542 Pts
The idea that 'good offence' or 'good attack strategy' is relevant to a game implies something that I believe to not even be possible.

Please come along and try to prove me wrong.


Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • Strategy is strategy, a game is a game and everything is everything. 
     

    I would assert, that it is entirely logical to suggest that a game based solely on defence could not be won.

    To win, there has to be an attack element built into a gaming strategy.
    Medic
  • Strategy is strategy, a game is a game and everything is everything. 
     
    I agree to this and this in no way whatsoever disproves the proposed stance I take.


    I would assert, that it is entirely logical to suggest that a game based solely on defence could not be won.
    Correct. Pure-skill games and wars end up in draws when two experts at the game face each other. Examples include Chess, Checkers (it ends up with each player having one 'king' each endlessly avoiding the other one) and basically any fighting sport where the fighters are allowed to agree to retreat. What I mean is that if you force a loss by making them have to fight to the death or with a judge panel where even with the same quality of landed hits, one boxer beats the other, then the fighting match won't be non-losable but if you have it so that it's a spar where if both fear the other's defence too much to engage them they can retreat, that is a pure-skill conflict.

    Another example is a math or science exam. The 'bell-curve' grading won't work if everyone studied to the fullest extent and understood how to defend against the factors like time, mental strain and complexity of the question as well as defend against 'lazy markers' by wording their answers in such obvious ways that any marker can comprehend their meaning in longer answers then all students would get 100% (this is for science and math subjects only).


    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.

  • To win, there has to be an attack element built into a gaming strategy.
    To win, there has to be an element of the game that forces luck to triumph skill.

    For some games like debating, this is the judging panel whereby a winner HAS TO BE CHOSEN in the end no matter what even if the voter feels they totally defended their sides equally.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • GooberryGooberry 329 Pts
    The idea that 'good offence' or 'good attack strategy' is relevant to a game implies something that I believe to not even be possible.

    Please come along and try to prove me wrong.


    Hungry Hungry Hippos
  • agsragsr 818 Pts
    In chess, often we say that best defense is offense.  I don't think that in strategy games we can definitely say that defense is more important than offense.  
    Live Long and Prosper
  • PoguePogue 504 Pts
    I would like to add a historical part to this. IN WW2, Nazi Germany used something called blitzkrieg. This is German for lighting war. These were deep fast attacks on the enemy (offense). These were really successful in taking out Poland, Belguim, the Netherlands, and France. Also, the Mongols were so feared because they could conquer really fast, that some civilizations surrendered before the Mongols even came.

    A game involving offense is Risk. Defense is important, but to win you need offense so you conquer the opponent. 
    agsrBaconToes
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • @agsr you are quoting sun tzu and in chess all moves are defensive. The best chess players try to take as few pieces as possible and aim to punish the taking of their own pieces much more than to take the opponents' pieces.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • someone234someone234 542 Pts
    edited March 8
    @Pogue if your defence is so predictable and easy to exploit that the enemy can hurt you while you can't exploit their defense just as harshly back, then offense can work. This is because of defence.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • By defense I win. Gg
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • PoguePogue 504 Pts
    @Pogue if your defence is so predictable and easy to exploit that the enemy can hurt you while you can't exploit their defense just as harshly back, then offense can work. This is because of defence.
    You need an offense to win. The defense will not always last. In the NFL " A great defense doesn't guarantee anything in the NFL playoffs". https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fancy-stats/wp/2016/01/04/defense-doesnt-win-championships-in-the-nfl-anymore/?utm_term=.c8f9aeea1f50. ;
    You need to be good at both. 
    BaconToes
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • @Pogue You need offence in games where a win becomes forced. This is because if you have no offence you can't defend against their offence.

    What I mean is, if a good striker scores vs you, the only way to defend against that is to score against them and even it out. If your defence is not impenetrable then you defend by making it so that you exploit their defence as often as they do yours.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • PoguePogue 504 Pts
    @someone234
    But defense is always penetrable. It will not always last. In a war, the defense will not win. "The best defense is a good offense". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_best_defense_is_a_good_offense
    Some defenses help set up an offense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_strategies_and_concepts
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • @Pogue In all scenarios where the defence can be force-penetrated against the will of the defender, the way to defend becomes to have sufficient offence to even out the harm (even it out only). The way a 'win' happens is if the enemy has in any shape or form invested less into their defence, then they leave more for you to exploit over and over again.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • someone234someone234 542 Pts
    edited March 8
    @Pogue Sun Tzu was incorrect in stating that the best defence is a good offence, I don't care about this famous cliche.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • FascismFascism 304 Pts
    edited March 9
    Defense is the action of resisting an attack. If you attack first and penetrate the opponent's defense first, then you don't need defense. 

    In chess, gambits are a type of strategy players use in which they give up material in favor of attacking lines. In some these gambits, this strategy is taken to the extreme. The player doing the gambit lets the opponent freely attack his pieces offering little resistance. However, he gains important attacking opportunities which usually end up making him win. 

    This is a great example of one these types of gambits: 

    Center Game Accepted: Danish Gambit, 3...dxc3 4.Bc4 5.cxb2 6.Bxb2



    In this variation, white does not try to put up a fight at the beginning and sacrifices two pawns. Only after then does it start attacking, but after it starts attacking, there isn't much need for a defense. There will be constant checkmate and forced checkmate threats that black has to address and he won't be able to set up attacks effectively. 
  • someone234someone234 542 Pts
    edited March 9
    @Fascism So, if black had played for perfect defence and not taken the bait, they'd have inevitably beaten white who gave up perfect strategy in the hopes they can bait black to be non-defensive in their actions.

    Since both faltered from perfect chess strategy (yes that exists, as in a perfect playstyle) but white intentionally did so whereas black seemed to go with the flow and not think ahead, white ended up with the better defence in the aftermath.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • GooberryGooberry 329 Pts
    Mutually assured destruction is an example of a Military strategy that does not revolve around defence, or really incorporate much defence at all.

    In addition:

    - The best strategy Hungry Hungry Hippos does not revolve around defence.




  • someone234someone234 542 Pts
    edited March 9
    @Gooberry in Hungry Hungry Hippos, the act of eating first DEFENDS against others. Hesitation is not defence in a game where first to react is assured victory. In fact, HHH is designed such that any offensive move is rendered futile. You cannot in any shape or form stop another going from the process of grabbing the ball to losing the ball unless multiple do it at once and even then the defender will retain most.

    You are correct that in HHH, Sun Tzu's ethos applies but in most situations it does not.

    Mutually Assured Destruction is EXACTLY an example of where everyone is playing optimally and is happily sitting back and relaxing knowing others will play optimally too. The first to nuke others is going to get piled on and this is what ensures the safety of all, the knowledge that the leaders will all play optimally unless they want their people to be made an example of.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • GooberryGooberry 329 Pts
    @Gooberry in Hungry Hungry Hippos, the act of eating first DEFENDS against others. Hesitation is not defence in a game where first to react is assured victory. In fact, HHH is designed such that any offensive move is rendered futile. You cannot in any shape or form stop another going from the process of grabbing the ball to losing the ball unless multiple do it at once and even then the defender will retain most.

    You are correct that in HHH, Sun Tzu's ethos applies but in most situations it does not.

    Mutually Assured Destruction is EXACTLY an example of where everyone is playing optimally and is happily sitting back and relaxing knowing others will play optimally too. The first to nuke others is going to get piled on and this is what ensures the safety of all, the knowledge that the leaders will all play optimally unless they want their people to be made an example of.
    Unfortunately the issue here is your definition.

    Typically a definition of defence means performing including actions to mitigate or reduce the potential impact or consequences of an attack.

    You seem to define defence, especially in the HHH as an act that prevents defeat.

    For example, one could mount a pre-emptive strike on an opponent, and completely avoid the necessity of defending against one of their attacks: and despite this being offence only, you seem to classify this as a defensive strategy.

    That is an absurd semantics argument on its face.
    someone234Fascism
  • someone234someone234 542 Pts
    edited March 9
    @Gooberry If the enemy had such a bad defence that the PES worked to full efficiency, then the enemy's defence is why you won.

    Sure, it's an offensive move but if they had had a better defense, you'd realise how stupid what you did in your PES was.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @Gooberry In HHH, eating first when most balls are down defends those balls from other's grasps.

    Add onto this that then there is no way for them to penetrate your clamped down hippo unless all shake you about at once and that even then you retain most balls, it's defensive in nature to clamp down first because you are defending against the enemy doing something that you can not defend against or offensively exploit in their defence afterwards.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • GooberryGooberry 329 Pts
    @Gooberry In HHH, eating first when most balls are down defends those balls from other's grasps.

    Add onto this that then there is no way for them to penetrate your clamped down hippo unless all shake you about at once and that even then you retain most balls, it's defensive in nature to clamp down first because you are defending against the enemy doing something that you can not defend against or offensively exploit in their defence afterwards.
    Ignoring the fact that I’m not entirely sure what you meant by “you are defending against the enemy doing something you can’t defend against”: HHH revolves around actively obtaining balls: attacking.

    If you’re saying that this form of active attacking is now a good form of defense this argument is a perfect illustration of why the best defence is a good offence.

    Now, as to your other reply: you seem to have changed up your definitions again:

    Its clear that there are multiple classes of strategies that don’t revolve around defence: overwhelming force removes the necessity of defending against  counter attack: scenarios where any level of defense is impractical: mutually assured destruction for example.

    You’ve argued that overwhelming offence is a type of defence (thus proving the best defense is an offence that renders the need for defense irrelevant), and now seem to be arguing that planning a solely offensive strategy to overwhelm an opponents defence is itself technically revolving around defense.

    While this is semantically and technically true: it’s not what any reasonable person would interpret a “strategy that revolves around defense” means, and clearly not what you assumed this phrase to mean prior to you making this definitional argument.

    As such your reply is accompanied with the scrape of moving goalposts as your whole argument moves towards meaningless semantic tautology.
  • @Gooberry Na, you misunderstood me a lot here.

    Overwhelming offence never works unless your opponent is insufficiently defending in the first place.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • GooberryGooberry 329 Pts
    @Gooberry Na, you misunderstood me a lot here.

    Overwhelming offence never works unless your opponent is insufficiently defending in the first place.
    And that’s pretty much my observation.

    Youve changed your definitions into a tautology by claiming that a strategy “revolves around defence”, if it is a 100% attacking strategy with 0 defence, as such a strategy depends on the opponents defence being weak.

    That is just tautology and unrelated what any normal person would consider
    the phrase “a strategy revolving around defense” would mean.


  • @Gooberry Now think about it the other way around and you'll see how it isn't a tautology.

    Try and make strategy revolve around attack and offense and you come up with hit-and-miss strategies that never get you the highest winrate.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • GooberryGooberry 329 Pts
    @Gooberry Now think about it the other way around and you'll see how it isn't a tautology.

    Try and make strategy revolve around attack and offense and you come up with hit-and-miss strategies that never get you the highest winrate.

    You’ve decidedly to implictly define offence to be something explicitly revolving using a semantic definition.

    This means your argument is tautology, because you implictly chose your definitions to require your conclusion.

    Or in other words, you're now arguing that all strategies revolve around defence, by defining an offensive strategy as revolving around defence.

    An offensive orientated strategy that doesnt include defence is most possible if you use appropriate terminology and definitions.

  • someone234someone234 542 Pts
    edited March 9
    Gooberry said:

    An offensive orientated strategy that doesnt include defence is most possible if you use appropriate terminology and definitions.

    @Gooberry Such a flawed strategy only works against dumb opponents.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @Gooberry Actually no, to be offensive without regard for defence is to be without strategy.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • GooberryGooberry 329 Pts
    @Gooberry Actually no, to be offensive without regard for defence is to be without strategy.

    A strategy may consider defense, and deem defence unnecessary: and so it has regard for defence but doesn’t revolve around it:  this is largely a broadly different argument from your original one as stated.

    An offensive strategy that determines defence is unnecessary given, say a major disparity of force or practicality: is a strategy that doesn’t revolve around defence by definition.

    Multiple examples of these have given which refute your original point.

    Your counterarguments are now mostly semantic: an attempt to redefine the terms, and now implictly attempting to redefine the argument itself in order to wriggle out of the examples.



  • someone234someone234 542 Pts
    edited March 10
    @Gooberry so if the only reason one ended up at the offensive strategy is because no better results could be achieved by a better defense, then this is not revolving around defense?
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • GooberryGooberry 329 Pts
    @Gooberry so if the only reason one ended up at the offensive strategy is because no better results could be achieved but better defense, then this is not revolving around defense?
    If the strategy doesn’t revolve around defense: then it stands to reason the strategy doesn’t revolve around defense.
  • @Gooberry so if the offensive strategy resulted from no foreseeable defensive strategy working better, then this is not revolving around defence?
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • GooberryGooberry 329 Pts
    @Gooberry so if the offensive strategy resulted from no foreseeable defensive strategy working better, then this is not revolving around defence?
    You’re asking whether a strategy that doesn’t revolve around defence, revolves around defence.

    How can a strategy that doesn’t revolve around defence, revolve around defence?
  • someone234someone234 542 Pts
    edited March 10
    @Gooberry it does revolve around defence. If you can feasibly opt to heavily penetrate the exploitable defence of the enemy and can furthermore calculate that your own defenses will be insufficiently exploited in retaliation, this is the only way to conclude that the offensive strategy is viable.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • GooberryGooberry 329 Pts
    @Gooberry it does revolve around defence. If you can feasibly opt to heavily penetrate the exploitable defence of the enemy and can furthermore calculate that your own defenses will be insufficiently exploited in retaliation, this is the only way to conclude that the offensive strategy is viable.
    In your example, the strategy doesn’t revolve around defense.

    The rational going into coming up with the strategy may likely have considered defence: but it doesn’t revolve around defense either.

    you're mixing and matching terms and definitions; confusing something considering X with something
    revolving around X, and confusing the process of creating X with X.



  • @Gooberry how did you define 'revolves around'?
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • GooberryGooberry 329 Pts
    @Gooberry how did you define 'revolves around'?
    Pretty much as per common usage:

    to have someone or something as the main or most important interest or subject.
  • @Gooberry so even if the action is offensive, the strategy revolves around the enemy's defence system vs their own.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • GooberryGooberry 329 Pts
    @Gooberry so even if the action is offensive, the strategy revolves around the enemy's defence system vs their own.
    Only if you define your argument as a meaningless tautology, that isn’t what you’re initial argument is, nor what any reasonable person would assume it to mean: where being 100% offence revolves around defence because you are attacking defences.
  • @Gooberry you don't speak for all reasonable people nor for 'anyone' other than yourself. Don't come to my debate and taunt me like this you petulant crybaby. if you've got an issue with my semantics, leave my debate.
    Fascism
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch