Instigator / Pro
8
1233
rating
403
debates
39.45%
won
Topic
#5817
Full defensive position is always preferable to any offensive position
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
Ferbalot
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
14
1504
rating
10
debates
65.0%
won
Description
Defensive position = trying to protect something
Offensive position = trying to destroy something
Round 1
Pro
#1
Attack means you are trying to destroy something.
Defense means you are protecting something, trying to prevent something from being destroyed.
To protect something from being destroyed, you must destroy that which attacks it.
Thus, defense involves destruction.
However, the difference between attack and full defense is in their goals and priorities.
Lets say that my goal was to protect my country, while your goal was to destroy it.
My goal is to destroy attackers only in an amount which is enough to protect my country.
Thus, if I have 100 men, I put them all in defense.
Lets say that you also have 100 men.
You only have 2 choices: Put them all in attack or put some in attack and some in defense.
Since you are afraid of counter attack and also must protect your country, you cannot put all in attack.
So I can put 100 men in defense, but you cannot put 100 men in attack. You can only attack with less than 100 men.
My men are all together, but yours are separated on attackers and defenders. Since I dont attack your country, your defenders dont fight with my men.
So the number of my defenders outnumbers number of your attackers by default, thus the numbers on the battlefield favor me.
However, it doesnt stop there. Since you are attacker, it is you who will have to travel long distance to reach my country. Thus, you will have to use more energy, and will suffer more from traps/mines, guerrilla warfare, artillery, strikes...ect.
You may say that you have element of surprise (Hitler thought the same thing).
However, the problem with surprise is that it only works on countries who have no intelligence and observation services.
And surprise only works once. The day you attack, it will be very much clear that you are the attacker, and thats about as much advantage as you will get from surprise attack.
Further, any equal trade of loses favors me, because I have more men on battlefield.
Further, as long as I keep all my men together, you have no way of attacking isolated units because there are no isolated units on my side.
If you choose to spread your units everywhere so they are harder to stop, they will also be weak everywhere and easily flanked since they will be further divided. - in words of Sun Tzu.
However, if you choose to concentrate them, but my units are also concentrated, your units will be easy to find and easy to destroy and trap since my units outnumber yours.
So your only choice would be to spread your units, divide them on groups attacking different areas so that I cannot stop all groups.
However, my men who stick together will easily destroy those smaller groups one by one as soon as they encounter them.
Basically, your only hope is that all or most of your individual groups somehow dodge my one larger group, but since you will spread them over large area, it is not possible for them to dodge anything, really. If they are spread over large area, they will be present everywhere and my one group will meet them where ever it goes, and set traps for them easily.
Since I always have number advantage, irrelevant if you have one concentrated group or many smaller groups, you are always at a disadvantage, irrelevant of if your men attack all together or in group.
And this is even without the possibility of civilian population providing additional resistance to your men.
Basically, if you are attacker and I am defender, all else being equal, your men will travel longer distance and be in lower number, thus they have no realistic way of defeating my men.
The only thing you have working for you is element of surprise, which can even work against you later since if your men can hide somehow, so can mine.
Con
#2
The resolution
Full defensive position is always preferable to any offensive position
Using the definitions in the debate description, we can translate the resolution to something along the lines of:
A full dedication to trying to protect something is always preferable to any position based on trying to destroy something.
Argument 1: We should expect a proof or something more fundamental than merely examples.
The BoP appears to be on PRO to demonstrate that this is at least probably always the case for any combination of defensive and offensive positions. Usually for such massively broad claims, we would expect some fundamental features of reality to support it in some very fundamental way, or a logical contradiction emerging from any exceptions. If PRO is not able to demonstrate or substantiate anything like this, it seems very likely that there are exceptions, regardless of the number of examples PRO can realistically provide where defense is preferable to offense.
Argument 2: Any defensive position must necessarily also be an offensive one.
To support this, I cite what PRO stated:
To protect something from being destroyed, you must destroy that which attacks it.
If trying to protect something from being destroyed (a defensive position) must always involve destroying that which attacks it (an offensive position), then one of two things must be true.
A. Full dedication to defense is not possible, because full dedication to defense implies no dedication to offense and defense always involves some degree of offense. Thus, it cannot always be preferable because no such cases exist. Something which doesn't exist cannot be preferable.
B. Full dedication to defense is not always preferable to offense, because for each defensive position, there is an offensive position that must also be accepted. In other words, whatever is most preferable must involve some offense and some defense.
Argument 3: Problems with preferableness.
Depending on whether "preferableness" refers to some objective "ought" in reality or something merely descriptive, one of the following should be true:
A. PRO must demonstrate that there are grounds to think that anything is genuinely objectively preferable to anything else, which seems to require either solving the is-ought problem or beginning with nearly universally accepted prescriptive premise(s).
B. The resolution is almost certainly false, because how much we emotionally prefer something compared to something else is almost always very subject to lots of biases and personality traits and other things that would, in one life or another, cause someone to find an offense approach preferable to a fully defensive one.
Argument 4: Specific factors that would probably allow for some offensive position to be preferable to a defensive one.
Just in case arguments 2 and 3 don't work.
A. In a war, the enemy could have far less resources, man-power, technological prowess, and/or training. There is nothing in the resolution that requires CON to demonstrate that offensive strategies are sometimes better than defensive ones all else being equal. The all-else-being-equal factor was not mentioned in the debate title or description.
B. In construction/demolition, there are many cases where old buildings/temporary structures are seen as more preferable to destroy than to defend.
C. In psychology, you could want to destroy things like bad habits, misunderstandings, toxic relationships, bad upbringing structures, bad education models, etc. You could want to avoid defending all of those things that you could want to destroy as well.
PRO can argue that examples B and C aren't relevant, but virtually nothing in the debate title or description specifies what the defensive and offensive positions in question are about. To properly argue that B and C aren't relevant, it seems that PRO will need to demonstrate that B and C are excluded due to something sufficiently insinuated in the debate's title or description.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Examples are what proof is. My opponent didnt explain what more should we expect as proof. He also didnt seem to bring up any good exceptions.
Obvious logical contradiction was already explained in one example which my opponent didnt even bother to challenge, but sure, I will give another one.
It is much better to set priority to protect yourself than to seek to destroy others.
The one who seeks to destroy others as first priority cares less about own survival, thus less likely to survive.
The one who protects himself as first priority will only destroy or avoid that which would destroy him.
Thus, he has greatest chances of survival.
This is true by tautology, since setting survival as priority means person is more likely to survive, and protecting yourself usually means your priority is your survival.
Maybe protecting yourself also means avoiding pain, which then means people who set priority to avoid pain will be in less pain.
Same works with happiness.
Thus, basic moral values like life, reducing pain, increasing happiness...ect. all depend on those values being protected as priority, for those values to be realized.
Even suicidal person should prefer to try to protect his life and happiness, which would then increase chances of those values being realized when effort is being put in them, instead of just rushing to suicide.
Further, per logical axiom, if we will get more knowledge in the future, then it means future contains more truth than present, thus protecting future protects truth more, thus this requires protecting life to secure future as a priority to protect truth.
Since debating is about truth, and truth increases over time with existence of humans who learn, it follows that setting priority of protecting humans who learn protects truth in greatest amount, thus is proven obviously more true in debate, since position of greater truth is the one which contains more truth by tautology.
Proper debating and reaching greater truth always requires that things like life, happiness, truth, free speech and reducing pain are protected as greatest priority, thus the very conditions to have a good debate and reach greater truth already requires that my position in the debate is preferable.
If trying to protect something from being destroyed must always involve destroying that which attacks it
Offensive position is already defined as trying to destroy something as priority, where defensive is defined as trying to protect something as priority.
Therefore, just because defensive position sometimes involves destruction, does not make it offensive position, because destroying to protect is not the same as destroying merely for the sake of destroying.
The latter is completely without purpose, destroying only for the sake of destroying, thus it cannot even be reasonably used.
Protecting involves a greater variety of strategies than just destroying. It also involves avoiding as a way of protecting, and it involves controlled destruction, not random destruction, which was already proved in round 1 to be preferable.
Thus, to make it simple, my opponent must defend that destroying without trying to protect something is at least sometimes better or equal to destroying to protect something.
Destruction in defensive position is limited to destroying to protect, includes much more strategies than merely "trying to destroy", thus is always preferable because having more working and better strategies is preferable to having less and worse.
In a war, the enemy could have far less resources, man-power, technological prowess, and/or training
Which is why it is preferable to take defensive position which includes 1. Trying to make peace. 2. Trying to avoid or reduce conflict. 3. Only destroying enemy in an amount enough to protect your country and force peace.
How much more is this advanced and less destructive and less demanding in terms of resources than merely "trying to destroy".
In fact, "trying to destroy" reduces amount of options you have, has no control over destruction.
In construction/demolition, there are many cases where old buildings/temporary structures are seen as more preferable to destroy than to defend
They are only destroyed to protect humans and enable more life, to protect a country by improving economy.
Also, my position isnt "we must protect everything". Thats just strawman. If my opponent really thinks that that is my position, then his would be "we must destroy everything".
My position says "something", not everything.
In psychology, you could want to destroy things like bad habits, misunderstandings, toxic relationships, bad upbringing structures, bad education models, etc
Those are destroyed to protect people. Otherwise, their destruction would be pointless.
Conclusion
It seems that my opponent is only bringing up examples which support my case.
Again, it is my position that protecting of something is preferable to merely destroying things.
It is the protecting of something which enables wider range of strategies, enables control over destruction, enables different ways than merely trying to destroy.
I have already demonstrated it working in case of wars, moral values, truth axiom (we must protect truth to have truth), survival...
My opponent must give us some example where it is better to do destroying merely for the sake of destruction, without purpose of protecting anything.
Con
#4
Argument 1 counters:
A.
Examples are what proof is.
Examples are a form of evidence. For ordinary claims, if you provide a decent number of examples with a trait in common (without any significant evidence of cherry picking or anything else), I would say that we can usually fairly assume that the rest of cases share that trait.
However the resolution is not ordinary, it is very broad, saying that a full defensive position is always better than any offensive position. That covers so many cases in so many different areas that I would argue we should either demand a great deal of examples to believe it (more than could plausibly be provided in this debate), or something like a logical proof or argument based on very fundamental elements of reality. That tends to be how we demonstrate such broad claims.
My opponent didnt explain what more should we expect as proof.
I intended to imply it right here, but I'll admit I probably should have been more direct:
Usually for such massively broad claims, we would expect some fundamental features of reality to support it in some very fundamental way, or a logical contradiction emerging from any exceptions.
B.
Obvious logical contradiction was already explained in one example which my opponent didnt even bother to challenge [...].
I implicitly challenged them. PRO's R1 examples are all based on an unjustified assumption that all else must be equal between defense and offense. Their arguments clearly fall apart if the attacking side is allowed to have a hundred times as many people, modern special ops against tribespeople and an economy that's a million times larger, etc.
Argument 2 counter:
Offensive position is already defined as trying to destroy something as priority, where defensive is defined as trying to protect something as priority.
No, look at the debate description:
Defensive position = trying to protect somethingOffensive position = trying to destroy something
No mention of "priority".
All of PRO's next 8 paragraphs rely on this completely unjustified mid-debate redefinition of terms.
However I do want to address something in the fifth paragraph:
Destruction in defensive position is limited to destroying to protect, includes much more strategies than merely "trying to destroy" [...]
"Offensive position" was never defined as "MERELY trying to destroy", thus by including "merely", PRO is addressing only a very small portion of offensive positions here. "Trying to destroy something" does not necessarily have to exclude defense or make destruction the priority.
Argument 3 counter:
[...] basic moral values like life, reducing pain, increasing happiness...ect. all depend on those values being protected as priority, for those values to be realized.
I'm fine with conceding this. Again, there was no implicit or explicit mention of priority in the debate title or description, so this should be irrelevant. If PRO believes it's still relevant, they need to clearly show how it substantially contributes to the resolution.
Argument 4 counters:
All of PRO's counters to my fourth argument rely on an irrelevant misrepresentation of the resolution. I will elaborate on this in a bit.
Also, my position isnt "we must protect everything". Thats just strawman. [...]
I agree. I never said that your position was that. The point of the examples in my fourth argument was to show that there are cases where a form of offense is preferable to a form of full dedication to defense, which should be sufficient to counter the resolution given the definitions provided in the description.
Any single example where an offensive position is preferable to a defensive position should be sufficient, no matter if there's a better defensive position to take or not, because the resolution is:
Full defensive position is ALWAYS preferable to ANY offensive position
Notice how that's different to what PRO implies that they're arguing for:
Again, it is my position that protecting of something is preferable to merely destroying things.
They omit the incredibly important "ALWAYS" and add a "merely". If this were the resolution, I would indeed be in trouble. They would only have to demonstrate that protecting something is SOMETIMES preferable to a very specific and hard to defend type of destruction! Demonstrating this makes virtually no progress towards demonstrating the actual resolution, and thus isn't relevant to this debate.
Extras:
Even suicidal person should prefer to try to protect his life and happiness, which would then increase chances of those values being realized when effort is being put in them, instead of just rushing to suicide.
That no longer matters because of what I said in the argument 3 counter section.
But for anyone who was suicidal for rational reasons (myself included), this is infuriating. To assume so confidently that suicide is always just an irrational emotional impulse is a significant contributing factor to why rationally suicidal people don't get adequate help.
Round 3
Pro
#5
My opponent now didnt provide a single example of where trying to protect something is worse than or equal to trying to destroy something.
He also didnt respond to any counter arguments to examples from first round.
As for "Is-ought", that was already responded to, and my opponent didnt respond to my argument.
In life, people have limited options, thus they have to achieve one of the options and have to not achieve the others.
Thus, "is-ought" gap doesnt exist because you are forced to achieve something. Thus, ought = is.
Further, we are debating which position contains more truth.
When I say "we should protect truth", then "protecting truth" allows more truth than "not protecting truth".
This simple axiom means that my position is more true or closer to truth because it contains more truth than the position my opponent defends.
Thus, protecting truth is the only position which contains the most truth, so "is ought" is solved by simple truth axiom.
This was already mentioned previous round, but since my opponent didnt respond to it then, I just extended it.
Another example, "destroying lies" is inferior to "protecting truth" because merely destroying lies doesnt mean truth will exist. Person can be without any knowledge, thus containing neither truth nor lies. Thus, "destroying lies" doesnt increase truth as much as protecting truth does, because protecting truth means people have to have correct knowledge so that truth is protected and located in many minds.
But my opponent's position in this case also isnt reasonable. You cannot destroy "non-truth" because plenty of things like rocks contain no knowledge, but it would be completely pointless to try to destroy them just because they contain no knowledge.
Further, my opponent says that "priority" wasnt mentioned, but the word "preferable" is exactly same in this context as saying "higher priority", because you are supposed to do that which is preferable as a priority. There is no difference between the words here.
Further, my opponent says that his position is not merely "trying to destroy something", but thats the only thing which was mentioned in definition of offensive position which he agreed to and which he defends. So if he wants to add anything, it is just rejected because you cant add to definitions after debate has started.
Thus, my opponent must defend that trying to destroy something is better or equal to trying to protect something, but so far we have seen that trying to protect something is always preferable.
He speaks of "what if enemy is stronger and in greater number", but I dont see how does his position of trying to attack such enemy makes more sense than my position of trying to either avoid war with such enemy or focusing on defense so you have advantage of fighting on your soil.
Plenty of times in history have much smaller militaries either avoided war either chased out much bigger and more powerful militaries from their country, thanks to using defensive strategies of trying to survive and sustain themselves so that enemy eventually gives up. Their main goal wasnt to "destroy enemy" or to even fight the enemy, but to survive, protect themselves and their country, block attacks and avoid fighting if possible.
Thus, defensive position contains many strategies which cover much greater amount of situations than offensive position does.
Now, I just needed one example where it is always better to protect something than to destroy something, but I have listed many, and they all went unchallenged.
I now have extra 1000 characters left but nothing left to respond to.
Basically, its been two rounds and not a single good example from my opponent, with his round 2 lacking any examples and also dropping almost all my points.
I presented examples from morality (morality is based on protecting values), from war, from survival, from protecting from pain and increasing personal happiness...
As I said before, I really just needed one example because resolution deals with "something" not "all things".
Now, what I really wanted to debate was war tactics, but it seems that the debate went the other way completely.
Con
#6
Examples
My opponent now didnt provide a single example of where trying to protect something is worse than or equal to trying to destroy something.
Correct, at least for R2. I instead provided counterarguments to Pro's counterarguments against all four of my R1 arguments. I hold that all of those arguments work and have not been adequately addressed.
He also didnt respond to any counter arguments to examples from first round.
I responded to B and implicitly responded to C but missed a detail with A. Here:
A
In a war, the enemy could [be far less able to fight]Which is why it is preferable to take defensive position [which avoids needless destruction]
If anything is preferable, I concede this. But look at Ukraine. If anything is preferable, it seems like trying to destroy something would be preferable for them, even if only to a minor extent and with the ultimate goal of defense. "Offensive position" is defined as "trying to destroy something", with no caveat about the extent of destruction.
How much more is this [...] than merely "trying to destroy".
I already addressed the problem with adding "merely" without justification.
In fact, "trying to destroy" reduces amount of options you have, has no control over destruction.
I'm not sure why Pro thinks "trying to destroy" necessarily reduces the amount of options one has. But even if it does, and even if by a substantial amount, that in no way means you necessarily have no control whatsoever over the destruction.
B
They are only destroyed [for defensive purposes].
This doesn't matter because of my R1 Argument 2 section B.
C
[Negative psychological things] are destroyed to protect people. Otherwise, their destruction would be pointless.
This doesn't change the fact that people still consider it preferable to try to destroy them. This is an offensive position, according to the debate description.
Is-ought problem.
As for "Is-ought", that was already responded to, and my opponent didnt respond to my argument.
This is true, I forgot to respond to it. I'll address it now.
1.
Thus, basic moral values [...] all depend on [...] being protected as priority, for those values to be realized.
Conceded, but this does not demonstrate how to derive ought from is, only the importance of oughts given oughts.
2.
Proper debating and reaching greater truth [...] (Ctrl+f to find full version)
Anything can be protected as greatest priority without being objectively preferable in an "ought" sense. If it's instead used in a subjective sense, my R1 argument 3 section B was not addressed.
3.
In life, people have limited options, thus they have to achieve [only one].
The conclusion doesn't follow.
4.
Thus, "is-ought" gap doesnt exist because you are forced to achieve something. Thus, ought = is.
That we're forced to achieve something or presuppose an ought doesn't show that oughts actually exist or that ought = is.
5.
Further, we are debating which position contains more truth.
- If truth is defined as "that which corresponds to reality" then yes.
- If "(the protection of) knowledge" then no.
When I say "we should protect truth", then "protecting truth" allows more truth than "not protecting truth".
Notice that Pro uses the second definition, which is irrelevant for this debate.
If the "truth" in "allows more truth" is defined differently, the conclusion doesn't follow.
Another supposed example
[...] "destroying lies" is inferior to "protecting truth" because merely destroying lies doesnt mean truth will exist. [...]
As mentioned before, one can take a simultaneously defensive and offensive position according to the definitions provided in the description. If we decide that it's best to do both, neither is more preferable to the other.
Priority
My opponent says that "priority" wasnt mentioned, but the word "preferable" is exactly same in this context as saying "higher priority" [...]
The problem doesn't directly have to do with the resolution. This is where Pro used incorrect definitions involving "priority":
Offensive position is already defined as trying to destroy something as priority, where defensive is defined as trying to protect something as priority.
They are incorrect because the description uses definitions that don't include "priority" or any synonym. The resolution means different things depending on which of these definitions we use.
Merely
Further, my opponent says that his position is not merely "trying to destroy something" [...]
No. Voters can read the end of R2 argument 2 counter to see what I actually said about this.
Pro needs one example?
[...] I really just needed one example because resolution deals with "something" not "all things".
- If X is always preferable to any Y,
- Then X is always preferable to all Y.
The resolution takes the first form, thus...
Conclusion
The rest of Pro's argument is dedicated to things I've already implicitly addressed or that have very obvious counters, or to Pro expressing their confidence. Don't blindly trust them, use your own brain to decide what's been addressed or not.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con’s arguments ultimately prevailed. While Pro provided scenarios in which defense is advantageous, they failed to demonstrate that a full defensive position is always preferable to any offensive position in all conceivable circumstances. Con skillfully pointed out that Pro’s claims hinged on equal conditions and specific moral frameworks, and that no universal proof was offered for the absoluteness of the statement. Furthermore, Con illustrated that certain contexts, such as offensives undertaken with strategic or humanitarian motives, can be preferable to a purely defensive stance.
By challenging Pro’s definitions and highlighting exceptions, Con revealed that offense cannot be universally dismissed as inferior to defense. The requirement for a position to be always preferable is particularly stringent, and Pro did not establish that defense is invariably more beneficial in every possible scenario. Without sufficient logical or fundamental proof supporting the universal claim, Pro’s arguments did not sustain the burden of proof. Consequently, Con is the winner.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con generally does a better job of backing up their arguments. I found Con's case that defense necessarily involves offense to be compelling, and Pro seems to agree that defense involves offense in order to be a "full defensive position." Con's case holds well here, since they are defending "any offensive position" rather than a "full offensive position," so this can include part of the process used in defense. Pro made tangential statements about proof that didn't seem that related to the resolution and which Con did a good job of responding to. Saying "Examples are a form of evidence" was more concrete than anything Pro was throwing out, and this seemed like a theme throughout the debate.
It sure is.
Just saying "they sure are" isn't convincing.
"Destruction and protection are not comparable"
They sure are.
Destruction and protection are not comparable.
"You're operating this debate on the basis that destruction is inherently bad and protection is always good"
My position is that trying to protect something is better. Not sure what confuses you.
However, my position isnt that destruction is always bad. Protecting something means destroying things which attack it.
You're operating this debate on the basis that destruction is inherently bad and protection is always good. The entire basis of your argument doesn't make any sense.
Full dedication to protect something.
What do you mean by *full* defensive position exactly?